Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - JunePlanning and Environmental Commission January 12, 1987 2:30 PM Site Inspection 3:00 PM Pubic Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of December 22, 1986 2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build a glass enclosed stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the Casino Building located on parts of Lots b and c, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: First Franklin Financial, Inc. 3. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding Section 18.08.050 titled "Property Without a Zone Designation." Applicant: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission January 12, 19 *7 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes o_f_December 22. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0. 2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build _a_ glass enclosed stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the _Casino Building located on parts of Lots b and c, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: First Franklin_ Financial, Inc Kristan Pritz presented the request for exterior alteration. The parking requirement was actually reduced resulting in 2.2 spaces credit toward future expansion. There would be no monetary reimbursement. There was no impact by the addition upon the Urban Design Guide Plan considerations. The staff recommended approval with conditions as follows: 1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be released for this project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the Casino Building's participation in the trash compactor is formalized. 2. Before a building permit Casino Building will pay date as stipulated in th remodel 3. The owners of the Casino declarations to indicate part of the total square or demo permit is issued, the owners of the their share of the trash compactor costs to 1981 PEC approval of the Casino Building Building will change the condominium that Unit 8 is now residential space and is footage for Unit 14. 4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the owners of the Casino Building agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village.. 5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for the property belonging to the Town for Casino building pavers. The revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed and signed by applicant and submitted to staff before a building permit will be released. to use of the John Perkins, representing the app the first two conditions followed. information on the compactor issue placing these conditions upon this Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, gave trash compactor. licant, gave his presentation. Discussion of Peter Patten gave the background history. The PEC discussed the validity of request, and the PEC`s role in enforcement. the legal background on the issue of the Peggy Osterfoss questioned the impact on the Village core of the present handling of the Casino Building trash. She felt the request appeared to be a slight improvement. Bryan Hobbs had no problem with the project, and no problem with requiring First Franklin to pay their share of what the Casino Building owes to the compactor. Jim Viele had no problem with the request, and felt he was not well enough informed about the compactor issue. He was not comfortable in an enforcement role. Diana Donovan felt it was not a practical idea in the first place because the compactor is too far from most businesses for easy access. She felt this owner should agree to carry through the agreement, the Town should not enforce this. Sid Schultz agreed with Diana and felt he needed more information on the trash compactor, but had no problem with the project. 0 Pam Hopkins felt Sid and Diana had good points. Duane Piper found it was difficult for the PEC to be in an enforcing role. He felt it was ludicrous to hold up one party because of a requirement for the whole building. He could not agree with conditions 1 and 2 as written in the staff memo. John Perkins was asked to provide the Town of Vail with documentation on trash handling. He stated that the ground floor commercial was the biggest trash generator. A motion was made by Jim Viele, seconded by Pam Hopkins to table the item_ with the request that the applicant come back with definitive information on how trash is currently handled. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of tabling. 3. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code addin2 Section 18.08.060 titled "Property Without a Zone Designation." Applicant: Town of Vail_ Rick Plyman presented the information. After discussion, Jim Viele moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to recommend approval. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Peggy Osterfoss volunteered to be a the Cemetery Committee. Peter Patten reminded the PEC of a joint meeting with the Town Council on January 27 at 1:00 PM. on the Village Study. pec 1/12/87 page 2 a Planning and Environmental Commission January 12, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. 9 Approval of minutes of December 22. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build a glass enclosed stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the Casino Building located on arts of Lots b and c Block 5C Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: First Franklin Financial. Inc. Kristan Pritz presented the request for exterior alteration. The parking requirement was actually reduced resulting in 2.2 spaces credit toward future expansion. There would be no monetary reimbursement. There was no impact by the addition upon the Urban Design Guide Plan considerations. The staff recommended approval with conditions as follows: 1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be released for this project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the Casino Building's participation in the trash compactor is formalized. 2. Before a building permit or demo permit is issued, the owners of the Casino Building will pay their share of the trash compactor costs to date as stipulated in the 1981 PEC approval of the Casino Building remodel 3. The owners of the Casino Building will change the condominium declarations to indicate that Unit 8 is now residential space and is part of the total square footage for Unit 14. 4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the owners of the Casino Building agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village.. 5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for the property belonging to the Town for Casino building pavers. The revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed and signed by 0 applicant and submitted to staff before a building permit will be released. to use of the John Perkins, representing the app the first two conditions followed. information on the compactor issue placing these conditions upon this Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, gave trash compactor. licant, gave his presentation. Discussion of Peter Patten gave the background !1I! history. The PEC discussed the validity of request, and the PEC's role in enforcement. the legal background on the issue of the Peggy Osterfoss questioned the impact on the Village core of the present handling of the Casino Building trash. She felt the request appeared to be a slight improvement. Bryan Hobbs had no problem with the project, and no problem with requiring First Franklin to pay their share of what the Casino Building owes to the compactor. Jim Viele had no problem with the request, and felt he was not well enough informed about the compactor issue. He was not comfortable in an enforcement role. Diana Donovan felt it was not a practical idea in the first place because the compactor is too far from most businesses for easy access. She felt this owner should agree to carry through the agreement, the Town should not enforce this. Sid Schultz agreed with Diana and felt he needed more information on the trash compactor, but had no problem with the project. Pam Hopkins felt Sid and Diana had good points. 4111 Duane Piper found it was difficult for the PEC to be in an enforcing role. He felt it was ludicrous to hold up one party because of a requirement for the whole building. He could not agree with conditions 1 and 2 as written in the staff memo. John Perkins was asked to provide the Town of Vail with documentation on trash handling. He stated that the ground floor commercial was the biggest trash generator. A motion was made by Jim Viele, seconded by Pam Hopkins to table the item w q _ _ _ _ definitive information on how _ trash is currently handled. The vote was 7 -0 i ... the re uest that the applicant come back d _ _ _ _ n favor of tabling. 3. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code adding Section 18.08.060 Titled "Property Without a Zone Designation." Applicant: Town of V, Rick Plyman presented the information. After discussion, Jim Viele moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to recommend approval. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Peggy Osterfoss volunteered to be a the Cemetery Committee. Peter Patten reminded the PEC of a joint meeting with the Town Council on January 27 at 1:00 PM. on the Village Study. pec 1/12/87 page 2 ��� t TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 1987 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Casino Building in order to add a stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14. APPLICANT: First Franklin Financial, Inc. I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to attach Unit 8 (a commercial unit) on the second floor to Unit 14 (a residential unit) on the third floor. The connection will be made by a glass enclosed stairway located on the west side of the building on an existing second floor exterior deck. The stairway will add an additional 200 square feet of GRFA. Unit 8 will be changed from a commercial use to a residential use which will increase the GRFA by 677 square feet. The total exterior alteration including the new stairway and existing second floor space will add a total of 877 square feet to Unit 14 (GRFA of 1,181 square feet). After the addition, the new total GRFA for the unit will be 2,058 square feet. If this addition is constructed, the project will have 469 square feet of GRFA remaining. 40 II. ZONING STATISTICS FOR THE PROJECT Site area = .179 acres or 7,797 square feet Setbacks: zero setback allowed, this proposal does not affect setbacks as it is on the second floor of the building. Height: The proposal meets the Urban Design Guide Plan limitations on height. The addition is approximately 30 feet high. The guidelines call out that up to 60% of the building may be built to a height of 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of the building may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. Density: Units: .179 acres x 25 units /acre = 4 units allowed GRFA: Site area, .179 ac x GRFA ratio .80 = 6,237 sq ft of GRFA. Existing GRFA = 4,891 sq ft Remaining GRFA = 1,346 sq ft Proposed GRFA: Enclosed stairway = 200 sq ft Convert commercial space to residential = 677 sq ft Total addition 877 sq ft 3rd floor west unit =1181 sq ft plus addition =2058 sq ft GRFA remaining after addition = 469 sq ft kf Landscaping: Not affected Parking: The existing residential unit requires 2 spaces and the office space requires 2.7 spaces. Due to the conversion of the commercial space to residential, there is actually a net reduction in parking according to the code requirements. The new unit has a parking requirement of 2.5 spaces. 677 sq ft existing office = 2.7 spaces exist residential unit = 2.0 spaces 1181 sq ft Total 4.7 spaces expanded residential unit 2058 sq ft = 2.5 spaces Net reduction = 2.2 spaces The Town does not reimburse an owner for a reduction in parking spaces due to a change of use. The 2.2 parking spaces will be credited to the project in the event that a future use requires additional parking. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI DISTRICT Purpose: The Commercial Core I zone district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The following sub -area concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan relate to the area around the Casino Building (please see the enclosed Urban Design Guide Plan): 13B. Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza. �r S 0 15. Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increase facade transparency, entry simplified and oriented to intersection. 16. Key intersection in Village Core. Feature area paving treatment. In August 1981 the owners of the Casino Building proposed an exterior alteration which addressed these three sub -area concepts. The alteration was approved and built. The present proposal does not directly relate to any of these sub - concepts. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. The applicant has addressed the following Design Considerations and received staff approval to exclude pedestrianization, street enclosure, vehicular penetration, service and delivery and street edge considerations as these considerations are not applicable to the project. Applicant's Response: Streetscape Framework: The addition of the stairwell is at the second level or one level above Wall Street, so the Wall Streetscape will not be altered. The circular form of the stairwell /sunroom will be visible from the street. This form blends nicely with the round head windows at is the top floors and the chimney masses of the building and at the same time contrasts the low pitched roofs. Building Height: Building height is not a factor, as the stairwell rises only eighteen feet above the second level deck while roof lines in the same area are at 26 to 28 feet above the same deck. Views: Views from adjacent units will not be altered or impacted. The addition tucks into the building offset on the west side. The addition is surrounded on two sides (90 degrees) by existing exterior walls of Unit 12 at the upper level and Unit 8 and mechanical /restroom exterior walls on the lower level. Sun /Shade: Sun /shade patterns will not be altered significantly. The stair location receives very little sun now due to the height of the Casino and Lazier Arcade buildings. A brief period at mid - afternoon allows sunlight through the Wall Street corridor, however the southern orientation of the stairwell with the larger building mass immediately behind allows no change in shade or shadow patterns. Virtually no impact. Essentially, the staff agrees with the applicant that the addition will have no negative impacts on sun /shade, streetscape, building height, and views. er VI.' STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration. When reviewed ill' against the Design Considerations, the project does not have any significant impacts. The approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the following conditions: 1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be'released for this project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the Casino Building's participation in the trash compactor is formalized. 2. Before a building permit or demo permit is issued, the owners of the Casino Building will pay their share of the trash compactor costs to date as stipulated in the 1981 PEC approval of the Casino Building remodel. 3. The owners of the Casino Building will change the condominium declarations to indicate that Unit 8 is now residential space and is part of the total square footage for Unit 14, 4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the owners of the Casino Building agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village. 4111" 5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval to complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for the use of property belonging to the Town for Casino Building pavers. The revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed and signed by the applicant and submitted to staff before a building permit will be released. l T Jr ..- Y KIM to-IT r 'r l^ q{" F ��> > ` �'�.:,,r •s c A�. VIA '1 1 Ads fools W Ali ........... r .�i � •} :1f t 'i - '� .ir f�li i ♦, �, 5' � f -� ,x E._ � �4 11,x- � � Y �.rT �f # � 1 _ _ ,� ti hst- � tit i . _ e t " r'J -z..� •i'' Y - a +.>,.;'. r "'' _ T 3� a -y ¢�tFYS. S.. -; ,C •xf r r�-' i ^. _ �S .y.- �„,.F°' t .�`` k5, ``�d �` ....� i ' ti j's.,rr's -4 cA >•. - r�"+s�r�': w x " I "' -- O:: •S L� & v#x + .� 1 F lot YfA, a ti y yw[t} ^ A'�r`•� �4yt tI Y .k ti� � fiy� -y,ia 'T' irr'�eL��.1 1 �¢. -�Rf_ t': iTLiS 95r r. -.. '.a '�` - r - i,.j� -; r,•^- ,-,r %� . f .;fa.�-: Ft look ray amt.' wx. -:-{ 1 +o,r . . . . . . . . . WAS y, r r w • f''tz.y,+ k „A =']. T ?l �. �L Ft 'a *'� r L ti `ob i r a 4!( _1�jRE'17 �y rfiWR �k ' - 1! 'i '•�.� fi r S - J rcrr`'� t sti F.`v ti.,x,��i -& - .� 1C ► f - a .its. fa. Rr 4r ka -}jam ��� 71+n 7 , n -" +a f { .,.i � a � � 7 1r •- s v � urn "•'h. c >z -r � .� � y :.1g at .� 44 _ � ''" "'..r 'v �.iJ sue`.. Y '� � ��l - '��' iw� ,h - J r Sr{ • % ] INC a }i "nano, M.4 > r to v 7r v T. 7r1 crr CzF'Fnirs .. { a• ,y i'... n � } 7 -. - t r •` +k,.;w' ti '\ � 4ri- 4 9 A�' +ti x f �f'V�a \( !� tJ+ iF +f .qF -r, i+Y {Tt \"W,• _!¢ 41 "? aft 'r�,�(� }a~ h} F+ y�a• �b � KPw t. S T '.:,y L � SU hY o � �,�� ?i��yv� G� �. rX �+i' w �a c �1.P tip-'` �'�"!�`�, xR 6 } ti R � i' "r4. r -.- � x- a .Y �' - Uri, r��� '�,,, "� S �' �• srr * � Nn, � r _yr 3, "F'r �a ?- r'h r - ? s �'"k - _. y` ""t 'TF c� trS. -. .r+ + ,h -Y, � ♦ .rz ..w - , ate" ���t']k`F �i.Y: "i. S �• S �.s i `r � -1 i ik w �r i. ����� tie. ♦�'S f tt t[k i. r• y7�5`,f ii 4�. G 'y 1` fy'�.FS�_ Alto F �7_ Y is A f S'- �kg l }'i r 1> -... ..................... S.L '+aar ic.Yj,y ,y�� „• �t� ; ;a `- a._ n w,S ; {�Y� t L{ •i+}�' � '3y'vt.t'3[. 4''�c 'Tim +P'r�laJ J!� � �y a. 1 �`� �y -.c:.� y� -' b=S ySi> : �. ra.s '�"'"'t! :'tz. r+'-` � .'-k” �.F i.[-. � . � , ''i�a �, �r•+F5 v a'4+, w ¢ r 'y�-. t�lf5+-J ?��' F s"a�'„`,a!'.� � �«� . *. -• ;ash. r �r , �.�itl_�, i -�.; ... "#, .s....:. -� � a� � y it y.- t.j'.`ti. e,. .. li • - , - i - ti 4`�ti sti � E�� a.•�- r �s, ;•, F � e yM e r v i r.r F,. TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE.: February 3, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding Section 18.08.060 titled "Property Without a Zone Designation" Applicant: Town of Vail The Town of Vail is requesting this amendment as a housekeeping operation. Recently several issues have been addressed by the staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council which related to properties coming into the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail without an official zone district designation. In researching the issue, both Community Development staff and Town Attorney recognized that most municipal codes contain a clause similar to this requested amendment. As you may recall, this issue was brought to the Planning Commission and subsequently addressed by the Town Council on December 2, 1986. Discussion of the amendment led to a tabling of the request. The staff has made revisions as discussed at Council and we have taken this back to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did unanimously approve the revised wording of the request. The Community Development Department feels that the revisions made to this request as suggested by Council are a benefit, and we recommend approval of this action. C] TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding Section 18.08.060 titled, "Property Without a Zone Designation ": Applicant: Town of `Jail 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. 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. The amendment shall 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. Newly annexed property will not be zoned for a period of not more than 90 days or any additional period of time agreed upon between the property owners of said property and the Town for the imposition of zoning." 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 parameter for use of property within the Town of Vail. 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. • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION �- 0 January 26, 1987 2 :00 PM Site Inspections 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of January 12, 1987. 2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build a glass enclosed stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the Casino Building. Applicant: First Franklin Financial, Inc. 3. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to add an entry and a request for a conditional use permit to modify the existing dining patio of the Clock Tower Restaurant in the Clock Tower building. Applicant: Clock Tower /Roger Riggert 4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II in order to add less than 100 square feet of floor space to the Lionshead Lazier Arcade Building. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties 5. A request for front and rear setback variances and a variance to minimum landscape requirements in order to construct a building at 1031 South Frontage Road West (commonly known as the Voliter property). Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership Note: This is Duane Piper's last meeting. His term has expired. r� Planning and Environmental Commission January 26, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Betsy Rosolack Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper. This was Duane's last meeting with the PEC. 1. A royal of minutes of January 12 1987 Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build a glass enclosed stairwa connectin Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the Casino Building. Aonlicant: First Franklin Financial Inc. Kristan Pritz presented the request. She reminded the board that they had heard the request at the meeting on January 12 when the board had asked to table the item so that the applicant could provide information on how the present tenants handle trash. Kristan provided a letter to the board from John Perkins which described the handling of trash for the Casino Building. The letter indicated that the building required 10 car trips into the core each week for trash removal from the various residences and businesses. The staff felt that First Franklin Financial, Inc. should not be required to participate in the trash compactor, due to the lack of a signed legal agreement with the Casino Building's original developer The staff had serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the Casino Building's current trash removal system. The staff felt that the Casino Building had not addressed trash removal on a building -wide basis which resulted in an unacceptable number of trips into the Village core for each individual's trash removal. Furthermore, two of the businesses have no system at all and use the Town of Vail trash receptacles. The staff felt that the building's association should be responsible for coordinating trash removal in a manner consistent with minimizing the number of vehicle trips into the core for trash pickup, and the staff was willing to work with the association toward this end. John Perkins, representing the applicant, stated that 7 of the extra trips were from Crazy T- Shirts, and that only 3 trips were made by personal cars. He stated that the trash compactor inside of the Casino Building was small, only about 24" x 30 ". Dave Gorsuch discussed the outdoor trash compactor that he and several others had invested in, stated that he had been told by the Town that the participants had no choice but to participate in the cost of the trash compactor if they wanted to be able to do any remodeling or expanding of their buildings. He i J • added that at the time, it was a financial hardship, and the cost was about $50,000. He asked what the Town felt was its responsibility to the people who abided by the Town's wishes. Larry Peterson, representing the Slifer Building agreed with Gorsuch, and stated that they were led to believe that they must participate in the compactor, and felt the Town should stand behind their requirement. Duane Piper explained that some members of the Planning Commission felt that it was difficult to enforce on the applicant the requirement that the whole building participate in the trash compactor when the applicant was not party to the original PEC approval requiring the previous owner to participate in the compactor. He felt the Town could not legally force this with no previous guidelines and no legal document, and also felt the PEC could not be an enforcing agent. Peter Patten stated that in the Urban Design Guide Plan, one consideration is service and delivery. He felt that the Casino Building had gross inadequacies in their trash collection system, and that their nonparticipation in the trash compactor has nearly cancelled the benefits to the town of the trash compactor. However, without a legal document, the Town could no longer require the Casino Building to participate in the trash compactor, but could require that the Casino Building find a trash solution as an association to reduce unnecessary trips into the core. Pam Hopkins suggested that perhaps the building could be remodeled to include an adequate area for trash receptacles with only one pickup. Perkins stated that the one compactor in the building could not handle boxes or anything large. The members of the board agreed that the situation'should'be solved by dealing with the building's association as a group. Diana added that trash left on the doorstep overnite, as at Charlie's T Shirts was unacceptable. Ron Riley stated that the Town must think through how to enforce conditions they put on proposals with specific, hard and fast rules. He felt that the Town let the Casino trickle through their fingers and he felt victimized by the compactor costs. Peggy Osterfoss felt the frequency of trash pick -ups for the Casino Building should not be any greater than the number of pick -ups for the Village compactor. Michael F'laughton stated that the Village compactor required approximately 1 to 2 pick -ups in the winter, 1 pick -up in the summer and 1 every 2 weeks in the off - season. Peter Patten stated that there were mistakes made on the staff's part regarding enforceability, but since that time the Town attorney and director of Community Development had changed and have better procedures for handling PEC conditions of approval by requiring written legal documents. PEC 1/26/87 -2- Diana Donovan moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated January 12 with conditions 3, 4 and 5 and condition 7 of the memo dated January 26 with the understanding that the trash must be handled as a condo association and with the added stipulation that if a trash solution for the entire building cannot be found, the building must participate in the large trash compactor as an association with one maintenance person making the deliveries to the Village compactor for the entire building. „After discussion, the vote was 7 -0 in favor. _. _ 2. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to add an entry . and a request for a conditional use permit to modify the existing dining patio of the Clock Clock _Tower ___ Building. Applicant: Clock Tower /Roger Riggert Kristan Pritz presented the proposal. She showed site and floor plans and explained the criteria for an exterior alteration within Commercial Core I, compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, and compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village. Sub -Area Concept #17, street access opened, specifically calls out that the public space between the edge of the Clock Tower patio and the Gasthof Grammshammer Building be opened up which will allow for better pedestrian use and maintenance of this area. The applicant is proposing to pull back the deck stair by 1 foot and to expand the deck area north and south of the hair by about 1 -2.5' into Bridge Street. A new stone wall would be built along the front of the patio area. Staff agreed that the upgrade of the wall was very positive, but felt that the new wall should extend only as far as the existing wall, and that the stairway could be pulled back about 3 feet to decrease the encroachment onto public right -of -way as much as possible. The staff felt that Bridge Street is extremely narrow at the point of the proposed deck expansion. The Fire and Public Works departments oppose the proposal because of the width of the road. Kristan also explained the criteria for a conditional use within Commercial Core I. The staff recommended denial of the patio wall and approval of the entry way addition. Dave Gorsuch, the owner of the Clock Tower Building, stated that it was the intention to improve the appearance and function for the Fire Department and for the Public Works Department. He stated that the stone work was decaying and needed repair, and that the jogs in the wall were being removed. Duane Piper asked if the wall location was a function of the dining patio, and Kurt Segerberg, the architect, stated that a dining layout had not been done, but that it was the intention merely to straighten the wall as a design consideration. Roger Riggert, owner of the Clock Tower Restaurant, stated that the idea was not to increase seating capacity, but to eliminate corners where trash collected. The bay window would also not increase seating. He stated that the improvements would make the restaurant more workable. If the wall is pulled back, he would probably lose one table. He stated that if it became a requirement to pull the wall back, he would leave the wall as it was and merely do the patio. PEC 1/26/87 -3- . Dick Duran, Vail Fire Chief, stated that he must look at operating width in the core, and on Bridge Street access is very minimal. He added that to the north of the Clock Tower, the road width is workable. He pointed out that on Bridge Street one is also dealing with many pedestrians. Duran stated that much street space has been lost in the core by allowing people to build to the lot line and to have decks on TOV property. • Kristan Pritz emphasized that the staff was not asking to decrease the patio, but to pull only the hair and maintain the existing line of the patio wall as opposed to increasing the encroachment.. Roger Riggert replied that if he could take out the tree, he could put a table in its place. He felt he was taking street space for a patio that was otherwise worthless. Bill Andrews, Town Engineer, said that Bridge Street was at present a funnel, and that with the inevitable increase in skiers, more space would be needed. He suggested perhaps sacrificing the tree. Dave Gorsuch explained the trash removal situation, stating that in the new leases with the restaurant and the beauty salon, the lessees were required to participate in the trash compactor. He described trash in front of fire exits at present, and barrels of trash behind the building from the restaurant. Peggy Osterfoss felt uncomfortable that the Fire Department was not in favor of the deck encroachment. Riley stated, that in all due respect to Dick Duran, if that space is congested, the Fire Department can still get through. Peggy replied that if, in fact, that were the case, she would have to be in favor of the improvement. Bryan Hobbs said that he was in favor. Jim Viele felt that the project would be an overall improvement with a curve instead of ,logs. Diana Donovan had mixed feelings. She had reservations about the wall with regard to pedestrians. Sid Schultz's concern was the same as Diana's. He did not like to see any amount of Bridge Street space taken out. Sid asked about the amount of money the Town charged for lease of space for an outdoor deck. Kristan replied that it was $2.00 per square foot, and that the lease amount and agreement was up to the Council. Diana added that the amount was a farce. Sid stated that the PEC had approved several deck encroachments. He felt that at $2.00 /square foot, the Town would not likely have any streets left. Dave Gorsuch stated that they put heat under their patio, and the Town gets the benefit. He went on to say that it was their intent to make the Town a good place to live and to do business in. Pam Hopkins felt that it was a natural process to narrow the pedestrian path because by the time the pedestrians get to the Covered Bridge, the access is extremely narrow. She felt that outdoor decks were very important in Town. Duane Piper agreed with Pam and was in favor of the improvement to the deck. PEC 1/26/87 -4- U Peter Patten said that he would like to amend the recommendation. He read from the Service and Delivery portion of the Urban Design Considerations and felt that a third condition should be added to ensure that Clock Tower tenants participate in the trash compactor. Piper disagreed that the PEC could dictate what method of trash disposal an individual could use. Dave Gorsuch said that he had stipulated the use of the trash compactor in the new leases of the restaurant and beauty salon, and that it made sense to him to clean up his property. Jim Viele moved to approve the exterior alteration with conditions 1 and 2 and Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the conditional use request includin conditions 1 and 2. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II in order to add less than 100 s uare feet of floor space to the Lionshead Lazier Arcade Building. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties Betsy Rosolack presented the request and stated that the applicant wanted to enclose approximately 18 square feet by moving exterior walls on the south side of the building in order to enlarge shop space. She showed floor plans and elevations. John Perkins, architect for the project, answered questions. Jim Viele moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 5. A request for front and rear setback variances and a variance to minimum landscape requirements in order to construct a building at 1031 South Frontage Road West (commonly known as the Voliter property Annlicant: Vail Commercial Partnership Peter Patten made the presentation. He explained that the potential uses for the building were not known, and so it was difficult to know if there was enough parking, etc. Therefore, the PEC were simply to consider the variances and not the specific site plan. The variances were being requested to allow for the construction of a one story building on the site. In addition, the review of any development proposed in the Arterial Business District requires compliance with the ABD circulation plan. While the developer had agreed to comply with the circulation plan, there were no specific solutions proposed at this time. Patten expressed concern about how much of the highway right -of -way would be taken for highway improvements. The Highway Department indicated that the 5 foot rear setback variance would not be a problem, but wanted assurances that a construction fence would be erected defining the limits of construction during construction. Patten then showed circulation and access plans for the area. He stated that in the ABD district, it was planned to consolidate the crosswalks and intersections and to have deceleration lanes. He stated that the Highway Department has changed their requirements and may also require acceleration lanes as well. Peter stated that the parking spaces on the west end of the property were not acceptable as parking spaces. PEC 1/25/87 -5- Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, pointed out that the site was a 49 difficult one to build on. He then spoke about the conditions listed at the end of the memo saying in reference to #1 that he did not have clout, but that the access is part of the zoning, and if they cannot get access there, they will have to come back to amend the circulation plan. With respect to #2, they could not go to DRB without Highway Department approval. As for #3, he felt that other property owners must also go along with the improvements. They don't mind funding their part, but not the whole project. As the last building in, they should not be required to participate unless everyone else participates. U Patten replied that the staff could not get specific because they did have exact information. He suggested that they put in the left turn lane, as the Vail Professional Building constructed a right turn lane. He stated that he was talking about the intersection only. Jay said alright. He asked if the fence in #5 meant on the north side only, and was told it did. As for #6, Jay stated that they would submit a 4 foot high berm to DRB, but they might not approve it. He stated that #7 was ok. Peter stated that he would feel more comfortable including all conditions of the approval. He felt that timing and a process could be worked out that all could agree upon. Jay answered that if he could not get joint use, he would have to come back again. Peter stated that the landscape plan may depend upon approval of the plan, and it depends upon the adjacent property. Jay asked if the Vail Professional Building had been required to promise the right turn lane when building. Patten replied that the VPB had been required to put in the right turn lane and that the Vail Professional Building knew all along of the joint access. Patten added that this was a technicality that was important. Jay repeated that before he could go to DRB he would have a general agreement of access. Peter replied that the Town could grant a joint access, but the landscaping on the Vail Professional Building's property depended upon the Vail Professional Building's owners to agree to the landscaping. Jay referred again to #2 and asked if "entire intersection" was what the staff really meant, when the Glen Lyon office building has not yet constructed their access plan. Peter replied that the proposed intersection had been approved by the Highway Department in 1983 for the Glen Lyon Office Building and in 1984 for the Vail Professional Building. He suggested changing "entire intersection" to "as it relates to this project." Jay then stated that #3 was OK, that #5 was to be only on the north side. Peggy Osterfoss felt that the quality of the landscaping was very important at the access. Diana asked if it would be possible to landscape the back (north) side of the lot and was told there was not enough room for landscaping. Jim Morter, architect, stated that if it was possible, they would landscape the north side. Betsy Rosolack asked if the building would be designed to add a second story, and was told it was not. Diana felt that the plan did not show enough parking for AU use. Jay replied that there was plenty of space for the uses intended, and that these would be short term, not for an office building. Morter stated that there would be 4 or 5 tenants, likely a restaurant, convenience store, liquor store, and others. PEC 1/26/87 -6- i 0 Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the requ January 26 1987 with the conditions as listed and On #2, "as well as the entire intersection propose it relates to this property." #3 "and access" sha circulation " #5 "on the north side" shall follow to #6 it shall read "The applicant shall submit minimum 4 foot high berm "....... The vote was 7 st per the staff memo dated with the following changes: " shall be replaced with "a 1 be added to "ABD "A fence," and with res ect plan to DRB showing a_ Q in favor of the motion. This was Duane Piper's last meeting after serving on the Planning and Environmental Commission for 6 ears. He was thanked and applauded. A motion and second followed to have Jim Viele serve as chairman and Diane Donovan serve as vice chairperson. The votes were 6 -0 -1 for each position. PEC 1/26/87 -7- 0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 26, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for front and rear setback variances and a variance to minimum landscape requirements in order to construct a building at 1031 South Frontage Road West (commonly known as the Voliter property) Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Variances are being requested to allow for the construction of a one story structure on the site. While there are no assurances of what the uses in this building will be, it has been represented that the structure will accommodate local oriented convenience commercial establishments. A summary of the variances requested is as follows: 1. A request for a rear setback variance of 5 feet for the structure. The required setback is 10 feet. 2. A request for a front setback variance to locate a portion of the parking area within 10 feet of the front property line. Front setback requirements state that parking areas and structures shall be no closer than 15 feet from the front property line over 60% of the length of the frontage, while the setback- °l'in.e.shall be 20 feet or more for the remaining 40% of the frontage. This request is for a 5 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 20 foot setback along the frontage. 3. Landscaping standards for parking areas with over 30 spaces require that 10% of the lot be dedicated to interior parking lot landscaping. This request is for a variance from this requirement. The nature of these requests raise a number of interesting issues relative to the development of this property and the Town's review process. These issues center around the inability to conduct a comprehensive review of this development plan. For example, without knowledge of the precise uses proposed for the structure, the staff is unable to calculate the parking demand to see if the site plan provides enough spaces. In addition, the review of any development proposed in the Arterial Business District requires compliance with the ABD circulation plan. While the developer has agreed to comply with the circulation plan, there are not specific solutions proposed at this time. While the staff would prefer that issues related to the development of this property be addressed simultaneously, the review process does not specifically require that this be done. As a result, the Planning Commission is reviewing this plan with respect to the three variances requested, and nothing more. Any approvals granted for this project will not be approvals for the site plan as proposed, but rather only for the variances as requested. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the _ requested variance to other existing_ or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The two existing structures and related facilities on the site would be removed in conjunction with this development plan. This is fortunate in that it allows for the development of this property to begin with a "clean slate." A key issue then becomes how the requested variances relate to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The following addresses each of these variances individually: 1. Rear Setback Variance . Two issues are significant with respect to the requested 5 foot setback at the rear of this property. These pertain to the State Highway Department's deceleration lane which would be constructed in conjunction with the new east -bound off -ramp, and the ability to construct and maintain this structure without trespassing on the Federal Highway property. The staff has relied heavily on input from the State Highway Department concerning any impacts resulting from this variance. After review of these plans, the Highway Department has indicated that the 5 foot setback variance would not create adverse impacts on the Interstate system. One concern of the Highway Department centered around the potential for construction activity to take place on the Federal right -of-way during the development and maintenance of this building. To eliminate this potential, a construction fence defining the limits of construction will be required as outlined in the Design Review Guidelines. 2. Front Setback Variance Existing conditions in this area provide a substantial buffer between the property line and the road edge of the South Frontage Road. This may indicate that the required setback variance on the front side of the property is not critical. However, potential uses in the vicinity could well change with the future widening of the South Frontage Road. For this reason the staff feels it . important that the integrity of the required front setbacks be maintained. -2- Interior-Parkin2 Lot Landscaping Requirements Landscaping is generally required to provide buffers between developments. A variance from this requirement would effectively reduce the amount of buffer between this development and adjacent properties 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 7_- - g „ to attai n the ob ectives of this title without t rant o f special p_rivile e „.. The first step in evaluating a variance request is typically to identify the physical hardship necessitating relief from the prescribed development standards. The second element of this review of this review is to insure that the degree of variance requested is no greater than necessary to allow relief from the objectives of the zoning code without a grant of special privilege. In reviewing this parcel, it is evident that the shape of the lot creates some difficulty in its development. The issue then becomes to what degree are variances necessary for the development of this property? 1. Rear Setback Variance Based largely on the review of the State Highway Department, staff • feels that the 5 foot variance requested in the rear of the property is valid. This is due to the lack o'f-- negative impacts resulting from this location of the building. 2. Front Setback Variance While the staff feels strongly that landscape buffers be maintained around the perimeter of this property, we can support this request because of its minor nature. The area of encroachment amounts to less than 300 square feet and with judicious use of landscape materials, the staff feels that this encroachment can be mitigated. 3. Interior Parking Landscaping Requirements The surface area of the parking lot is approximately 15,500 square feet. This would require interior landscaping of not less than 1550 square feet. Just over 700 square feet of interior landscaping is proposed with this plan. The designers of the project have indicated that they would be willing to use decorative brick pavers in lieu of concrete or other surfaces on pedestrian walkways surrounding the structure. While this technically does not count as interior landscaping of a parking area, the staff would accept this as an alternative for mitigating the lack of interior landscaping on the site. -3- The effect of the requested variance on light and population, transportation and traffic facilities utilities, and public safety. distribution of lic facilities ar A number of issues related to transportation and and traffic facilities are relevant to this project. The circulation plan for the Arterial Business District requires that the development of this property share a joint access with the Vail Professional Building. Joint access has been proposed on the site plan submitted. While the staff feels that this proposal is a workable one, final approval of this access will be required from the State Highway Department. In addition, approval from the owners of the Professional Building will be necessary. The zoning for the Arterial Business District requires that all plans approved by the Design Review Board shall conform to the circulation plan that has been adopted by the Planning Commission. This plan requires access improvements to these properties that will necessitate the widening of the Frontage Road. Before final decisions can be made as to the improvements required with this development, input from the State Highway Department will be required. This input will occur when the developer formally applies to the State for the access permit to the property off of the Frontage Road. The developer of this property will be required to fund the improvements necessary in conjunction with this redevelopment. At minimum, a left turn lane will be required on the Frontage Road. It is the feeling of the staff that the locations-of a number of parking spaces proposed on the site plan are unacceptable:-,—Parking standards require adequate width of aisles for "convenient and easy access to each parking space." Two and possibly three parking spaces at the west end of the property do not conform with this design standard. It is the feeling of the staff that the variances requested do not contribute to these spaces being unacceptable. In addition, without knowing the uses to take place in the structure, staff is unable to determine whether these spaces will be required to meet parking demands. As a result, we are merely pointing out our position on these spaces at this time and would require that the situation be resolved before the application proceeds to the Design Review Board. III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE LAND USE PLAN Assuming the property is developed solely as commercial, the project would generally be compatible with the Community Office designation which allows for limited commercial uses. IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. -4- . V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin _findings before granting the variances: That the granting of the variances 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 variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variances are warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in objectives 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 variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As was stated at the outset of this memo, there are issues relative to this project that are somewhat removed from the review for the variances requested. It is important that the Planning Commission understand that this review is limited to the variances only. Relative to these, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the setback and landscape variances as proposed. If approved, the Planning Commission will not be approving the site plan in its entirety. Rather, approval is limited to a 5 foot setback variance in the rear of the property, a variance to the required front setback as indicated on the site plan, and a variance to the required interior landscaping for surface parking lots. The staff would recommend the following conditions be adopted by the Planning Commission with this approval: Written approval shall be submitted to the Town by the owners of the Vail Professional Building granting their consent to the joint access as proposed as well as the landscape materials shown on the site plan that are located on the Professional Building's property. This written approval shall be submitted prior to this project proceeding to any level of review by the Design Review Board. 2. The applicant shall receive approval from the State Highway Department • for improvements to the South Frontage Road as well as the entire intersection proposed. This approval shall be obtained prior to any level of review by the Design Review Board. -5- 3. The developers of this project shall participate in improvements required for this project to comply with the ABD circulation plan. Specific requirements shall be determined based on input from the Town and the State Highway Department. Improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with the redevelopment of this property. 4. The retaining wall proposed for the northeast corner of the property shall be pulled back off of the property line a minimum of 2 feet. 5. A fence shall be constructed within the property lines outlining the limits of construction for this project. 6. The Design Review Board shall approve a minimum 4 foot high berm on the east end of the property in lieu of the required 15 foot landscaped buffer around the parking area. 7. Decorative brick pavers shall be used for the pedestrian walkway around the perimeter of three sides of this building to compensate for the lack of interior landscaping in the parking lot. If the pavers or an alternate similar material are not used, the landscape variance becomes invalid and construction will not be allowed to proceed. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 26, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to add an entry and exterior dining deck expansion to the Clock Tower Building. Applicant: Clock Tower, Roger Riggert I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting to enclose an area on the west side of the Clock Tower Building in order to create an entry vestibule and stairway up to the second floor. He is also requesting to add a new bay window for the Clock Tower Restaurant. Improvements and a slight expansion are also proposed for the exterior dining deck (see accompanying memo). The square footage for the request can be broken down into the following areas: Clock Tower Restaurant bay window = 28 sq ft Clock Tower entry expansion = 32 sq ft First floor common vestibule and stairway =120 sq ft Second floor common balcony -65 sq ft • Total for addition, 245 sq ft Dining deck addition . 60 sq ft Parking: The only portion of the addition that will require parking is the 28 square feet for the bay window. The parking requirement is .23 parking spaces. The other common areas which make up the addition do not create a parking demand. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CCI DISTRICT The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The following sub -area concept of the Urban Design Guide Plan relates to the area around the Clock Tower building (please see the enclosed Urban Design Guide Plan): 17. Street access opened. The Guide Plan specifically calls out that the public space between the edge of the Clock Tower patio and the Gasthof Grammshammer Building be opened up which will allow for better pedestrian use and maintenance of this area. The applicant is requesting to pull back the deck stair by 1 foot and to curve a new stone wall along the front of the patio area. Staff agrees that this portion of the proposal is very positive, as the deck's greatest encroachment is being decreased at the narrowest point on Bridge street. However, we believe that the new wall should only extend out as far as the existing wall. The stair onto the deck could be pulled back approximately 3 feet so that the existing stair encroachment onto public right -of -way is decreased as much as possible. The staff suggestion will result in opening the street access without • decreasing the actual patio space, as the new wall would be rebuilt in the same location as the existing wall. The onlydifference is that the new wall will be curved and will not have all the jogs along the edge of the street. Staff also believes that it is very important that both aspen trees be preserved in the new design for the wall. IV. COMPLIANCE. WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianization A major objective for Vail Vill circulation through an intercor pedestrian ways. Many of the i Design Guide Plan and accom an reinforce and exoand the aualit Village. Applicant's Response: e is to encourage pedestrian cted network of safe, pleasant rov - -- g _,.., the recognized in the Ur U Design Considerations are to an to pedestrian walkways throughout the Bridge Street is a major pedestrian artery to the Vail Village core from the parking structure. The deck changes proposed for the west side of the Clock Tower Restaurant improve the quality of the pedestrianway with -2- I 0 heated paving at the entry and wide, more inviting steps. The stone base and iron railings of the deck are places for planters in the summer. The trees at the entry steps will remain. Staff Response: Staff agrees that the improvements to the deck area will greatly enhance the visual appearance of the stone wall. Morever, staff feels that the pedestrianway will be further improved if the new wall does not extend out any further than the existing wall and the steps are actually pulled back 3 feet from the existing encroachment. The quality of the pedestrian walkway will be greatly enhanced by the re- alignment of the wall and by decreasing the existing encroachment. B. Vehicular Penetration To the maximum extentpossi_bie,_all non- resident traffic should be routed along the Fronta a Road to Vail Village/Vail Lionshead parkin2 structures. Applicant's Response: The proposal for the Clock Tower deck will improve vehicular access, especially for snow removal in that the curved stone wall eliminates the current irregularities for the plows to negotiate. The heated steps and entry way will reduce the problem of snow shoveling into the street. The new deck configuration also provides for greater protection of the trees at the entry steps. Staff Response: The new curved stone wall will improve the snow plowing situation for the Public Works department, as there will no longer be jogs in and out of the wall. However, this is an extremely tight area for snow plows as well as emergency vehicles. For this reason, the Public Works and Fire Departments are opposing the proposal. Presently, the dimension between the existing stair and the Gramshammer property line is 19.5 to 20 feet. The applicant is proposing to pull back the stair 1 foot, but will also extend the wall further onto the Town of Vail property by an additional 2 -1/2 feet at the greatest point of encroachment. Granted, we are talking about a few feet in either direction, but it is important to note that the Fire Department requires 20 feet in width to provide for emergency fire access. In this particular location in the Village, every foot is valuable. For this reason, staff believes that the wall must not extend any further than the existing wall and that the stairs should be pulled back approximately 3 feet in order to open up this particular spot for emergency vehicle access. -3- C. Streetsca a Framework . To improve the guality of the walkin, the pedestrian ways...open space and soft colorful framework linkage alon green spaces as open nodes and focal encouraged. Infill commercial store visual interest. Applicant's Response: experience landscaping i pedestrian points alon Fronts to gi _and give continuity to are to be used. .as a routes; plazas and par g_these routes are je street life and The deck for the Clock Tower Restaurant maintains the use of trees and planters along the pedestrian route. The stone base for the deck is in keeping with the Village core planters along Bridge Street. The deck capacity will increase for summer time dining which will give more street life and visual activity. Staff Response: The staff agrees that the improvements to the patio wall and entry addition will provide a nicer streetscape framework as long as the patio wall does not encroach any further than the existing wall. The staff also feels that the new bay window will provide visual interest along the facade of the building. D. Street Enclosure While building facade heights should not be uniform from buildin2 to building, they should provide a comfortable enclosure for the street. Applicant's Response: The Clock Tower entry vestibule enclosure shall not exceed existing building roofs, eaves and ridge heights. The building deck provides an activity area in front of the building off the main pedestrian circulation path. Vertical pedestrian circulation will now be enclosed to alleviate the problems of ice on stairs to the second level of the building. Staff Response: Staff agrees with the applicant's statements and feels that the entry enclosure will be a great improvement to the existing outdoor stairway and entry area. E. Street Edge Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to i-ha ctwoc+- Applicant's Response: The street edge on Bridge Street shall be maintained with the use of a low stone wall with box planters and metal rail. The building form -4- changes with the vestibule enclosure and a large bay window into the • restaurant. Building transparency is the goal here to add sparkle of indoor lights at night and activity visible to the street. This transparency also provides the undulation of building form desirable to Bridge Street. Staff Response: The proposal is actually decreasing some of the irregularity along the street edge which, in this situation, staff believes is an improvement. Staff believes that the proposal will positively define the street edge in a much better way than the existing patio wall. F. Building Height Not applicable. G. Views and Focal Points �._ of the of the First priority should be given__to_ an analysis „ ,. _ ro'ect on views from 2edestrian areas whether designated or not. Staff Response: is No impact. n u H. Service and Deliver Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existina servic alleys .... and all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored and adopted wherever practical for immediate or future uses e. Staff Response: Staff believes that this exterior alteration could slightly increase the trash demand with additional seating on the outdoor deck for the restaurant. We believe that the best trash solution for the Clock Tower Restaurant is participation in the trash compactor project located directly behind the restaurant. Dave Gorsuch, owner of the building, has informed the staff that Roger Riggert, owner of the Clock Tower Restaurant, and Margarethe Christy of the Beauty Salon will be participating in the trash compactor through their lease agreement. This participation would be in compliance with the service and delivery section of the Urban Design Guide Plan as it would reduce vehicle trips into the core for trash removal. -5- . I. Sun /Shade All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern March 21 through Se tember 23 on adjacent properties or_the public „right-of-way. Staff response: This addition will not increase the shade pattern, as it does not extend above the existing building or further out than the existing facade. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff finds that the project is a positive improvement on the Village except for the proposed alignment of the dining deck. We would prefer to see the patio wall not encroach any further than the existing wall and see the stairway pulled back approximately 3 feet to open up the pedestrian area and to provide better emergency vehicle access. The staff is concerned that the re- alignment of the deck does not go far enough to decrease the encroachment onto the public right -of -way. The Urban Design Guide Plan also specifically calls out that this area be opened up as much as possible. The staff believes that to approve the new patio wall as it is presently proposed would be in conflict with the Urban Design Guide Plan concept #17 which relates to opening up the pedestrian way. Secondly, except in one area, the alignment of the deck • further restricts emergency vehicle access. Staff believes that these are two important concerns which make it difficult to support the new patio, even though aesthetically we feel that it is a very fine improvement. For these reasons, we must recommend denial of the patio wall and approval for the entry way addition. If the PEC chooses to approve the new patio wall, staff would ask that the following conditions be part of the approval: is 1. A revocable right -of -way permit for the patio wall encroachment on public right -of -way will be filled out by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Department before a building permit will be released. 2. A lease agreement will be arranged between the Town and Clock Tower Restaurant for the use of public land for private dining space. The applicant is responsible for completing the lease agreement before a building permit will be released. 1b w ..... . . . . . . L r i Ed . 'a - ys, A J KAMA r j , ZZZI.. ju Q1 A:' 5M,E7�*N'% UT AT. -,ty , 73 COA. Mi. -7 K� 4F- 44, 07w o.2 IC N4 IAp Rol ; Z,u WK not , 7 W - ., how k, X<m Una AY I w: m 1 - _ - �• � � - ' it 'i. -- ���� - - -��� 1 I it it�.,i � I •_ f� 4 - .. -- � a - _ -. s.�i..................... � 0 � 0 1 Ix ti L z x z ce s r I V)Vkl,q YYYYY N��4 r r r r /r r r r r r � 1 1 � � 1\ 1 Na xl X111 �, 'zl am „t i • :7 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 26, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to expand an existing deck for the Clock Tower Restaurant in the Clock Tower Building. Applicant: Roger Riggert I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting to expand slightly the existing patio deck for the Clock Tower Restaurant. Outdoor patios, and thus this expansion, are a conditional use in Commercial Core I. The existing stairs will be pulled back approximately 1 foot and a new wall will be built so that it extends approximately 1 to 2 feet beyond the existing retaining wall in most areas. The minor deck expansion will create approximately 50 square feet of additional space to the south of the entry stairs and approximately 38 square feet to the north of the entry stairs. Due to the bay window expanding into the outdoor dining area, the net gain in square footage for the expansion will only be 60 square feet. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.24.070, Conditional Uses... W.i.thin.Commercial Core I District, the following development factors shall be-app'licable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I. The expansion of the patio will not increase vehicular traffic into the Core. However, the new patio wall has the following impact upon street width: Encroachment Change Due To Project 1. Entry stair onto the patio: this area is decreased 1 foot along a length of 22 lineal feet. 2. South of the deck entry: encroachment increases from 1 to 2 -112 feet along a length of 20 lineal feet 3. North of the patio entry: encroachment increases from 1 to 2 feet for a length of 15 feet. Bridge Street Width Due to New Patio Wall Existing 20 foot width increased to 21 feet Existing width of 22 -1/2 ft decreased to 20 feet Existing 23 foot width decreased to 21 feet • C� The purpose of this table is to show that, in general, a 1 foot decrease in the area of the stair does open up Bridge Street at its narrowest point. However, the new wall will also encroach 1 to 2 feet more along 35 feet of Bridge Street. While it is recognized that portions of the wall's encroachment will be reduced, it is felt that the additional encroachment of up to 1 to 2 -112 feet in certain areas is inappropriate. The staff has supported other encroachments on Town right -of -ways and property in the past, but always in areas where there has been more than adequate street width for vehicles, pedestrians and Town of Vail operations. In addition, both the Public Works and Fire Departments have indicated their opposition to this increased encroachment. While the Community Development staff is not opposed to improvements to this wall, we suggest they be done in a manner that does not increase any encroachment on the right -of -way in this area. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I C. 0 E. F. G. Not applicable. Reduction of non- essential off- street parkin Not applicable Control of delivery, pickup and service vehicles. Not applicable Develooment of public spaces for use by pedestrians Not applicable Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public_ uses in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existing character_ of the area. - - -- Staff feels that it is very positive that the owners are proposing to improve the patio wall as well as maintain the existing dining deck which adds a great deal to the character of the area. Control quality of construction, architectural landscape design in Commercial Core 1 district the existing c� haracter of the area. aes��ana so as to maintain The upgrading of the wall will have a very positive impact on the architectural design of the building and dining deck. The two aspen trees that exist in the area of the patio wall are significant elements to the streetscape. The applicant's representative has stated that: C: " We will make all attempts to keep the existing trees on the site. However, if construction warrants removal and the safe keeping of these trees, we shall take these precautions in relocating the existing trees as they appear on our proposal." If, for some reason, the trees are removed, staff feels that it is very important that substantial trees replace the existing aspens. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the request for the deck expansion. It is our opinion that the deck will narrow an area along Bridge Street which is already very restricted for pedestrian traffic, but more importantly for emergency vehicle access. The improvements to the wail are very positive as far as the aesthetic appearance of the patio and new wall. However, the staff must also consider whether or not it is truly necessary to expand the deck area. Our opinion is that it would be better to pull back the stairs approximately 3 feet and rebuild the new wall so that it does not encroach any further than the existing patio wall. This solution will provide the much needed upgrade for the existing wall without creating any further encroachments. If the request is approved by the PEC, the staff requests that the following two conditions be included in the approval: 1. A revocable right -of -way agreement will be submitted by the applicant to the Community Development Department before a building permit is released for the proposed construction. 2. A lease agreement will be arranged between the Town of Vail and applicant for the portion of the deck on Town of Vail right -of -way. The applicant is responsible for completing the lease agreement before a building permit will be released for the project. ■ C TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 26, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration in order to add less than 100 square feet to the Lionshead Arcade Building. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant wishes to remodel ground level, retail space on the south side of the Lazier Lionshead Arcade. Exterior space consisting of 18 square feet will be enclosed by relocating exterior walls. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCII ZONE DISTRICT The application is in compliance with the CCII zone district. III. COMPLIANCE. WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Sub -area Concept #12 refers to the Lionshead Arcade and states: "An opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades, awnings, etc. to improve scale, shelter, appearance of commercial facades." The proposal is to expand the facade and bring it closer to the pedestrian mall. The transparency will be improved and will relate better to the pedestrian. IV COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD A. Height and_Massing A.2 Building expansions shall 2enerally be limited to one -story and two- stories as indicated on the Guide Plan, or as can be demonstrated to have a positive visual and functional effect. The proposal conforms to the suggested one story addition. B. Roofs B.1 Flat, shed or dome roofs are acceptable for building expansions. B.2 Connections of roofs to existing buildings should be respective of any existing strong architectural lines. • (Spandrel beams, texture /color changes, overhangs, etc.) The extension will have a fiat roof. It is the intention of the applicant to place an awning over the entire store facade and it will also connect the addition to the rest of the store visually. This will be proposed to the Design Review Board. C. Facades -Walls /Structure D. Facades - Transparen The design of the facade is not changing except to bring it closer to the pedestrian. E. Decks and Patios Not applicable. F. Accent Elements The awning will be dealt with at Design Review Board. G. Landscape Elements Not applicable. • V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A parking fee is charged in the Commercial Core II district when a building is enlarged. The retail addition amounts to approximately 18 square feet. The fee is $3,000 per parking space. One space is needed for each 300 square feet of retail space. 18 square feet is approximately b% of 300 square feet. Six percent of $3,000 = $180. This fee will be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the remodel. The proposal has no negative impacts and furthers the plans for Sub -area #12 for L.ionshead. 0 N � 1! � u�t0 � � L r p Bn� 6 �? �� � � U 'I T YYYYIY �Y t � M ` Y�Y• CD0 O C) Q D O or =3 n Q O •0 N CD CO �' �• �- O n . O � N n. cn z Zv� z ou- � z • C7 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 26, 1987 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Casino Building in order to add a stairway connecting Unit 18 and 14. Applicant: First Franklin Financial, Inc. I. THE PROPOSAL On January 12, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the Casino Building exterior alteration and decided to table the item so that the applicant could provide information on how the present tenants handle trash. The PEC also wanted the staff to further evaluate the trash compactor issue. Enclosed is a letter from John Perkins which describes the handling of trash for the Casino Building. According to the letter, the building requires ten trips per week for trash pickup. These trips include: 1. Tenant 3 residential units plus 2 offices Helga's Crazy T'Shirts Car Trips Per Week 1 2 7 J. Cotter's and Hillis Furs have no trash removal provisions and simply use Town of Vail trash cans located near their shops for their trash disposal. The two questions related to the final approval for the Casino Building are: 1. Should First Franklin Financial, Inc. be required to participate financially in the trash compactor as a condition of approval for their exterior alteration request? 2. Does the Casino Building have an adequate trash removal system for its tenants? If the trash removal system is inadequate, should the Casino Building be required to provide a more efficient way for removing trash which would be a stipulation of the exterior alteration approval? In respect to the first question, the staff has determined that it is not feasible to require First Franklin Financial, Inc. to participate in 40 the trash compactor. Due to the lack of a signed legal agreement with the Casino Building's original developer to require participation in the project, the staff is legally unable to require First Franklin's participation in the trash compactor through this Planning Commission review. The staff has also determined that due to the fact that this specific request for exterior alteration will not increase the amount of trash for the building, it is not fair to require First Franklin alone to improve the trash pickup process for the entire building. Regarding the second issue, the adequacy of the Casino Building's current trash removal system, we have serious concerns. Basically, the association has not addressed trash removal on a building -wide basis and this has caused an unacceptable number of trips into the Village core for each individual's trash removal. Indeed, two of the businesses have no system and rely upon the Town of Vail Public Works Department to remove their trash. We find this situation entirely unacceptable and believe that under the service and delivery Design Consideration of the Urban Design Guide Plan, this must be addressed. H. Service and Delivery In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored, and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future usage. Rear access, basement, and below- ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. The building's association should be responsible for coordinating trash removal in a manner consistent with minimizing the number of vehicle trips into the core for trash pickup. Staff is willing to work with the association toward this end. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration according to the memo dated January 12, 1987 with the stipulation that the conditions of approval numbered 1 and 2 be removed from the approval and replaced with the following: 1. The condominium association shall work with the Department of Community Development toward an acceptable solution to trash removal for the building. An agreement must be reached before a building permit for this project is issued. �J TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 1987 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Casino Building in order to add a stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14. APPLICANT: First Franklin Financial, Inc. I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to attach Unit 8 (a commercial unit) on the second floor to Unit 14 (a residential unit) on the third floor. The connection will be made by a glass enclosed stairway located on the west side of the building on an existing second floor exterior deck. The stairway will add an additional 200 square feet of GRFA. Unit 8 will be changed from a commercial use to a residential use which will increase the GRFA by 677 square feet. The total exterior alteration including the new stairway and existing second floor space will add a total of 877 square feet to Unit 14 (GRFA of 1,181 square feet). After the addition, the new total GRFA for the unit will be 2,058 square feet. If this addition is constructed, the project will have 469 square feet of GRFA remaining. 0 II. ZONING STATISTICS FOR THE PROJECT Site area = .179 acres or 7,797 square feet Setbacks: zero setback allowed, this proposal does not affect setbacks as it is on the second floor of the building. Height: The proposal meets the Urban Design Guide Plan limitations on height. The addition is approximately 30 feet high. The guidelines call out that up to 60% of the building may be built to a height of 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of the building may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. Density: Units: .179 acres x 25 units /acre = 4 units allowed GRFA: Site area, .179 ac x GRFA ratio .80 = 6,237 sq ft of GRFA. Existing GRFA = 4,891 sq ft Remaining GRFA = 1,346 sq ft Proposed GRFA: Enclosed stairway = 200 sq ft Convert commercial space to residential = 677 sq ft Total addition = 877 sq ft 3rd floor west unit =1181 sq ft plus addition =2058 sq ft GRFA remaining after addition = 469 sq ft Landscaping: Not affected Parking: The existing residential unit requires 2 spaces and the office space requires 2.7 spaces. Due to the conversion of the commercial space to residential, there is actually a net reduction in parking according to the code requirements. The new unit has a parking requirement of 2.5 spaces. 677 sq ft existing office = 2.7 spaces exist residential unit T 2.6 spaces 1181 sq ft� Total 4.7 spaces expanded residential unit 2058 sq ft = 2.5 spaces Net reduction = 2.2 spaces The Town does not reimburse an owner for a reduction in parking spaces due to a change of use. The 2.2 parking spaces will be credited to the project in the event that a future use requires additional parking. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI DISTRICT Purpose: The Commercial Core I zone district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The following sub -area concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan relate to the area around the Casino Building (please see the enclosed Urban Design Guide Plan): 13B. Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza. 0 15. Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increase facade transparency, entry simplified and oriented to intersection. 16. Key intersection in Village Core. Feature area paving treatment. In August 1981 the owners of the Casino Building proposed an exterior alteration which addressed these three sub -area concepts. The alteration was approved and built. The present proposal does not directly relate to any of these sub - concepts. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. The applicant has addressed the following Design Considerations and received staff approval to exclude pedestrianization, street enclosure, vehicular penetration, service and delivery and street edge considerations as these considerations are not applicable to the project. Applicant's Response: Streetscape Framework: The addition of the stairwell is at the second level or one level above Wall Street, so the Wall Streetscape will not be altered. The circular form of the stairwell /sunroom will be visible from the street. This form blends nicely with the round head windows at • the top floors and the chimney masses of the building and at the same time contrasts the low pitched roofs. Building Height: Building height is not a factor, as the stairwell rises only eighteen feet above the second level deck while roof lines in the same area are at 26 to 28 feet above the same deck. Views: Views from adjacent units will not be altered or impacted. The addition tucks into the building offset on the west side. The addition is surrounded on two sides (90 degrees) by existing exterior walls of Unit 12 at the upper level and Unit 8 and mechanical /restroom exterior walls on the lower level. Sun /Shade: Sun /shade patterns will not be altered significantly. The stair location receives very little sun now due to the height of the Casino and Lazier Arcade buildings. A brief period at mid - afternoon allows sunlight through the Wall Street corridor, however the southern orientation of the stairwell with the larger building mass immediately behind allows no change in shade or shadow patterns. Virtually no impact. Essentially, the staff agrees with the applicant that the addition will have no negative impacts on sun /shade, streetscape, building height, and views. • VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION is Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration. When reviewed against the Design Considerations, the project does not have any significant impacts. The approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the following conditions: 1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be released for this project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the Casino Building's participation in the trash compactor is formalized. 2. Before a building permit or demo permit is issued, the owners of the Casino Building will pay their share of the trash compactor costs to date as stipulated in the 1981 PEC approval of the Casino Building remodel. 3. The owners of the Casino Building will change the condominium declarations to indicate that Unit 8 is now residential space and is part of the total square footage for Unit 14. 4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the owners of the Casino Building agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village. • 5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval to complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for the use of property belonging to the Town for Casino Building pavers. The revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed and signed by the applicant and submitted to staff before a building permit will be released. • 4 i topic snow NO Two n r t t �V 5.r. U ref' .U.. ?. y -r� sa -• -�t� ' it .+. � �`ix��` � -'L s:. F - ` ¢ - •y° t ? t s - -� `�t - _.- sk � � s - Ys � Y 7 t `2, k } °+;.�'s��� 3C'. f,P:_ - ✓ - ,*5 s �- `sy c�r.'E- 3+.ta'4' _ Y SA too C Loco ; 0is�t j x 75 r.r i '4 „ - k4s: ..'Y' .•� j r,��,: �:rr yy' x�` -? r� E,,� y�°''{ "��$y t� Nam - kh. ASIA t } { �.j, f .t Y� oat Aix Y.. -- k ? N° �Aix, S �, - �. 5ry � &„ l"TF:• x�"� 1 � } �.^ �f�if �d `s`i"• 3��{ -�i �' t•4 =+�`' S� k�'ry' €.;� t �Y �t �'' -s. 4 � x:54 - `{ - tik -�.� �Y "�°. �,•. r`�'''4 &t+ #`tY`t �s.rt "iy r i'.J.j�S�4.a {rIrO r�e� OKs r'i.4 f � +~ i i -.. ! " � ,y`? L -. n } Y t 7';_ : � s x i• r., '� ..� "1 r.�'�`,�. =ic � � F'h? tr i � � •' K_�i � � - '- :' fyi. r � L .� _ a Z,,.y� -.- � t '��, 'F � s i:R < y 'r °+s �' r ^r� �yrr ,r_ .3 � 1 •. 'c 'k' � kg Now �_ L r*f• r •p. 44 9:.w' i �\ 4` .x '`)�� 4,r.. t rr<. v �` {.c a-rfi< t �' ssai e" 5 �- • v t F.✓s w,rk S4 !'s, iyr - iy��q',Yy {¢ I - 4 x _,, -i r, h5 i - ,,;�✓ �` ro r n ss r r . a"`�'' ty r t l 4, ,� < ' *,• y�Ir+ y a'v- r L . ,s,.a _ 01% OWN, out t+..�3T? a....•i r r 'r t y'}i r v '��e^> ♦ - 1 S 'r"e ♦ -a ,yF,y�} - . - - a TIM 1 1��� �+ f f .sue s' 4 - `{ - tik -�.� �Y "�°. �,•. r`�'''4 &t+ #`tY`t �s.rt "iy r i'.J.j�S�4.a {rIrO r�e� OKs r'i.4 f � +~ i i -.. ! " � ,y`? L -. n } Y t 7';_ : � s x i• r., '� ..� "1 r.�'�`,�. =ic � � F'h? tr i � � •' K_�i � � - '- :' fyi. r � L .� _ a Z,,.y� -.- � t '��, 'F � s i:R < y 'r °+s �' r ^r� �yrr ,r_ .3 � 1 •. 'c 'k' � kg Now �_ L r*f• r •p. 44 9:.w' i �\ 4` .x '`)�� 4,r.. t rr<. v �` {.c a-rfi< t �' ssai e" 5 �- • v t F.✓s w,rk S4 !'s, iyr - iy��q',Yy {¢ I - 4 x _,, -i r, h5 i - ,,;�✓ �` ro r n ss r r . a"`�'' ty r t l 4, ,� < ' *,• y�Ir+ y a'v- r L . ,s,.a _ 01% OWN, out t+..�3T? a....•i i - F- 0 \ • � • � � � � � ;Pt � �>t y 2• \� � � \ \� � � � � � � � � 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 9, 1987 1:45 PM: Site Visits 3:00 PM: Public Hearing I. Approval of minutes of January 26, 1987. 2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to add more than 100 square feet and for a conditional use permit in order to expand an existing dining deck and construct another dining deck on the Bell Tower Building. Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Inc. 3. A request for a setback and size variance in order to install a satellite receiving dish greater in size than the maximum allowed at 2271 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio 4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to add more than 100 square feet to the Plaza Lodge building located at 281 Bridge Street. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. ai • • Planning and Environmental Commission February 9, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele Diana Donovan STAFF PRESENT Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack 1. Approval of minutes of January 26, 1987. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor with Collins abstaining._ 2. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core 1 and a request for a existing dining Tower Building. deck a Appli ional use permit in order to nd construct another dining_ cant: Bell Tower Associates ex ana an deck on the Bell Inc. Tom Braun presented the proposal, and showed site plans and elevations. He reviewed the criteria and Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village, and conditions of approval. Craig Snowdon, architect for the proposal, went into detail about the project. He showed floor plans, landscape plans, elevations, perspectives and a model. Pam Hopkins abstained from comment and voting. Sid Schultz asked if the patio on Gore Creek Drive could be accessed from the street and was told that there would be a gate on Gore Creek Drive for access, but that most traffic would be through the main restaurant entrance. Diana Donovan had mixed emotions about the project. She felt the Bell Tower Building's architecture was distinctive. Donovan did not feel that brick pavers were landscaping, especially in the winter time. She was concerned with the current trend to continue moving buildings closer and closer to public spaces and felt that the trend was not a good one for the Town in the long run. She also suggested heating the walkway because of the icing of the walkway on the creek side of the building. Snowdon replied that the drainage problem would be mitigated by the remodeling, and drainage would drain away from the building. He showed on a site plan where the interlocking pavers would be placed. Donovan asked that the signing of the restaurant be brought up to code with the remodeling of the building. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she liked the proposal, but wanted to see a net gain in landscaping, especially on the east end. Snowdon replied that that would be addressed on the Design Review Board level. He suggested putting in a few more substantial trees rather than 6 small ones. Snowdon indicated that they would follow �Y this up at Design Review Board. He felt that low profile planting was not visible half of the time. Discussion followed about the promenade area near the creek. Tom explained that the Sitzmark Lodge wanted to upgrade their property near the creek while doing other remodeling, and with the Bell Tower proposal, the staff felt that this would be a good time to look at the whole area. Tom Braun added that if the owners of all three properties did not agree to a comprehensive improvement program that the Bell Tower would be done as a part of this approval. Jeff Winston was doing a design which would show the entire area. J.J. Collins felt landscaping was important, and pointed out that much landscaping on Bridge Street had been obliterated. Jim Viele felt that a lot could be done to make the landscaping more visible and felt that Diana's idea had much merit, which was to have heated pavers and to drain the building. He referred to the Urban Design Guide documents and felt that the patio on Gore Creek Drive should be raised a little. Snowdon stated that he could raise the patio about 3 or 4 inches, but not anymore because of the existing building. Diana Donovan felt that there was nothing to draw people's attention to the stairs near the creek side of the building, and suggested perhaps placing light posts with hanging baskets to add some kind of height. Pam felt that the walkway behind the building could have light posts to make it more inviting. Craig Snowdon said that that was a main consideration when talking to Blu's Beanery owners. He suggested that perhaps the property owners could ==e pavers and the Town of Vail furnish the lighting and benches that Jeff Winston would design. Diana felt that this area could be a showcase. Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill, stated that Mrs. Hill wanted him to ask the to consider landscaping very closely, and not to allow asphalt to come up to the building as near the Red Lion. He then said that loading and unloading must be considered when there were more and more expansions. Curtin felt that perhaps the project could be put on the back burner unt11—EHe loading and delivery problems were solved. Diana felt that people would not wander in and out of the area with the trees that were planned to be in grates. Snowdon replied that this design was Jeff Winston's, and that it was not a final solution, but was showing that the pa Flo area was to be opened up. It was to be further addressed at DRB. Tom Braun added that although street trees and a railing had been suggested, the applicant could come back if the board was uncomfortable with the design. Viele felt that the overall solution should be looked at to be sure there was no reduction of landscaping. Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for an exterior alteration per the staff memo dated 2/9/87 with the conditions in the memo. The vote was 4 in favor, 2 against (Donovan and Osterfoss), with PEC 2/9/$7 -2- n LJ • Hopkins abstaining. Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for a conditional use permit per the staff memo dated 2/9/87 with the conditions in the memo. The vote was 6 in favor with Hopkins abstaining. 3. A request for a setback and size variance in order to install a satellite receiving dish greater in size than the maximum allowed at 2271 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail,, dba KVMT radio The applicant was not at the meeting, so this item was tabled until the meeting of 2/23. 4. A request for ann exterior alteration in order to 100 square feeY__'Eo the Plaza Lodge building locat Street. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. add more than d at 281 Bridge Tom Braun explained the request and showed site plans and elevations. He reviewed the project with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan, Design Considerations and zoning. He followed his explanation with the statement that the staff was not able to support the proposal as presented and recommended denial. The staff felt strongly that, in its present state, the existing Bridge Street frontage of the Plaza Lodge building is the essence of what is encouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan. Craig Snowdon showed site plans, elevations, perspectives and a model. He also showed photos indicating that most pedestrians used the street rather than the sidewalk. Snowdon stated that the stairs and landscaping were actually a barrier and discouraged the pedestrians from using the sidewalk. He added that the retail shops were too far from the pedestrians in the street. Snowdon pointed out that the proposal would provide a continuous walkway for the pedestrian. The plan was to line the walkway with lanterns and hanging baskets. Jack Curtin stated that this proposal was similar to the Bell Tower proposal in that there was not enough landscaping. He felt that the hanging baskets would only provide some landscaping from mid -July until September. Curtin felt the need for trees for relief. Jack Campbell agreed with Curtin. He added that much .landscaping was not taken care of or was not the right type for the mountains. He felt care was important. John Brennan, manager of Vendetta's, spoke in support of the proposal. J.J. Collins asked for more information on the walkway and street on the Bridge Street side of the building. Snowdon stated that the street • would be 5 feet wider than it is at present, that about 35% of the present landscaping would be lost, and that he felt the sidewalk would be used more when it was at the same level as the street. Collins then asked the tenants present what their experience was with regard to PEC 2/9/87 -3- . pedestrian access at present. John Campbell stated that the sidewalk at present was not used to dodge delivery trucks. He felt that some of the charm of the Village was that pedestrians were walking in the street and competing with traffic, unlike Lionshead. He felt that people liked to walk in the street. It was his feeling that the sidewalks were used to access shops or to window shop, not as an access to the street. George Knox stated that the Rucksack was a good example of pedestrian access right off of the street and the Lodge promenade was a good example of a pedestrian barrier. He noted that when people walk past a shop, they rarely turn around and walk back to the shop. Sally Cornwall of the Younger Generation stated that she has both a Lionshead store and one in the Village and that people in Lionshead can walk right in off of the mall, whereas the pedestrians in the Village were deterred by the stairs. She added that the alley to Wall Street was used because there were no stairs involved. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she was basically in favor of the proposal, and was also in favor of not eliminating the landscaping. She was in favor of removing the trucks which she felt did keep people out of stores more than the stairs did. She wanted to hear more opinions on the proposal because the proposal included such a long expanse of Bridge Street and she did not want to rush into a decision. Bryan Hobbs liked the way the proposal changed the street scene but was disturbed by the loss of landscaping. Diana Donovan felt that there should be a compromise between what is existing and what was proposed. She felt the proposal did a lot for the Plaza Building on the Bridge Street side, but felt the proposal might impact the street too much. She did not support the enclosure of part of Vendetta's deck, because they first asked for more deck on Town of Vail land, and now were asking to enclose part of that deck. Sid Schultz had no problem with the deck, but did have with the retail expansion. He felt the steps could be redesigned, and added that in the summer they were highly used. Schultz felt that the Town should make certain that landscape areas were maintained. He felt that if the sidewalk is dropped to street level, the trucks would block visibility of the stores. Schultz stated that a 5 foot sidewalk would be 2 feet in the winter. Jim Viele agreed that the proposal did a lot for the building. He felt a good job must be done with whatever landscaping was left. He was not sure if he had enough information to make a decision, and felt he needed more information on traffic, loading and landscaping. Viele had no problem with the deck enclosure of Vendetta's. He added that this was the 7th or 8th modification to the Plaza Building and felt it must be tough on the neighbors to have construction every year on the Plaza Building. Snowdon stated that the majority of the outside work would be done by July 4. He restated the board's concerns to be the reduction in landscaping and the nearness of the retail stores to the street. Snowdon asked if he could separate the proposal of Vendetta's deck from the proposal on the Bridge Street side, and Viele explained that it was P£C 2/9/87 -4- • appropriate to look at the whole program. Viele suggested possibly tabling and looking at the proposal at a work session. Snowdon felt that tabling was appropriate. Diana said that she would Like to see pocket parks and asked if there were any plans for seating. Snowdon answered that there were areas 8 feet deep with walls 12" to 3611 high that could be used for seating. J.J. Collins stated that this was such a substantial change in such an important part of the Town, he wished to see a good graphic layout. Ron Riley agreed with the tenants that this was a vast improvement to the building. Snowdon asked to table the proposal for further study and a chance to meet with the owner to see if there could be further compromise. Viele stated that there could also be a work session. Diana Donovan moved and Pe( The vote was 6 favor of Osterfoss seconded to table the request lina with Pam Hopkins abstaining. PEC 2/9/87 -5- TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 0 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to the Bell Tower Building in Commercial Core I located at 201 East Gore Creek Drive Applicant: Bell Tower Building Associates, Ltd. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The proposal involves the addition of approximately 800 square feet of ground floor retail space adjacent to the Children's Fountain area. In addition, a new dining deck is proposed on Gore Creek Drive along with an expansion to an existing deck on the creek side of the building. The dining decks are addressed in detail through the conditional use memo that is attached. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS In addition to standard zoning considerations, review of development projects in Commercial Core I involve consideration of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan involves two elements of review, the Guide Plan itself and the Urban Design Considerations. As stated in • the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district, "The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the types of buildings and uses. District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." Through adoption by the Town Council in 1980, the Design Considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan serve as development review criteria similar to setbacks, building heights and other more traditional zoning standards. As a statement to the importance of these design criteria in evaluating development projects, pre - determined zoning standards such as building setbacks and density controls for retail space have been eliminated from Commercial Core I. This is an important consideration when weighing the merits of a development proposal in the Village. 0 III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan suggests development and improvements that are desired in the Village. The Guide Plan works in conjunction with graphics that indicate where these improvements are appropriate. Referred to as sub -area concepts, these improvements are designed to improve the pedestrian nature and overall fabric of the Village. There are no sub -area concepts in the area of this property relevant to this development proposal. IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The nine Urban Design Considerations to be used in evaluating this project are as follows: 1. Pedestrianization This consideration is not affected by this proposal. 2. Vehicular Penetration This consideration is not affected by this proposal. 0 3. Streetscape_Framework Streetscape framework is intended to encourage improvements to the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to pedestrianways. Two types of improvements, landscaping and commercial storefront infills, are referred to as ways to improve the Village's walkways. While the commercial infill will require the removal of some landscape planters, it is felt that the one story expansion is a needed improvement to bring the commercial activity out toward the pedestrian in the area of the Children's Fountain. At the present time the storefront is recessed behind the building overhang. The commercial infill will create a better sense of space that is presently lacking in this area. 4. Street Enclosure Streets serve as outdoor rooms whose walls are formed by the buildings on either side. It is the goal of the Guide Plan to encourage buildings that provide a comfortable sense of enclosure on the street. The one story expansion will provide a stronger sense of pedestrian scale as opposed to the existing four story building. A precise calculation of the building height versus street width is not directly applicable because of the building's location adjacent to the Children's Fountain plaza. • 2 . 5. Street Edge_ As proposed, the storefront expansion will reinforce a fairly irregular street edge around this property, particularly with the irregular facade lines and slight building jogs. 0 6. Building Heights Building heights are not applicable to this project because of the one story nature of this proposal. 7. Views There are no significant impacts on either minor or major view corridors in the Village. 8. Service and Deliver Service access on the west side of this property will remain unchanged. Service and delivery functions would be provided in the loading zones adjacent to this project on Gore Creek Drive. 9. Sun /Shade Sun /shade patterns are not significantly affected by this infill development. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Parkin There is no onsite parking provided on the site. Additional parking demand generated by this proposal will be met through payment into the Town's parking fund. The precise amount to be paid will be determined at the time of building permit. 2. Dining Decks The new dining deck and modifications to the existing dining deck require conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. These considerations are addressed in the attached memorandum. 3. Landscaped Area The zoning code allows no reductions in landscaped areas unless specifically required through the development of projects compatible with the Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff feels that each portion of this proposal resulting in a reduction in landscaping is warranted. The removal of a portion of two planters along Gore Creek Drive is required to allow for the development of any dining deck. It is felt 91 that the street life provided by the dining deck will far outweigh the negative impact of reducing these planters. In addition, interlocking brick pavers are to be used as a floor surface for this deck. This type of material technically qualifies as landscape area, resulting in what is actually no loss of landscaped area. Staff feels that the removal of planters to allow for the expansion of the dining deck and expansion of retail space are significant. However, to mitigate these impacts, the developer has proposed installing interlocking brick pavers at the base of the stairs. These pavers will cover an area of approximately 250 square feet. In addition, street trees will be planted to assist in defining the patio expansion in this area. While these improvements are technically off site, it is felt that their positive benefit more than satisfies the loss of other landscaped area on the property. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposal as submitted. The additional outdoor dining decks and retail expansion will greatly improve this property and this area of the Village. Staff would encourage the Planning Commission to adopt the following condition in conjunction with this approval: 1. At a minimum, the applicant shall install the brick paver treatment and street trees in the area adjacent to the creekside dining deck as indicated on the vicinity map and landscape plan. Efforts are now underway to develop a continuous streetscape improvement program in this area (see accompanying memo). The applicant of this project has indicated a willingness to participate in these improvements and the staff recognizes that the precise design and application of improvements in the area of the Bell Tower Building may be modified. The design of these improvements and negotiations with the three property owners in the area are presently underway. While the ideal situation would be to have the streetscape improvements finalized and made a condition of this approval, that is not possible at this time. Our approach to the overall streetscape improvements has been one of relying on a spirit of cooperation and participation from these property owners. For this reason, if agreements are not reached, we feel that it is still reasonable that the applicant of this project provide improvements as have been indicated on their application. 2. The applicant shall not remonstrate against a special improvement district for Vail Village, if and when one is formed. � 4 M TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to add a new outdoor dining deck and to make modifications to an existing outdoor dining deck at the Bell Tower Building located at 201 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The addition of any new outdoor dining deck, or modifications to an existing dining deck, requires review and approval by the Planning Commission. As opposed to standard conditional use requests, conditional use permits in Commercial Core I are reviewed with respect to a specific set of considerations. These design considerations are intended to be responsive to these special characteristics and nature of development in the core area. Both of the dining decks proposed in the redevelopment of the Bell Tower Building are located on Town of Vail land or rights -of -way. The Town Council has reviewed these applications and given the applicant permission to proceed through the development review process. It should be emphasized that the proposed decks have not been approved by the Town Council, but rather given approval to proceed through the Planning Commission review process. The dining decks proposed areas follows: 1. The Bell Tower Building sits directly on the property line along Gore Creek Drive. The planter boxes on either side of the present entry to Timberhaus Sports are located on Town of Vail right -of -way. The proposed deck would be located adjacent to this entry on Gore Creek Drive and the use at this level would be converted to a bar for the Lancelot Restaurant. As proposed, the deck would require the removal of approximately 112 of the planter area. The deck would be defined by a railing between the planters on Gore Creek Drive. 2. At the present time a dining patio is located on the creek side of the building at the bottom of the stairs below the Children's Fountain. Defined by a number of large planter boxes, this deck is seldom utilized. The property line presently runs through the center of these planters. The deck would be modified by removing the planter boxes and extending the deck five feet onto Town property. The deck would be defined by some type of railing treatment and the placement of street trees. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING REQUEST A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I 18 At first glance, it may appear as though the dining deck proposed for Dore Creek Drive would present problems with vehicular circulation in this area. However, the proposed dining deck projects no further than the existing planter wall and after site review, it is the feeling of the staff that this deck does not adversely affect vehicular circulation. Of particular concern in evaluating the impact of this dining deck was how it would affect the ability of fire trucks to access the walkway between the Wall Street Building and the Lodge at Vail. A three point turn is required for the Fire Department's vehicle to access this area. In doing so, the fire truck is required to back into the area of the proposed dining patio. In order to mitigate any impacts from this maneuver, projections above tables, such as umbrellas, would be prohibited. The deck proposed on the creek side of the building would not affect vehicular traffic in this area. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I Neither deck would affect this consideration. C. Reduction of non - essential off- street parking Neither deck would affect this consideration D. Control of delivery, pickup and service vehicles A loading zone is located on Gore Creek Drive directly across from the proposed dining deck. The distance from the outside of the dining deck to the curb on the other side of Gore Creek Drive is 35 feet. Even with a delivery vehicle in this area, a distance of approximately 25 feet will remain for circulation in this area. There is no effect on this consideration from the deck on the creek side of the building. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians The new dining deck along Gore Creek Drive involves no additional development of public spaces. The proposed expansion to the deck on the creek side of the Bell Tower Building is related to a significant improvement to a pedestrianized area adjacent to this deck. This improvement involves removal of the existing sidewalk surface and replacing it with interlocking brick pavers. The area to be improved with brick pavers is from the base of the stairs along the length of the Bell Tower Building frontage, and extending some 25 feet from the stairs along the Creekside Building. The developer's proposal to improve the sidewalk surface in this area has prompted discussion of a number of improvements to the entire length of this walkway. The area under study runs from this location to the west end of the Sitzmark Lodge. The Town staff has commissioned Jeff Winston (urban design consultant to the Town) to prepare a number of alternatives for . streetscape improvements to this area. The staff is presently working with tenants and property owners along this walkway to develop these design alternatives as well as funding opportunities for these improvements. Improvements to this walkway, or promenade, will include a new walking surface, lighting, seating areas, landscaping materials, drainage improvements, and at least two focal points that may one day accommodate public art. The development of these improvements arose from the redevelopment proposals from the Bell Tower and Sitzmark Buildings, and interest from tenants within the Gore Creek Plaza Building. It is the goal of the staff would hope to see these improvements constructed simultaneously with the participation of each property owner. F. Continuance of the various commercial residential and public uses in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existin character of the area. The addition of the dining deck on Gore Creek Drive will provide another element of street life that is vital to the success of the Village. The expansion of the creek side dining deck should improve its usability and provide additional pedestrian activity in this area. G. Control quality of construction architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core 1 district so as to maintain • the existing character of the area. The design of both decks are quite simple in nature. In both cases, interlocking brick pavers will be the surface of the deck, and the deck will be defined by some type of railing treatment. This is similar to the proposal that was approved at the Gorsuch Cafe this past year. At the present time, it is planned to incorporate the streetscape improvements into the creekside dining deck by using street trees and railing treatments to define the dining deck. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of both of these dining decks with the following conditions: 1. In order to prevent potential conflicts with emergency vehicles, the placement of any improvements above the height of dining tables shall be prohibited. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the tenant of this space is made aware of and adheres to this restriction. 2. At a minimum, the applicant shall provide, at his cost, those off -site improvements to the creekside dining deck as indicated on • the landscape and vicinity plans (inter - locking pavers and street trees). 3 0 3. The applicant shall not remonstrate against an improvement district in the Vail Village if and when one is formed. As has been noted, work is presently underway to develop a continuous streetscape improvement program along this walkway. The applicnnt has indicated a willingness to participate in these improvements if agreements can be reached between the three property owners. It should be recognized that the precise design of the improvements adjacent to this dining deck may change as a result of the overall streetscape improvements. Condition #2 is designed to ensure that if agreements are not reached to develop the entire streetscape, the developer of this project will not be committed to providing the improvements represented in this application. 4 f" 0 FROM: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration Plaza Lodge Building located at 291 Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, THE PROPOSAL in Commercial Core I to the Bridge Street. Ltd. This proposal centers around a retail expansion to the Plaza Lodge Building. The majority of this expansion would take place along Bridge Street by infilling the existing separated walkway and removing the existing landscape planters. Removal of this walkway would lower the grades along these storefronts to allow access to the shops at the same grade as Bridge Street. Additional infill is proposed in the rear of the building by enclosing a portion of the dining deck of Vendetta's bar with a fixed glass roof and operable front walls. Other aspects of this redevelopment include basement and second floor retail space to be created by converting existing space, and the modification of a number of lodge rooms and dwelling units on upper floors. • II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning considerations are used in reviewing development proposals in Commercial Core I. The Design Considerations in the Guide Plan were adopted to augment traditional zoning considerations. They are intended to allow for greater flexibility and creativity in designing projects in the Village, while recognizing and maintaining its unique character. For example, standard setbacks are not required in the Village except as are established pursuant to the Guide Plan's Design Considerations and other criteria relating to Town of Vail operations, etc. This is not to imply, however, that there are to be no minimum setbacks in the core. Rather, a project must "earn" its proposed setbacks by virtue of its compatibility with the Guide Plan's Design Considerations. The importance of maintaining the integrity of these design considerations can not be overstated. It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to maintain the overall character of Vail Village through the utilization of these design criteria in evaluating any development proposal. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Guide Plan serves to identify desired physical improvements for strengthening the overall fabric of Vail Village. These improvements are generally designed to reinforce the overall character of the Village, with particular emphasis placed on improving the pedestrian experience. Sub -area concepts identified in the Guide Plan relative to this proposal include the following: 1. Sub -area Concept 13A. Raised sidewalk may become major pedestrian . route during delivery periods. Slight widening warranted. Potential for open arcade for snow protection over wooden walk. Landscape improvements include: New consolidated stairs, tie retaining walls replaced with masonry, upgraded plantings. As proposed, the expansion would totally eliminate this separated walkway. This is in direct conflict with the sub -area concept which clearly states that the walkway should remain separated from the street. It is ironic that in 1984 the owners of this property spent a great deal of time and energy making improvements to this walkway. These improvements centered around replacing the tie retaining walls with field stone, as specified in the Guide Plan. These improvements were proposed in the Guide Plan to strengthen the condition of the separated walkway as a part of the overall goal to continually improve the pedestrian circulation system in Vail Village. 2. Sub -area Concept 138. Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza. While not covered, this improvement was completed in conjunction with the Casino Building construction. Once considered a back alley, this area now provides a valuable pedestrian link between Wall Street and Bridge Street. The proposal for the Plaza Building will not affect this sub -area concept. • 3. Sub -area Concept 14. Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible from Gore Creek Drive. Major land form /planting in northwest for quiet corner, with evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall Street stairs, with mid -level jog landing, opens entry area to Lazier Arcade shops. This improvement has been completed and will remain unchanged with this proposal. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The Design Considerations address the primary form- giving physical features of the Village. They provide a description of these key elements, without which the image of Vail would be noticeably different. It is the goal of the Design Considerations, that through their application, future changes will be consistent with the established Village character and make positive contributions to the Village experience. These considerations include the following: Pedestrianizatio A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. It is stated in this consideration that new or expanded construction should 2 anticipate the appropriate level of pedestrianization adjacent to the site. The separated walkway on this portion of Bridge Street is a successful element of the streetscape and constitutes a critical link of this pedestrian system. The walkway provides for circulation off of Bridge Street that takes on added significance when considering the loading zone in this area. During utilization of the loading and delivery zone, this walkway provides the pedestrian an alternative from Bridge Street. As stated in the Guide Plan, "Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans and accompanying Design Considerations are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village." The sub -area concepts outlined in the Guide Plan designate some of the specific street development desired for walkways in the Village. In referring to these sub -area concepts, one must consider Sub -Area Concept 13A which states the separated walkways should be maintained. This further demonstrates the incompatibility of this proposal with respect to the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village. Vehicular Penetration Factors addressed in this consideration are not applicable to this proposal. Streetscaoe Framework • This consideration proposes two general types of improvements adjacent to walkways. These include landscaping improvements as a colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes and commercial storefront expansions to provide activity generators and street life along the Village's streets. This proposal obviously presents some interesting perspectives with respect to this consideration. At the present time the planters adjacent to the Plaza Lodge provide a very pleasing landscaped statement between Bridge Street and the Plaza Lodge. On the other hand, it could be argued that the commercial expansions will bring retail activity adjacent to Bridge Street, thereby generating more street life and visual interest. This consideration goes on to state that, "It is desired to have a variety of open and closed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and activity." In evaluating this consideration it again becomes necessary to refer to the sub -area concepts proposed in the Guide Plan. By virtue of the Guide Plan's recommendation to leave the separated walkway and landscape planters in place, one can readily assume that the desired improvements in this area do not involve a commercial expansion. This is further reinforced when considering the many other areas of the Village where the Guide Plan has proposed commercial expansions to provide activity generators along pedestrian ways. Given that both landscaping and infill can be used to satisfy this consideration, the sub -area concepts of the Guide Plan clearly imply that this area should remain in its present condition. One element of the proposed infill that is consistent with the streetscape framework consideration is the partial infill of Vendetta's deck. At the present time the existing facade is recessed to a degree, resulting in a facade that is difficult to see. The existing situation does not provide any visible activity or street life to the pedestrian in this area. The proposed infill in this area would bring this activity out closer to the pedestrian way, thereby providing greater visual interest at this portion of the building. Street Enclosure A comfortable enclosure for streets is determined by the width of the street in relation to the building heights on either side. As the Planning Commission may recall, this was a particular concern with the Hill Building expansion as it related to One Vail Place. With this proposal, the three story facade of the Plaza Lodge along Bridge Street will be reduced to one story at street level. This provides a more pleasing pedestrian scale for this building. The sense of enclosure varies along the length of this frontage relative to the building heights on the other side of Bridge Street. At no time does the sense of enclosure become uncomfortable, and the lack of uniformity created by this situation is consistent with this consideration. Street Edge The Plaza Lodge is compatable with this consideration in its present state. The building jogs in a manner consistent with the slight curve of upper Bridge Street. The existing planters strengthen this situation by maintaining a strong, continuous streetedge along Bridge Street. This consideration would be affected by this proposed redevelopment. While the building is still sited to "curve with the street ", the strong edge created by the planters will be eliminated. Building Height Building height considerations are not directly applicable to this proposal because the addition is predominantly one story. Views There are no impacts on either minor or major view corridors from this proposal. Service and Delivery_ Service and delivery are vital functional elements of any pedestrianized area. It is the intention of this consideration to insure that these functions be preserved and enhanced where possible. The elimination of the separated walkway will directly affect the impact of the existing loading zone that is adjacent to this property. As has been stated, a pedestrian has the opportunity to utilize this walkway when loading is taking place on Bridge Street. The elimination of this walkway will remove this option for the pedestrian. 4 As proposed, the loading zone will remain unchanged and be located only five feet from many of the storefronts. This will effectively shield views of the storefronts and store entrys when vehicles are utilizing the loading /delivery zones. It is the feeling of the staff that this will create adverse impacts on the shops in this building. This is due to the insufficient width of the sidewalk (b feet) and the close proximity of parked trucks. In evaluating this proposal, one must consider the existing situation which staff feels to be quite ideal, and the proposed redevelopment which the staff would consider to be inappropriate. Sun /Shade In Vail's alpine climate it is particularly important to consider solar access to public spaces. This consideration states that new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the shadow pattern on adjacent properties or public right -of -ways. It should be noted that this proposal will result in slight increases in the shadow pattern on Bridge Street. However, we feel this increased shadow is not considered significant. V. ZONING AND OTTER CONSIDERATIONS 1. Parkin There is no parking provided on site, demand created by this proposal would the Town's parking fund. The precise • be determined at the time of building 2. Landscaping and Site Development Stan, and the additional parking be met through payment into amount of this payment would permit. lards The zoning code states that no reduction in landscaped areas shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Design Considerations. This proposal is clearly inconsistent with the Design Considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The landscaped planters serve an important role in establishing the streetscape framework and street edge on this portion of Bridge Street, as well as defining the separated walkway. 3. Unit Modifications At the present time there are a variety of dwelling and accommodation units within the Plaza Lodge. To facilitate a more efficient utilization of the kitchen units with lock -off units, modifications are being proposed to this area of the building. These changes would be in compliance with existing development standards and do not require any review or approval by the Planning Commission. 0 4. Partial enclosure of Vendetta's deck The staff has traditionally been very critical of any attempts to enclose existing outdoor dining areas. This concern has been upheld throughout the years by the Town Council who have uniformly denied all proposals to enclose dining decks. While the staff is not supporting this project as proposed, we are not particularly concerned with the partial enclosure of this deck. As stated in the memorandum, it is felt that bringing this facade closer to pedestrianways will provide greater visual interest during the time when there is not activity on the deck. In addition, this area of Vendetta's deck has traditionally been subject to drainage problems from the Plaza Lodge roof. In terms of numbers, the enclosure amounts to just under 300 square feet of the total 960 square feet of deck. It is felt that the remaining 660 square feet of dining deck is sufficient for this deck to contribute to the street life in the Village. The design of the enclosure includes a fixed glass roof with operable doors running the length of the dining deck. This will allow for the doors to be opened during the summer months and apre ski. Given these considerations, the staff does not feel the partial enclosure of this deck to be detrimental. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is clearly unable to support this proposal as presented and would recommend the Planning Commission deny this application. The staff feels strongly that, in its present state, the existing Bridge Street frontage of the Plaza Lodge building is the essence of what is encouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan. The separated walkway and landscape elements work well together. This is particularly true in considering the loading function that is a required element of this portion of Bridge Street. The Planning Commission is urged to carefully consider the Design Considerations and sub -area concepts as outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan when evaluating this proposal. However, while recommending overall denial of the entire application, we find merit in the partial deck enclosure for Vendetta's for the above reasons. Support of this enclosure is conditional on the west elevation being designed with operable panels to allow the wall to be opened during apres ski and daytime hours. 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for setback variance and diameter of satellite dish variance in order to install a commercial satellite dish at the Chamonix Corners building in West Vail Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to install a 3.8 meter (13 ft.) diameter satellite antenna in the northeast corner of the parcel containing the Chamonix Corners commercial building, which houses the KVMT broadcasting studios. The requested variance is for both allowable antenna diameter and setback requirements. These requirements are listed as Section 18.58.320 D, 4 and 6. The zoning code stipulates that the maximum size of any satellite dish antenna installed for use by a single residence or business shall be limited to 9 feet in diameter. Satellite dish antennas are required to comply with existing setback requirements of the zone district in which the dish is installed. The required setbacks in the CCIII zone district are 10 feet. Proposed location of the dish is within 10 feet of the rear property line, and thus requires variance. Included with this memo is a copy of the applicant'.s statement supporting his request for a dish of a larger size than is currently allowed through the regulations. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 1.8.61.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends p ends a proval 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 is approximately 4 to 5 feet. The requested location is adjacent to the existing trasli_.. facilities that serve this parcel. In review of the site, this appears to be the best location for the satellite dish, and we feel that with the proposed fencing and screening that the applicant is amenable to, there will be little negative impact to the existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achi-eve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff feels that due to the desire of both the applicant and the Town to achieve maximum possible screening of the satellite dish antenna, that the proposed site is the best possible location and because of this, it would not be a special privilege to grant the variance for encroachment into the rear setback. With regard to the request for variance from maximum diameter, the staff feels that the technical information submitted by KVMT is sufficient to prove that a 9 foot diameter dish as typically used in residential installations would not be able to meet the technical specifications of the FCC that would be required for the operation of this satellite dish for the KVMT radio station. Therefore, we feel that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the variance of the maximum size of the satellite dish. The effect of the re nested variance on light and air distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities ublic facilities and utilities and public safety. The location and size of the requested antenna will have no negative impacts upon any of the above mentioned criteria. While the proposed • location is adjacent to both a parking area and a trash facility, the dish location will not obstruct parking or hinder the trash removal operations. 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 followin 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: iThe 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 The staff recommends approval of both the setback and maximum diameter variance requests. We feel that the proposed location is in an optimum area to screen this dish from adjacent properties and we feel that KVMT has proved substantial hardship in request for the size considerations. We would request the Planning and Environmental Commission pass along their concerns to the Design Review Board that this dish be adequately screened from view from adjacent public and private properties as a part of the DRB approval process. The staff also feels that the applicant should explore the possibility of utilizing a mesh dish. " M V ' K M4 AIL • GLEN WOOD SPRINGS • 11RECKENRI • 1 MEMO TO: Rick Pylman From: Bill Sepmeier RE: Technical specifications, KVMT Satellite Antenna Since KVMT FM is a a licensed commercial'broadcast station, it must adhere to all Federal Communication Commission rules and guidelines regarding program transmission quality. These are specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 73, and are summerized as such: Measurements of transmitted signal strength - to - noise levels must exceed 53 decibels. Frequency response must remain essentially flat in a band from 50 hertz to 15,000 hertz. Imtermodulation and seperation of left and right channels: IM must be less than 1 percent total, Seperation must be kept at at least 40 decibels, minimum. While this technical jargan is confusing, translated it means that the sound must be of as high a quality as the state of the art will permit. Now, relating this to the staellite antenna... In the last year, the FCC has permitted the 'close- spacing' of satellites used in the domestic service region, that i's, satellite operators have been allowed to shift satellites in their orbits, moving them closer together, in order to operate more satellites in this crowded area of space. Since all satellites operate on the SAME FREQUENCIES, this 2 °spacing has increased the opportunity for interference in the reception of satellite signals, ESPECIALLY with small apature (diameter) receiving dishes. Since a smaller dish has less surface area, it is less selective in the area of sky it 'looks' at therefore greatly increasing the ability of other, unwanted, signals to interfere with the desired product. 2271 North Frontage Road West * Vail, Colorado 81657 * 303 /476 -KVMT • 1 -800- 843 -8471 In addition, smaller dishes provide substantially less gain to the desired signals, lowering the signal to noise ratio levels. ( A 9 foot dish provides only 50% of the gain of a 13 foot dish.) Because of the guidelines imposed upon the FM br adcast service to provide a high quality, interference /kf6iYal and due to the limitations imposed upon all satellite users by the 2° spacing, combined with the Single Channel Per Carrier (SCPC) format that KVMT's incoming signals utilize (a format more inherent to noise pack up and interference than, say, digital transmission), it is imperetive that KVMT utilize the specified 3.8 miter diameter antenna, as requested in its variance application in order to satisfy federal requirements, standards of good engineering practice, and to assure a high quality program signal to listeners in its service area. Thank You. Cite. 0 FCC Rules and Regulations, Parts 73.322, 73.1610, 2.106. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 23, 1987 2:15 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of February 9, 1987 2. A request for a setback and size variance in order to install a satellite receiving dish greater than the maximum allowed at 2271 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio 3. Appointment of a PEC member to DRB for the months of March, April and May WORK SESSION: 4. A request for an exterior alteration of the Plaza Building. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. 5. A request for an exterior alteration of the Lionshead Centre Building. Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium Assn. 6. A request to create a new zone district, Hillside Residential (HR) to provide sites for low density single family residential use. Applicant: Town of Vail • . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 23, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT J.J. Collins Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylmn Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 2/9/87. Donovan moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. A request for setback and size variance in order to install_ a satellite receiving dish greater than the maximum allowed at 2271 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail,_ Inc. dba KVMT Radio Rick Pylman explained the request and showed photos and a site plan. J.J. Collins asked how the dish would be screened from the residents who lived further up the mountain from the dish and was told it would be screened on all four sides and would be turned toward the west so that the narrow edge would be visible from above. Rick explained that this PEC approval would allow the applicant to proceed to DRB, and DRB would address landscaping and screening. The PEC concerns regarding the landscaping and screening could be passed along to the DRB. J J. Collins moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated 2/23/87 with the request to DRB that there be adequate screening and landscaping. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of the request_ 3. Appointment of a PEC member to DRB for the months of March, April and May. J.J. Collins volunteered to serve on the DRB and Peggy Osterfoss volunteered to back him up. A work session followed concerning the Plaza Lodge, the Lionshead Centre Building and Hillside Residential zoning. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for setback variance and diameter of satellite dish variance in order to install a commercial satellite dish at the Chamonix Corners building in West Vail Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to install a 3.8 meter (13 ft.) diameter satellite antenna in the northeast corner of the parcel containing the Chamonix Corners commercial building, which houses the KVMT broadcasting studios. The requested variance is for both allowable antenna diameter and setback requirements. These requirements are listed as Section 18.58.320 D, 4 and 6. The zoning code stipulates that the maximum size of any satellite dish antenna installed for use by a single residence or business shall be limited to 9 feet in diameter. Satellite dish antennas are required to comply with existing setback requirements of the zone district in which the dish is installed. The required setbacks in the CCIII zone district are 10 feet. Proposed location of the dish is within 10 feet of the rear property line, and thus requires variance. Included with this memo is a copy of the applicant,'.s stat.ement.supporting his request for a dish of a larger size than is currently allowed through the regulations. 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 to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested encroachment into the rear setback is approximately 4 to 5 feet. The requested location is adjacent to the existing trash facilities that serve this parcel. In review of the site, this appears to be the best location for the satellite dish, and we feel that with the proposed fencing and screening that the applicant is amenable to, there will be little negative impact to the existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and . enforcement of a specified re ulation is necessar to achieve com atibilit and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without rant of s ecial privileLe_ The staff feels that due to the desire of both the applicant and the Town to achieve maximum possible screening of the satellite dish antenna, that the proposed site is the best possible location and because of this, it would not be a special privilege to grant the variance for encroachment into the rear setback. With regard to the request for variance from maximum diameter, the staff feels that the technical information submitted by KVMT is sufficient to prove that a 9 foot diameter dish as typically used in residential installations would not be able to meet the technical specifications of the FCC that would be required for the operation of this satellite dish for the KVMT radio station. Therefore, we feel that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the variance of the maximum size of the satellite dish. The effect of the re nested variance on light and air distribution of o ulation trans ortation and traffic facilities ublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. The location and size of the requested antenna will have no negative . impacts upon any of the above mentioned criteria. While the proposed location is adjacent to both a parking area and a'trash facility, the dish location will not obstruct parking or hinder the trash removal operations. 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 followin fin din s before rantin 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: IMThe 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 The staff recommends approval of both the setback and maximum diameter variance requests. We feel that the proposed location is in an optimum area to screen this dish from adjacent properties and we feel that KVMT has proved substantial hardship in request for the size considerations. We would request the Planning and Environmental Commission pass along their concerns to the Design Review Board that this dish be adequately screened from view from adjacent public and private properties as a part of the DRB approval process. The staff also feels that the applicant is should explore the possibility of utilizing a mesh dish. ' e �m r MEMO TO: Rick Pylman From: Bill Sepmeier RE: Technical specifications, KVMT Satellite Antenna Since KVMT FM is a a licensed commercial broadcast station, it must adhere to all Federal Communication Commission rules and guidelines regarding program transmission quality. These are specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 73, and are summerized as such: Measurements of transmitted signal strength - to - noise levels must exceed 53 decibels. Frequency response must remain essentially flat in a band from 50 hertz to 15,000 hertz. Imtermodulation and seperation of left and right channels: IM must be less than 1 percent total, Seperation must be kept at at least 40 decibels, minimum: While this technical jargan is confusing, translated it means that the sound must be of as high a quality as the state of the art will permit. Now, relating this to the staellite antenna... In the last year, the FCC has permitted the 'close - spacing' of satellites used in the domestic service region,. that is, satellite operators have been allowed to shift satellites in their orbits, moving them closer together, in order to operate more satellites in this crowded area of space. Since all satellites operate on the SAME FREQUENCIES,'this 2 °spacing has increased the opportunity for interference in the reception of satellite signals, ESPECIALLY with small apature (diameter) receiving dishes. Since a smaller dish has less surface area, it is less selective in the area of sky it 'looks' at therefore greatly increasing the ability of other, unwanted, signals to interfere with the desired product. 2271 North Frontage Road West a Vail, Colorado 81657 * 303/476 -KVMT • 1 -800- 843 -8471 In addition, smaller dishes provide substantially less gain to the desired signals, lowering the signal to noise ratio levels. ( A 9 foot dish provides only 50% of the gain of a 13 foot dish.) Because of the guidelines imposed upon the FM brgadcast service to provide a high quality, interference/ � al and due to the limitations imposed upon all satellite users by the 2° spacing, combined with the Single Channel Per Carrier (SCPC) format that KVMT's incoming signals utilize (a format more inherent to noise pick up and interference than, say, digital transmission), it is imperetive that KVMT utilize the specified 3.8 mate-- diameter antenna, as requested in its variance application in order to satisfy federal requirements, standards of good engineering practice, and to assure a high quality program signal to listeners in its service area. Thank You. Cite: FCC Rules and Regulations, Parts 73.322, 73.1610, 2.106. 0 TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Community Development Department February 23, 1987 SUBJECT: Work Session on the Plaza Lodge This work session has been scheduled to allow the applicant an opportunity to informally present a revised design prior to review by the Planning Commission. While a decision will not be made on this proposal at this review, the applicant and staff are desirous in hearing further comments from the Planning Commission on this revised proposal. BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS REVIEW The proposal consists of a partial infill of the Vendetta's deck and commercial infill along the length of the building's Bridge Street frontage. The staff's strong opposition to this proposal is centered around the infill proposed to Bridge Street. This infill would require the removal of the planters as well as the elimination of the separated walkway on this portion of Bridge Street. Staff's concerns are based on the goals of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan that clearly recommends that • these features remain. The applicant's reasons for this proposal are to eliminate the perceived barrier to the pedestrian that is presently existing and to bring the retail storefronts closer to the pedestrian circulation on Bridge Street. A wide variety of comments were made by the Planning Commission concerning this element of the proposal. While comments very critical of this proposal were made, other commissioners felt there was potential to modify the design in response to concerns over the loss of landscaping and the separated walkway. There was general agreement among the commissioners (and the staff) that the proposed additions complement the building by introducing a more human scale to this elevation. At issue with this proposal are the impacts resulting from this infill, both on the property and along Bridge Street. SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROPOSED A number of modifications have been made to this proposal. While each of these will be addressed in detail at the work session, the following summarizes the fundamental changes that have been made; 1. The addition of two planters contiguous to the building 2. Modifications to the shape and size of previously . proposed planters 3. Modifications to the footprint of the proposed infill 4. An additional street lamp has been added to the proposal 5. Additional landscape materials are proposed in the area of Vendetta's deck 6. Two street benches have been added along Bridge Street 7. Modifications to second floor expansions have been made. STAFF COMMENT ON THESE MODIFICATIONS Time does not allow the staf responses to each of these d these modifications have in this proposal. With the exc proposal is substantially th by the Planning Commission. by this proposal as are the Street. These two changes a most directly conflict with the Urban Design Guide Plan. f an opportunity to provide detailed esign changes. In general terms, no way changed the staff's position on eption of two planter boxes, the e same as the one originally reviewed The separated walkway is eliminated freestanding planters along Bridge re the elements of this proposal that the very specific goals outlined in There are issues directly related to this proposal that go beyond the application itself. Among these issues is the built environment versus open space features and the validity and role of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The built environment is obviously an important element of Vail. Equally vital elements of the Village's built environment are the open spaces, plazas and landscape features that together establish its charm and appeal. There is no question that from a strictly retail standpoint, the proposed infills will benefit this property. But the questions go far beyond this concept. The infill of Seibert Circle and Slifer Square would also provide great potential for retail development. Being public land, this is obviously not going to happen. The point, however, is that a balance must be struck between commercial interests and the interests of the Village as a whole. The Guide Plan was adopted as a statement of what the community feels is important with respect to design and development in Vail Village. There is no question as to the Guide Plan's direction for this area of Bridge Street. In every development review the question of balance between the built environment and open spaces must be addressed. With this application, the staff feels strongly that the public benefits of the landscaped planters and separated walkway far outweigh the benefit to the property owner that would be realized from this infill. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 23, 1987 SUBJECT: Work Session on the Lionshead Center Building This work session has been scheduled to allow the applicant an opportunity to informally present design plans prior to formal review by the Planning Commission. While a decision will not be made on this proposal at this review, both applicant and staff are desirous of hearing comments from the Planning Commission on this proposal. BACKGROUND OF THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan sub -area concepts #11 and #12, both refer to redevelopment and expansion of the Lionshead Center Building. These sub -area concepts refer to commercial expansion on both the north and south sides of the Lionshead Center Building. They provide for the opportunity of expansion of building, arcades, awnings, etc. to improve the scale, shelter and appearance of the facade. The majority of this proposal relates very well to the sub -area concepts outlined in . the Urban Design Guide Plan. The proposal, however, also includes building expansion to the west. The proposed design for this area consists of the removal of a substantial landscaped area and includes redesign of pedestrian circulation patterns in this area between the Lionshead Center Building and the Gondola. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS 1. The one story commercial expansion proposed on the north side of the building is basically in concert with that concept expressed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. The degree of this expansion, however, has raised some staff concerns. The building footprint will extend to within approximately one foot from the property line. The facade proposal includes a fixed rigid canopy system running the length of the mall frontage and encroaches approximately four feet over the property line. This creates a width of only 16 feet from canopy to the planter and staircase of the Lazier Building to the north. This design does not include the relocation of the existing street lighting located currently on the Lionshead Center property. This distance of 16 feet is below the required operational widths of the Fire and Public Works departments. 2. Expansion to the west of the existing building eliminates a large area of landscaping. Staff believes that this is probably the largest mature landscaped area within the entire Lionshed Mall and feel some effort should be made to preserve and maintain this landscaping. It should also be noted that the CCII zone district has the requirement of 10 foot setbacks, unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While the Guide Plan specifies the northern and southern expansions, the expansion to the west is not specifically called out in the Guide Plan, and therefore will necessitate approval of a setback variance. CONCLUSION While the staff is riot in a position to make a recommendation on this project at this point in the review process, we will state that, although the project generally meets the intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan, we are concerned with a number of specific issues and feel that this work session will be a positive climate in which to discuss some of these concerns. r� u U L� Sections: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 2. 3. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) DISTRICT Purpose Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Accessory Uses Lot Area and Site Dimensions Setbacks Height Density Control Site Coverage Landscaping and Site Development Parking Purpose M M 8 ff V The Hillside Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Hillside Residential District is intended to insure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable low density high quality residential development of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the HR district: Single family residential dwellings One caretaker apartment per lot. Conditional uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Public utility and public service uses B. Public buildings, grounds and facilities C. Public park and recreation facilities 4. Accessory Uses The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HR district; A. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreational facilities customarily incidental to single family uses B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 5. Lot Area and Site Dimensions The minimum lot or site area shall be twenty -one thousand seven hundred and eighty square feet of contiguous buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of fifty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square eighty feet on each side within its boundaries. 6. Setbacks In the HR district, minimum front setbacks shall be:--twenty feet, minimum side setbacks shall be fifteen feet, minimum rear setbacks shall be fifteen feet. 7. Height For a flat roof or mansard roof the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty -three feet. 8. Density Control Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site. Not more than twenty -five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first twenty -one thousand seven hundred eighty square feet of site area, plus not more than ten feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over twenty -one thousand seven hundred eighty square feet not to exceed forty -three thousand five hundred and sixty 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 forty -three thousand five hundred and sixty square feet. On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed twenty -five percent of the total developed gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the site. This unit shall not be subdivided or sold separately from the main dwelling. f ! • 9. Site Coverage Not more than fifteen (15) percent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. 10. Landscaping and Site Development At least seventy (70) percent of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet with a minimum area of not less than three hundred square feet. 11. Parking Off- street shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Departmet DATE: February 23, 1987 SUBJECT: Hillside Residential Zone District Through the Land Use Plan process, there was identified a need for a new low density residential zone district. The Land Use Plan has identified several sites for potential development, but has stressed that that develoment should be at a density lower than that identified by our existing residential districts. The staff has been working with the criteria identified in the Land Use Plan to develop this zone district. The sections of the Land Use Plan applicable to this zone district, along with our initial draft have been included in your packet. The purpose of this work session format is to allow discussion and to present an understanding of the reasoning that went into each section of this zone district. The following is a brief discussion of each of the 11 sections that make up the Hillside Residential District: 1. Purpose . The Purpose section of the district is written as a brief summary of the intention of the district as outlined in the Land Use Plan. 2. Permitted Uses The staff felt that similar to our existing residential zone districts, the only permitted uses should be the dwelling units. 3. Conditional Uses Conditional uses placed in here are those uses often seen in conjunction with a residential zone district: Public utilities, public buildings, park and recreation facilities. One use that we did not include within the conditional uses that is seen in some of the other zone districts in the community is that of allowing public and private schools. 4. Accessory Uses These accessory uses are the common accessories allowed and permitted in residential zone districts. This is similar to the existing zone districts in the community. • 5. Lot area and site dimensions. The density discussed through the Land Use Plan is two . dwelling units per acre. The staff then decided that the lot area should be a half acre minimum buildable area which is 21,780 square feet. We felt that in keeping with the desire to maintain a quality low density residential zone district, we should increase the required frontage to 50 feet in order to minimize the development of flag lots and maintain the low density appearance. We felt that maintaining the requirement for the 80 foot per side square ensures the location of an adequate building envelope. 6. Setbacks The staff feels that the existing setbacks presently in the existing residential zone districts are adequate and feel that we do not need to increase these setbacks for the Hillside Residential district. 7. Building Height We feel it is appropriate to maintain the 30 -33 foot standard S. Density Control This is the section of the zone district that deals with the GRFA of both the primary and caretaker units. This is the section that will control the bulk and mass and in essence the type of development that we are expecting here. We have included in this packet a worksheet that details GRFA as set on our standard formula. This worksheet details the GRFA that would be allowable on various lot sizes and also several alternatives regarding the GRFA of the proposed caretaker units. We feel that this area merits some further discussion as to what we were trying to accomplish through the inclusion of a caretaker unit. 9. Site Coverage We feel that 150 of the total site area is an appropriate amount of coverage by building. 10. Landscaping and Site Development This number is slightly increased above our existing residential districts, but we feel that this is in keeping with the concept of a low density, high quality district. 11. Parking This section is dealt with in accordance with the parking requirements currently laid out within the municipal code. • . In conclusion, the staff is comfortable with the majority of the sections of this zone district as we have drafted them. We feel that some discussion is warranted in the density control section. We feel that there must be a clear understanding of what we want to accomplish with this zone district with regard to bulk and mass of structures and with regard to the aspect of a caretaker unit. U • b:a w J � F i ti S,4tS } i 1 1., is 'lino i t 1LAl� S4ty 1l r' f � f i LAND USE PL F. That hillsides should also be assessed, taking constraints into con- ' sideration. G. That the Village and Lionshead Core Areas would remain essentially the same, with the addition of a transition area to strengthen the connec- tion between the two core areas. Several new land use categories aimed 2 at strengthenng hotel and other tourist - oriented uses were also added. 4. Proposed Land Use Categories New land use categories were defined to indicate general types of land uses which should occur within the Town during the planning period. These cate- gories were varied from the existing land use categories to reflect the goals of the community more accurately. The specific land uses are listed as examples and are not intended to reflect an all - inclusive list of uses. Uses would be controlled by zoning. These categories are indicated below. LDR Low Density Residential This category includes single- family detached homes and two family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. I,* MDR Medium Density Residential The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common wails. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/ public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. HDR High Density Residential The housing in this category would typically consist of multi - floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recrea- tional facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/ public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities. HR Hillside Residential This category would allow for single family dwelling units at densi- ties no more than two dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permit- ted would be typical single family accessory uses such as private 1 recreational amenities, attached caretaker units, or employee units i and garages. Institutional /public uses would also be permitted. These areas would require sensitive development due to slopes, access, visibility, tree coverage and geologic hazards. Minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling unit. (See Chapter VIII for more specific discussion of implementation.) 32 5. "Preferred Plan" Land Use Pattern wThe "Existing Trends" alternative was chosen as the preferred land -use plan and was carefully reviewed area by area to assess feasibility and compatibility with adjacent existing land uses. Some modifications were then made in proposed new areas of medium and high density because of potential land use and neighborhood conflicts. The pattern which is reflected on the "Preferred Plan" is discussed below. A. Residential Uses 1. Low Density Uses. Low density residential uses are now planned for a total of 699.0 acres, or about 21% of the land in the plan area, which is an increase of 8% over the area presently in low density residential use. These areas reflect the completion of existing platted pro- jects, with some additional areas added adjacent to the single family areas at low densities. The 8% increase reflects the large number of undeveloped, platted lots already existing in Vail. 2. Medium and High Density Uses. Medium and high density residential areas now account for a total of approximately 15% of the land in the plan area, with 421 acres in the medium density category and 68.5 acres in the high density category. This is a 4% increase in land area devoted to these two • land use designations, reflecting a need to accommodate additional market demand for multi - family uses. For the most part, these multi - family areas have been kept consistent with the pattern of existing land use with additional multi- family occurring within unfinished projects and adjacent to these multi - family areas. Some new areas of high density residential have been added, specifically in east Vail between the frontage road and I -70, where access is good and surrounding land uses would be compatible for this type of use. Other areas, north of I -70 where existing land uses are mixed containing both low and medium density uses have been shown as medium density to meet the demand for additional multi- family dwelling units within the 15 -year planning period. 3. Hillside Residential. The new category of land use types "Hillside Residential" covers a portion of two large parcels. These parcels account for 33.3 acres or a total of 1.0% of the land use area within the plan area. These parcels were designated in this category to allow the possi- bility for limited development if certain criteria could be met. Any development proposed would require the evaluation on a case - by -case basis, accompanied by an in -depth analysis, to assure sen- sitivity to constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the Valley floor, and compatibility with sur- rounding land uses. Any such development would be required to meet all applicable Town ordinances and regulations. (See Chapter VIII for more specific information on implementation.) 35 CHAPTER VIII - IMPLEMENTATION The Land Use Plan developed as a result of this effort will become a part of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, which in its entirety will serve to guide growth within the Town of Vail for the next 15 years. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Specific implementation measures should be undertaken to assure that the intent of th Plan is carried forward throughout the life of the Plan. Such measures should include changes to ordinances and regulations or policies adopted by the Town. These measures should also include develop- ing a system by which the Plan may be continuously monitored and periodic- ally amended. This is important because the planning process is one of continuous evolution with data, public opinion and market forces changing over time. 1. Land Use Regulation Analysis The zoning and subdivision regulations should be analyzed carefully to assure that objectives of the Land Use Plan may be met. While an in -depth analysis of these regulations is not within the scope of this project, some general recommendations may be made concerning new land use categories developed for the Land Use Plan. The following categories should be reviewed for compatibility with the zoning regulations. A. Hi 11 si de Resi denti al • This new category will require the adoption of a new zoning category, which would allow for single - family residential units at a maximum density of two per acre, with a minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet of contiguous area per unit. Allowance should also be made for an employee or guest housing unit to be built as an accessory unit attached to the primary living unit or garage. The existing regulations for access to subdivisions and for control of hazard areas should still be applicable. B. Community Office This category would require a review of the Arterial Business District zoning category to ensure that permitted and conditional uses were broad enough to be consistent with the objectives established with the Land Use Plan. C. Transition This area would require an analysis of the actual zoning along West Meadow Drive to ensure that the purposes of the transition district could be met. ' D. High Density Residential The actual location of the parcels of high density residential should be analyzed to determine a suitable minimum lot area permissible for high density development. The present high density zone district has the requirement of a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet of build- able area. It is conceivable that this minimum would not be adequate in some cases and may need to be increased to 20,000 square feet. 59 • • • t (HR) fiRFA WORKSHEET 0.25 -21780 0.1-21780 -4356 0,05 -43560 LOT SIZE SRFA MAIN UNIT 075% CARETAKER 025% CARETAKER 020% CARETAKER 0151 21730 5445 4084 1361 1089 917 22000 5467 4100 1367 1043 820 23000 5567 4175 17092 1113 935 24000 5667 4250 1417 1133 050 i 25000 5767 4325 1442 1153 865 26000 5867 4400 1467 1173 980 27000 5967 4475 1492 1193 895 28000 6067 4550 1517 1213 910 29000 6167 4625 1542 1233 925 30000 6267 4700 1567 1253 940 31000 6567 4775 1592 1273 955 32000 6467 4050 1617 1293 970 33000 6567 4925 1642 1313 965 34000 6667 5000 1667 1333 1000 35000 6767 5075 1692 1353 1015 36000 6867 5150 1717 1373 1030 37000 6967 5225 1742 1393 1045 38000 7067 5300 1767 1413 1060 39000 7167 5375 1797 1433 1075 40000 7267 5450 1917 1453 1090 41000 7367 5525 1842 1473 11070 42000 7467 5600 1867 1493 1120 43000 7567 5675 1892 1513 1135 44000 7645 5734 1911 1529 1147 45000 7695 5771 1924 15709 1154 46000 7745 5809 1936 1549 1162 47000 7795 5946 1949 1559 1169 48000 7045 5884 1961 1569 1177 49000 7995 5921 1974 1579 1104 50000 7945 5959 1986 1589 1192 100000 10445 7834 2611 2089 1567 200000 15445 11584 3861 3089 2317 300000 20445 15334 5111 4099 3067 400000 25445 19084 6361 5089 3817 0 0 0 0 0 • • • t Planning and Environmental Commission 9 March 9, 1987 1:30 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Heari 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 23. 2. A request for a front setback variance, a variance from required roof slope, and an amendment to the Arterial Business District circulation plan in order to construct a building at 1031 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership 3. A request for an exterior altertion and for a density control variance in order to construct an addition to the Sitzmark Lodge. Applicant: Sitzmark Lodgeb Fritch 4. Proposed revision to the Urban Design Guide Plan and a request for an exterior alteration in order to construct an addition to the Plaza Lodge building. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. 5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an addition to the Learning Tree Preschool located at 129 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Learning Tree Preschool 6. A request for front and side setback variances in order to construct two dwelling units on Parcel A, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Michael Tennenbaum I I* . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMMISION March 9, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Pam Hopkins STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 23. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6--0 in favor of approval. 2. A request for a front setback variance, a variance from required roof slope, and an amendment to the Arterial Business District circulation plan in order to construct a building at 1021 South Frontage Road. Applicant; Vail Commercial Partnership . Tom Braun pointed out that there were three requests. He added that with new survey information, the applicant was asking for a front setback variance. He showed new site plans. The staff recommended approval of the front setback request and denial of the roof slope variance and amendment to the circulation plan. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that based on a prior survey, the applicant had thought that the highway right- of--way was a curved line, but the new survey showed a straight line. Jim Morter, architect, admitted that the first proposal did show a stairstep building, but that for many reasons, it was not feasible to design the building in this way. He added that the applicant was proposing to build only one - third the allowable building size. He defended his design by stating that the building would have a low profile and thus a low impact, that is would preserve views from the highway and from the Professional Building, that the design screens the flat roof portion, the flat roof enabled him to screen the mechanical equipment, the slope roof would allow icicles to drip on pedestrians, that there was no practical way to put a sloped roof onto a wedge shaped building, and he claimed a physical hardship because of the shape of the site. He stated that he had met with a highway official and was told a second exit would be beneficial to the town, and well as give the Fire Department a way to drive their trucks through. Jim was willing to go Ank with an "exit only" or "or exit right turn only." Sid Schultz stated that he sided with the applicant with respect to the second exit and felt that with the new ramp, there would be additional traffic generated on this road which may then be made into 4 lanes. He agreed with the staff about the flat roof and was not convinced that a flat roof would be a better solution, and wished to see some of the schemes done with a pitched roof. He felt a flat roof seemed more like a strip shopping center, and that it did not have as much articulation as he would have liked. Diana Donovan stated that she would listen to the rest of the board regarding the roof and mechanical equipment. She did not like flat roofs. She wanted her concern about no signs toward the Interstate passed on to DRB. She asked if a second floor could be added to the structure, and Jim Morter replied that the building was not designed for a second floor. Jay Peterson stated that there would be from 4 to 6 businesses. Diana felt the second access should not be an entrance. She felt that the whole concern is that no one had addressed just what impacts the new ramp would have on the traffic in the area. She was appreciative of the fact that the applicant was not trying to maximize his GRFA. Tom Braun stated that until the exit ramp and intersection are designed, the staff had no idea what the impacts would be. He added that he dial not feel that a sign only on the extra access point would police the exit. He added that the Fire Department • did want the egress, but only need it for an emergency exit. Jim Morter stated that he did not have formal approval from the Highway Department because they wanted to see how the Town felt about the extra access. Tom Braun answered that in concept only, the egress would work, but in terms of enforcement, there were questions. Morter stated that he did not accept the validity of the ABD circulation plan. Bryan Hobbs had no problem with the front setback variance, but felt that the flat roof was not as attractive as a sloped roof. He felt the second exit could be designed so that one could not turn into it, but he was concerned that people would drive further west and turn back at some point. Peggy Osterfoss stated that Jim Morter's explanation of the flat roof hiding the mechanical equipment, and keeping the roof low was convincing. She felt the best solution of the traffic was to have the road 4 laned. Tom stated that this would have to be looked at and studied, as there were a lot of questions concerning the requirements of the State. Viele mentioned that the right -of -way was generous in that area. Peter Patten stated that in discussions with the State Highway Department, it was indicated that a "channelization" only would be done. He added that the staff had asked for 4 lanes throughout the area and was told the Highway Department had no interest in having 4 lanes in . that area. Patten also explained that when the Glen Lyon office is constructed, acceleration and deceleration lanes would be constructed and also at Cascade Village. PEC 3/9/87 # 2 J.J. Collins asked how much of the roof would be visible from I- 70 and Morter replied that the parapet would be visible from both lanes of 1 -70 and that it would hide the mechanical equipment. JJ then asked at what point the mechanical equipment would be visible and was told it would be visible beginning at Simba Run and above. Morter pointed out that the mechanical equipment would be visible at any rate, but that the flat roof would hide it as much as possible. He was asked if the north side of the building could be treated the same as the south, and replied that it would not make sense, because the situations were different. JJ felt the mechanical equipment would be highly visible from Simba and above. He stated that the building reminded him of strip shopping centers. Morter felt that the building was unique and not like a strip shopping center. Tom Braun stated that Larry Eskwith felt the PEC approval would merely allow the appliant to go to DRB with the flat roof. Peter Patten asked if everyone understood why the sloping roof was called for. He explained that pitched roofs versus flat roofs were an ongoing controversy in Vail. It was felt that this area would be made up of multi -floor office buildings and the Council decided that they wanted sloped roofs with 3:12 as a minimum pitch. Viele felt that a pitch of 3:12 did not do anything, but read as a flat roof and would not look alpine. . Tom mentioned that the 3:12 was a minimum pitch. Morter felt that he was meeting the intent of the pitched roof with his design. JJ remained concerned about the visibility of the mechanical equipment on the roof. Morter repeated that that was why he was going with a flat roof. J.J. felt that the traffic issue seemed to be part of a much larger issue. Peter told the board that he had had a meeting with the Highway Department, the Transportation department and the Parking Task Force. The Highway Department asked that the Town eliminate one access to the Old Town Shops. Peter felt that it was difficult to address one issue without looking at the entire area at this point. Jay felt that there was room in the whole area to create more lanes. He said the Highway Department seemed to feel comfortable with the additional access at the proposed site. J.J. said he had no problem with the exit, but did with the whole area. He wanted to see more study to hide the mechanical equipment. Jim Viele had no problem with the setbacks and felt the flat roof was the best way to hide the mechancial equipment. He did not remember the PEC feeling strongly about fiat roofs in the Arterial Business District. Viele felt that regarding parking and circulation, each site must be looked at individually because of changes made since the Circulation Plan was adopted. Viele did not have any problem having the access be an exit only and could have signage to that effect. J.J. asked Viele if PEC 3/9/87 #3 • he meant the signage would be exit only to the right, and Jim answered that as far as he was concerned people could turn either way because there was lots of right -of -way to work with and the acceleration /deceleration lanes could be extended to the west. Viele then mentioned that at the old Town Shops, people were backing onto the Frontage Road. Tom pointed out that a right turn acceleration lane was not called for in the plans presented. Morter said that with the speed limit at 25, it was not needed. Diana pointed out that much of the time the white lines were not visible because of snow. Peter asked Jay if the speed limit would be reduced near Cascade when Cascade puts acceleration /deceleration lanes in and Jay replied that the speed limit would be 35 to Cascade, then 45 beyond Cascade. Peter felt that it was critical that the Highway Department look at the plan proposed. Morter stated that he would like to resolve the roof and setback issues and come back later with the access issue. Jim Viele felt that there was a consensus to table the issue of the access. Hobbs moved and Osterfoss seconded to approve the request for the front setback request and the roof slope variance due to physical hardship per the staff memo dated 3/9/87. J.J. asked if Morter were willing to paint the mechanical equipment the color of the roof and tuck it into the parapet wall and Morter said he was willing to do those two things. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of the two variances. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to table the issue of the second access until the first meeting in April if the staff has had two weeks in which to review the new submittal. The vote was 6 -0 to table. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and for a density control variance in order to construct an addition to the Sitzmark Lodge. Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge /Bob Fritch Kristan Pritz showed a model of the Sitzmark proposal and explained that the proposal included adding 3 accommodation units which required a density variance. After explaining the memo related to the exterior alteration, Kristan added that the sixth condition asked for by the staff should be amended to include "Credit will be given the owner in an equitable manner for expenses incurred in improvements related to this project." She then explained the density memo. Duane Piper, the architect representing the owner, summarized the density request and explained that 3 accommodation units had been removed when retail was added to the Gore Creek Drive side of the building. The applicant was now requesting to add 3 accommodation units. PEC 3/9/87 # 4 • Jim Viele felt the presentation was well done and the request fell within the guidelines of the Land Use Plan. He stated that this was obviously a large investment by the owner, that it would be an improvement to the pedestrian way, and that it was a good example of expansion within limits. J.J. Collins asked if there was any reason why the owner would not want to utilize the remaining allowable GRFA at the present time. Diana Donovan wished to have a guarantee for 3 or 4 years that the large tree on the west side would live. Bob Fritch, the owner and applicant, objected to that requirement, stating that he paid for the tree originally and did not feel it was fair to ask him to guarantee the life of the tree when transplanted. Bob added that it was going to be expensive to move, and he would have capable people move the tree. Diana replied that it seemed fair. She discussed the railing on the wall near the creek and felt it did not seem appropriate. Duane explained that the creek bank was very steep in that area and the railing was for safety as well as transparency. Peter showed plans of the pedestrian area along the creek (Gore Creek Promenade) and stated that the staff is working with Winston and Associates, Craig Snowdon, Duane Piper and Bob Fritch on the design. Diana said she preferred benches like the ones at Gorsuch because the benches used at the Bell Tower and at Vendettas were splitting. Diana moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the density variance per the staff memo dated March 9, 1987. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Diana moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request for exterior alteration per the staff memo dated March 9, 1987 with the addition to condition #6 as stated by Kristan. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 4. Proposed revision to the Urban Design Guide Plan and a request for an exterior alteration in order to construct an addition to the Plaza Lodge Building. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. Tom Braun showed a model and explained the changes made since the last presentation. He felt that the new changes had no effect on the street enclosure and the street edge was now defined. Craig Snowdon, architect for the proposal, added more information about the changes. Diana Donovan suggested using tree guards around the aspens. Peggy Osterfoss asked about the deck enclosure of Vendetta's and wanted to know if the windows would be able to be opened. Discussion of the windows followed with the final agreement that PEC 3/9/87 # 5 the openings would be co- which would be stackable be at either end. Peter they were supporting the with most of the windows partially closed. �rered with 7 sliding glass doors, 5 of and the 2 panes that did not open would asked that the PEC explain clearly why deck enclosure, which could be that operable, the deck was only being Discussion followed concerning whether or not to require the windows to be open a certain number of days. Tom pointed out that this did not work at the Red Lion. Peter added that with the Red Lion, there were problems with communication between the tenant and the owner, with the tenant not realizing that he could not close the windows at night during the time the windows were expected to remain open, which resulted in a security problem for the tenant. It seemed better to make the windows operable and trust the restaurant operator to keep them open when possible. Diana stated that she liked the proposed changes on Bridge Street but could not support the deck enclosure. B ran Hobbs moved and Pe ggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the request with the conditions per the staff memo dated 3/9/87. The vote was 5 in favor, 1 (Donovan) against. . 5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an additionto the Learning Tree preschool located at 129 North Frontage Road. Rick Pylman explained the addition and where it would be located. He mentioned that the ABC school next door had been told of the addition and did not voice any objections. J.J. Collins moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve the conditional use request. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 6. A request for front and side setback variances in order to construct two dwelling units on Parcel A, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Michael Tennenbaum Rick Pylman explained that the request was for side and front setback variances. He reviewed the consideration of factors necessary in order to approve the request and explained that the staff recommended approval of the front setback variance and denial of the side setback variance request. The staff felt that there was no physical hardship to warrant approval of the side setback variance. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that even • before the property had gone through the subdivision process, the applicant has planned to build in this location in order to PEC 3/9/87 # 6 save trees. He admitted that all three sites had been designed at the same time in order to save trees. He pointed out that on the east was open space owned by the Town so there would be no impact on that property. He added that many homes were built to the property line in that-area, so it would not be a special privilege. Curt Cegerberg staked the home and explained that it was true that a tree would be lost if the home were moved. J.J. Collins said that he did not understand how the architect could not successfully design around the trees and within the setbacks as required. He added that it was not for Jay and the PEC to decide how to design a home that would respect the landscape and maintain the setbacks. Peggy Osterfoss said that J.J.'s comment described her perception. In this case she felt concern that if the subdivision had not been created, there would not be the problem. She felt the subdivision benefited the applicant, but that the applicant now had to bear the burden of a smaller lot to work within. Bryan Hobbs agreed with Peggy and J.J. as did Diana and Sid. Jim Viele did not agree, but felt that there was a hardship. Bryan Hobbs moved and Sid Schultz seconded to deny the request for side setbacks and to approve the request for front setbacks per the staff memo dated 3/9/87. The vote was 5 in favor of the motion and 1 a ainst Viele . PEC 3/9/87 # 7 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to amend the general circulation plan relative to the proposed redevelopment of the Voliter property. Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership A general circulation and access plan was adopted in conjunction with the adoption of the Arterial Business Distict in 1982. This circulation plan is intended to be used as a guide for the development of sites and the design and location of buildings within the district. The plan was seen as a tool for developing a comprehensive set of circulation improvements in conjunction with the subsequent redevelopment of parcels within the district. The applicant has requested an amendment to this circulation plan thwt requires review and approval of the Planning Commission. I. BACKGROUND ON THE CIRCULATION PLAN A copy of the consultant's report for the circulation plan has been included for your review. The report concentrated on the areas of trip generation, ingress and egress, and pedestrian circulation. Projections of trip generation were made, as well as recommendations for maintaining smooth operation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the district. 11. AMENDMENT REQUESTED The applicant has requested an additional access point off of the Frontage Road to serve the westerly portion of the property. The circulation plan indicates the property to be served only by a joint access with the Vail Professional ,Building at the easterly end of the parcel. The additional access way is seen as providing greater ease of access for the users of this development as well as egress for fire trucks.. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff has reviewed this requested amendment and finds little merit for its support. The report's primary recommendation with respect to ingress and egress is to: "Whenever possible, driveways on either side of the • roadway should be constructed to line up with each other." The circulation plan recommends the consolidation of access points to the Glen Lyon Office Building, the Vail Professional Building, and the Voliter site. The additional driveway to this property would create another access point that is directly inconsistant with the goal of the circulation plan. It is not difficult to understand why the developers are desirous of this additional access. One of the primary design considerations for a convenience center of this type is to make access and parking as easy as possible for the users of the facility. In this case, the additional access way has the potential to create impacts on the Frontage Road that are in direct conflict with the-goals of the zone district. The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to deny this proposed amendment and maintain the integrity of the Arterial Business District circulation and access plan as adopted in 1982. • • • 5 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 20, 1983 SUBJECT:. -Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan Attached please find a copy of JH K's report on the circulation and access plan 'for this area. We have drawn up the proposed Circulation and Access Plan according to this study's recommendations and from the input from Ed Gebhardt of the State Highway Department. The plan will be presented to you in a graphic form at the meeting. We feel the plan as proposed will adequately achieve the goals of keeping through traffic flowing smoothly as well as reducing-and consolidating the access points to the various properties in the district. We recommend approval of the Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan. The plan will be submitted to the State Highway Department for their approval. 1/24/83 Funding must be worked out within 60 days and no building permit issued until the...funding is worked out. t Prepared by: Town of Vail Arterial Business District General Circulation and Access Plan JHK and Associates 2429 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 y hk & ❑SSOMIUCS A INTRODUCTION Through Ia recent ordinance the Town Council has created • an "Arterial Business District" along the south frontage road of 170 from about 300 feet east of West Lionshead Circle across Red. Sandstone Creek to about 760 feet west of Red Sand- stone Creek. The total length of frontage road adjacent to the boundaries of the new district is about 2,100feet. Through ordinance #5 (Series of 1982) the Town Council established a requirment of the new district that states a general circulation and access plan must be adopted by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This report is intended to recommend general design criteria for use in this first Arterial Business District. This report will be site specific to the West Vail Arterial Commercial District as described above. At a recent Town Meeting, Council asked several questions that will be addressed in this report. Those questions, as we Understand them, are as follows: 1. Should the Town of Vail require speed change lanes at points of ingress and egress in this business district? 2. Should the Town of Vail strive to line up points of access on either side of the frontage road? 3. Is there a need for a bike /pedestrian overpass near the intersection of the frontage road with West Lionheads'Circle? CURRENT CONDITION This section of 170 South Frontage Road is two lanes with narro+4 paved shoulders in some areas; there is a 100 foot right- 2.5 of --way. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH; at present there is over 13 vehicle access points on the frontage road within the *hk atiti4ClaCC5 business district and no facilities for pedestrians or bikes. • A recenttraffic count east of the district.near the Town Hall indicates an ADT figure of approximately S,OOOvehicles /day. (This figure will be verified the week of August 2nd with a traffic count near Priest Lionshead Circle.) The importance of this arterial to the Town of Vail Transportation System cannot be overstated. The vehicle carrying capacity of the roadway as well as the person carrying capacity of�"e., ,corridor_ - should�be_ protected and enchanced where possible. TRIP GENERATION . Several assumptions were made for this analysis. They are as follows= i. -The large property serving as Vail Associates equipment . storage will not redevelop in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it will not contribute tc.the vehicle trip generation rates in this analysis. 2. Floor Area Patio will be limited to .75 x total site area as stated in the enabling ordinance: 3. The mix of office space to retail space will be based on a 9:1 ratio. As stated in the ordinance creating the district - "Retail stores and establishments (will be) generally accessory and /or supportive of office uses..." The development potential of the district (not including the V.A. Service Yard) is shown in Table 1. Using the assumptions above, some 202,000 sq. feet of office space could develop in the near future with 22,000 sq. feet of supporting retail. This is the development allowed under ordinance #5. -2- * Note: For this analysis, it is assumed that for 5 years or. longer the V.A. service Yard will not redevelop. C _.__..._ hk _ . _... a.ssodat�s Table I Office and Retail Development Assumptions* PROPERTY TOTAL SITE F.A.R. OFFICE RETAIL SQ- FT. .75 SQ. FT. (900) SQ. FT, (100) 1.' Holy,.Cross 60,984 45,738 41,165 4,573 2. Texaco :._ 39,204 - 29,403 =^ 26,463 2,940 3. Voliter 43,560_ _.-- 32,670 -.. 29,403 _ 3,267 4. Glen Lyon 74,052 55,539 49,986 5,553 Office 5. Chevron 39,204 29,403 26,463 2,940 6. Old Town 43,560 32,670 29,403 3,267 Shops Total 300,564 225,423 202,880 22 543 • , * Note: For this analysis, it is assumed that for 5 years or. longer the V.A. service Yard will not redevelop. - , T � hk 8: associates In some cases site conditions wi11 not allow full. development. As an example, the Texaco property would allow • 29,403 sq. feet of development. There is, however, a . plan under consideration showing 22,000 sq. feet. Trip generation for this district was again developed excluding the V.A. Service Yard. (1t should be noted that the development potential of this site is large compared to the total district. This one property is over 31% of the total Arterial Business District.) Table 2 presents a list of each property and its associated number of vehicle trips should that property completely develop. On an average weekday a total of 3,477 trips could be generated in this one business district. As stated before, there are about 5,000 vehicle trips per day using the south frontage road in the area of Town Hall. • There is little question that potential development in this district could have a significant impact. More importantly, all of these trips will be turning either left or right in the space of about'2,100 feet; and peak hour office generated trips occur during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. • INGRESS AND EGRESS To maintain the traffic carrying capacity of this section of roadway the following design criteria are recommended: A. Whenever possible, driveways on either side of the roadway should be constructed to line up with each other. Using this standard,driveways would be locat -d as follows: -4- Note: Trip generation rate — 11_0 Trip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet_ �Notez Trip Seneration rate — 50.0tZip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet. —5— 'hk - Table 2 Potential Development (.75 F.A.R and Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends ..PROPERTY OFFICE SQ. FT. OFFICE TRIPS* RETAIL RETAIL (900) SQ. FT. TRIPS ** (104) 1. Holy Cross 41,165 480 4,573 225 2. Texaco .26,463 308 2,940 145 3. Voliter 29,403 343 3,267 1fi0 4. Glen Lyon 49.986 583 5,.553 277 Office �. Chevron. 26,453 308 2,940 145 .6% Old Town Shops 29,403 343 3,267 160' Subtotal Trips .2,365 2112 • dotal firips 3.477 , Note: Trip generation rate — 11_0 Trip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet_ �Notez Trip Seneration rate — 50.0tZip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet. —5— jhk L` 1. V.A. Service Yard/West Lionshead Circle; 2. V.A. Service Yard/Forest; 3. Common Drive -- Holy Cross and Vail Associates properties /Chevron and Town of Vail properties; 4. Common Drive - Texaco and Voliter properties/ Glen Lyon Office property. At such time as the Vail Associates property redevelops, the driveway at Forest could be closed. B. At such time as the property redevelops, the driveways should be constructed with left -turn lanes, as well as, speed change lanes on either side of'the frontage road. C. Design of the driveways should conform to the standards the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town of Vail were discussed. All frontage roads are given the lowest access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows: 1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of Highways. 2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10 of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage Road from Category Five to Category Four. In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access • code for specifications of driveway design. _(,- set forth in The State Highway Access Code, August 31, 1981. . In reviewing the Business District with Dave Campbell of the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town of Vail were discussed. All frontage roads are given the lowest access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows: 1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of Highways. 2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10 of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage Road from Category Five to Category Four. In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access • code for specifications of driveway design. _(,- BIKE /PEDESTRI:AN CIRCULATION J The south -side of the frontage road as well as the future path along the creek are the best locations for bike/ pedestrian movement through this district. For several reasons, circulation on the north side of the frontage road should be limited to local access .between buildings and to and from crosswalks. This study recommends that the Town locate crosswalks only at the four driveway intersections. A bike /pedestrian bridge is needed across Red Sandstone Creek. First'priority, would be on the south side of the frontage road. When the Vail Associates property redevelops, the question of a bike /pedestrian overpass at West Lionshead Circle should be addressed. When grade separations for pedestrians and bikes are used, it is usually necessary to direct.people to the facility to discourage crossing the highway at grade. Grade separations should not be considered as traffic control devices, but as a supplemental technique. Some of the factors to consider in analyzing the need for bike /pedestrian separation structures for highways include: I. Are there other reasonable crossing alternatives? 2. Are the traffic volume and pedestrian volume levels in excess-of those required by MUTCD to warrant installation of a pedestrian or school signal? -7- • 1 „ . -hk 3. Are there no traffic signals, stop sign control, or other grade -- separated crossing within 600 feet of the proposed location? 4. Are pedestrian accident problems evident on the street under consideration? 5. Is vehicular traffic speed such that it poses significant hazard to pedestrians?. 6. Is there no way to prevent pedestrians from crossing at grade? 7. Have organized groups expressed a high degree of interest.for the separation? 8. From a decision standpoint, is it practical to construct the separation within existing physical conditions? The factors to be considered in this determination include cost, security, vandalism, aesthetics, possible conflict with utilities, and terrain conditions. CONCLUSION Through the use of a Planning and Environmental Commission adopted circulation and access plan, the vehicle carrying capacity and safety of the 170 South Frontage Road can be insured. Design criteria for this district will establish standards that can be fairly and equally applied to all redevelopment. It is hoped that this report will assist in that effort. -8- s J Re`.crences 1. "The State Highway Access Cock," adopted by the Colorado State Highway .Commission. July 16, 1981. 2. "Trip Generation," an ITE Informational Report, 1976. 3. Town of Vail. Ordinance 45 (series of 1982, June 1, 1982). 4. "West Vail Arterial. Commercial District," Development Plan, Drawing No. Five. 5. Telephone Conversation with Dave Campbell, Colorado Department of Highways, Safety Engineer, July 30, 1982. ztz I TiM M Z3 11= . LQ WEN I-T4 F-F? A r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 20, 1983 SUBJECT;. -arterial Business District Circulation and Access 01-a -n Attached please find a copy of JHK's report on the circulation and access plan for this area. We have drawn up the proposed Circulation and Access Plan according to this study's recommendations and from the input from Ed Gebhardt of the State Highway Department. The plan will be presented to you in a graphic form at the meeting. We feel the plan as proposed will adequately achieve the goals of keeping through traffic flowing smoothly as well as reducing-and consolidating the access points to the various properties in the district. We recommend approval of the Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan. The plan will be submitted to the State Highway Department for their approval. 1/24/83 Funding must be worked out within 60 days and no building permit issued until the..,funding is worked out. { i• Prepared by: Town of Vail Arterial Business District General Circulation and Access Plan JHK and Associates 2429 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 t' 4 1 c C hk a J & astioci:lte5 INTRODUCTION Through'a recent ordinance the Town Council has created an "Arterial Business District" along the south frontage road of 170 from about 300 feet east of West Lionshead Circle across Red Sandstone Creek to about 760 feet west of Red Sand- stone Creek. The total length of frontage road adjacent to the boundaries of the new district is about 2,100feet. Through ordinance #S (Series of 1982) the Town Council established a requirment of the new district that states a general circulation and access plan must be adopted by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This report is intended to recommend general design criteria for use in this first Arterial Business District. This report will be site specific to the West Vail Arterial Commercial District as described above. At a recent Town Meeting, Council asked several questions that will be addressed in this report. Those questions, as we understand them, are as follows: 1. Should the Town of Vail require speed change lanes at points of ingress and egress in this business district? 2. Should the Town of Vail strive to line up points of access on either side of the frontage road? 3. Is there a need for a bike /pedestrian overpass near the intersection of the frontage road with West Lionheads,Circlo? CURRENT CONDITION This section of I70 South Frontage Road is two lanes with narrow paved shoulders in some areas; there is a 100 foot right - of --way. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH; at present there is over 13 vehicle access points on the frontage road within the N.-.. .... :k55UCIJiCS business district and no facilities for pedestrians or bikes. . A recenttraffic count east of the district near the Town Hall indicates an ADT figure of approximately 5,000vehicles /day. (This figure will be verified the week.of August 2nd with a traffic count near West Lionshead Circle.) The importance of this arterial to the Town of Vail Transportation System cannot be overstated. The vehicle carrying capacity of the roadway as well as the person carrying capacity o:f,..�he,7,corridor_. sho -uld -be. protected and enchanced where possible. TRIP GENERATION 'Several assumptions were made for this analysis. They are as follows: i. The large property serving as Vail Associates equipment . storage will not redevelop in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it will not contribute to.the vehicle trip generation rates in this analysis. 2. Floor Area Ratio will be limited to .75 x total site area as stated in the enabling ordinance: 3. The mix of office space to retail space will be based on a 9:1 ratio. As stated in the ordinance creating the district - "Retail stores and establishments (will be) generally accessory and /or supportive of office uses..." The development potential of the district (not including the V.A. Service Yard) is shown in Table 1. Using the assumptions above, some 202,000 sq. feet of office space could develop in the near future with 22,000 sq. feet of supporting retail. This is the development allowed under ordinance #5. -2- u • • _.. Table 1 Office and Retail Development Assumptions* jhk& associaccs PROPERTY TOTAL SITE SQ. FT. F.A.R. .75 OFFICE SQ. FT. (90%) RETAIL SQ. FT. (10 %) 1. Holy-.Cross 60,984 45,738 41,165 4,573 2. Texaco 39,204 29,403 26,463 2,940 3. Voliter 43,560 - 32,670 29,403 3,267 4. Glen Lyon - 74,052 55,539 49,986 5,553 _ . Office 5. Chevron 39,204 29,403 26,463 2,940 6. Old Town 43,560 32,670 29,403 3,267 Shops Total 300,564 225,423 202,880 22,543 * Note: For this analysis, it is assumed that for 5 years or longer the V.A. Service Yard will not redevelop. -3- 00 i ` � a • hk 8: associates In some cases site conditions wiil-not allow full development. As an example, the Texaco property would allow 23,403 sq. feet of development. There is, however, a plan under consideration showing 22,000 sq. feet. Trip generation for this distract was again developed excluding the V.A. Service Yard. (It should be noted that the development potential of this site is large compared to the total district. This one property is over 31% of the total Arterial Business District.) Table 2 presents a list of each property and its associated number of vehicle trips should that property completely develop. On an average weekday a total of 3,477 trips could be generated in this one business district. As stated before, there are about 5,000 vehicle trips per day using the south frontage road in the area of Town Hall. There is little question that potential development in this district could have a significant impact. More importantly, all of these trips will be turning either left or right in the space of about 2,100 feet; and peak hour office generated trips occur during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. INGRESS AND EGRESS To maintain the traffic carrying capacity of this section of roadway the following design criteria are recommended: A. Whenever possible, driveways on either side of the roadway should be constructed to line up with each other. Using this standard,driveways would be locat.d as follows: -4- Ll PROPERTY 1. Holy Cross 2. Texaco 3. Voliter 4. Glen Lyon Office �. Chevron. 6. Old Town Shops Subtotal TriiDs Total Trips 2,365- 1 1 2;312 3, 477 * NOte: Trip generation rate - 11,0 grip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet. 'k Note: Trip zjenerati on rate - 5 0 _ O tTip Ends /10 0 0 grass sq. feet. \ *hk & ass <iciates Table 2 Potential Development (.75 F.A.R.) and Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends OFFICE OFFICE RETAIL RETAIL SQ. FT. TRIPS* SQ. FT. TRIPS ** (90o) (100) 41,165 480 4,573 225 26,463 30B 2,940 145 29,403 343 3,267 1-60 49,986 583 5,.553 277 26,463 308 2,940 145 29,403 343 3,267 150' 2,365- 1 1 2;312 3, 477 * NOte: Trip generation rate - 11,0 grip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet. 'k Note: Trip zjenerati on rate - 5 0 _ O tTip Ends /10 0 0 grass sq. feet. 1. V.A. Service Yard /ti%'e -t Lionshead Ci.rcic2; 2. V.A. Service Yard/Forest; jhk 3, Common Drive - Holy Cross and Vail Associates properties /Chevron and Town of Vail properties; 4. Common Drive - Texaco and Voliter properties/ Glen Lyon Office property. At such time as the Vail Associates property redevelops, the driveway at Forest could be closed. B. At such time as the property redevelops, the driveways should be constructed with left -turn lanes, as well as, speed change lanes on either side of'the frontage road. C. Design of the driveways should conform to the standards the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town of Vail were discussed. Ali frontage roads are given the lowest access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows: 1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of Highways. 2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10 of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage Road from Category Five to Category Four. In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access • code for specifications of driveway design. -(y- set forth in The State Highway Access Code, August 31, 1981. in- reviewing the Business District with Dave Campbell of the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town of Vail were discussed. Ali frontage roads are given the lowest access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows: 1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of Highways. 2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10 of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage Road from Category Five to Category Four. In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access • code for specifications of driveway design. -(y- LJ C --hk i,Ti,JVPEDESTRIAPI CIRCULATION The south,side of the frontage road as well as the future path along the creek are the best locations for bike/ pedestrian movement through this district. For several reasons, circulation on the north side of the frontage road should be limited to local access.between buildings and to and from crosswalks. This study recommends that the Town locate crosswalks only at the four driveway intersections. A bike /pedestrian bridge is needed across Red Sandstone Creek. First priority would be on the south side of the frontage road. When the Vail Associates property redevelops, the question of a bike /pedestrian overpass at West Lionshead Circle should be addressed. When grade separations for pedestrians and bikes are used, it is usually necessary to direct.people to the facility to discourage crossing the highway at grade. Grade separations should not be considered as traffic control devices, but as a supplemental technique. Some of the factors to consider in analyzing the need for bike /pedestrian separation structures for highways include: 1. Are the other reasonable crossing alternatives? 2. Are the traffic volume and pedestrian volume levels in excess -of those required by TMUTCD to warrant installation of a pedestrian or school signal? -7- *hk i 3. Are there no traffic signals, stop sign control, or . other grade- -se'parated crossing within 600 feet of the proposed location? 4. Are pedestrian accident problems evident on the :J street under consideration? 5. Is vehicular traffic speed such that it poses significant hazard to pedestrians ?. 6. Is there no way to prevent pedestrians from crossing at grade? 7. Have organized groups expressed a high degree of interest for the separation? S. From a decision standpoint, is it practical to construct the separation within existing physical conditions? The factors to be considered in this determination include cost, security, vandalism, aesthetics, possible conflict with utilities, and terrain conditions. CONCLUSION Through the use of a Planning and Environmental Commission adopted circulation and access plan, the vehicle carrying capacity and safety of the 170 South Frontage Road can be insured. Design criteria for this district will establish standards that can be fairly and equally applied to all redevelopment. It is hoped that this report will assist in that effort. • • i a -b , .. .._.__.. Rrc erences 1. "The.State Highway Access Code," adopted by the Colorado State Highway Commission. July 1G, 1981. 2. "Trip Generation," an iTE Informational Report, 1976. 3. Town of Vail Ordinance 05 (series of 1982, June 1, 1982). 4. "West Vail Arterial Commercial District," Development Plan, Drawing No. Five. 5. Telephone Conversation with Dave Campbell, Colorado Department of Highways, Safety Engineer, July 30, 1982. -9- .f Igf ape pa $,wT 49 Ny At f0i AL all-In w '' r� 000 17' � .-d *wad•. � '� ".fir+ � � -y . � Jy, �. NO WA At Tn- �V':. —It t" t 0 wA v r t ­: I rr-p-. 'Frl Fp 00 4W�i= erer 'I OL S P. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance and a variance from required roof slope in order to construct a building at 1031 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED As the Planning Commission may recall, this property requested and received variances from the Planning Commission on January 26, 1987. Since that time new survey information has been obtained that required the redesign of this structure. This redesign has prompted a request for a front setback variance to allow a portion of the parking lot to be located within the required front setback. The degree of encroachment varies from 4 to 9 feet into the required setback area. Section 18.29.070 of the Arterial Business District requires a minimum slope of any roof to be 3:12. The applicant has if requested a variance from this requirement to proceed to the Design Review Board with a flat roof design. 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 front setback variance and denial of the requested variance to the required roof pitch based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There is a direct relationship between the front setback variance request and existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. It is the purpose of the required front setback to require adequate landscape buffers between parking areas, buildings and the Frontage Road. In response to this, the applicant has submitted a vicinity map showing the ultimate future improvements to the Frontage Road through the widening and addition of left and right turn lanes. This plan shows 16 feet remaining between the ultimate impact of road improvements and the site's property line. This would result in a 27 foot buffer between the paved area of the parking lot and the beginning of the Frontage Road. It should be noted that the vicinity plan submitted by the applicant includes a total of 5 lanes, while the ABD circulation plan indicates only 4 lanes in this area. Given this illustrative, the staff feels that the variance requested can be mitigated by providing landscaping off of the site between the property line and the beginning of the paved surface of the Frontage Road. It is not typical that a design consideration such as requiring pitched roofs is included in the zoning code. Nonetheless, the Planning Commission and Town Council saw fit to include this requirement when the Arterial Business District was adopted in 1982. The only property to be redeveloped since the adoption of this district has been the Vail Professional Building. This structure was designed to comply with the required roof pitch. The Glen Lyon Office building has an approved addition that attempts to address the impact of the existing flat roof. This design includes a sloped roof feature that visually reads as a pitched roof. To approve this variance would affect the general direction the zone district has taken with this redevelopment and approved addition to existing structures in the area. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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 redesign of this structure has maintained the basic amount of square footage while attempting to provide more pedestrian area on the front side of the shops. Coupled with having to position the building closer to the Frontage Road because of new survey information, this has resulted in the encroachment of paved area into the required front setback. This is not unlike the previous setback variance that was approved in January, although the encroachment is somewhat greater. Given the information provided by the applicant's vicinity map, it is felt that the intent of the landscape buffer can be net and will not be impacted through future improvements to the Frontage Road. While the issue of physical hardship may be self- created through the size of the structure proposed, it has been demonstrated that impacts resulting from this setback can be mitigated. It has been recognized that the triangular shape of the lot creates some constraints in its development. However, with respect to the roof pitch requirements, it should be noted that the applicant has submitted previous plans showing a design with a sloping roof. It is the impression of the staff that the difficulties in designing a pitched roof to the structure are driven by the size of the building proposed. As with the front setback request, there is little in the way of a physical hardship to justify this request. . However, in this case there are no mitigating circumstances to warrant support of this variance request. The effect of the requested variance on light and aim distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Neither of the two requested variances affect any of the above mentioned criteria. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As has been stated in this memorandum and during previous meetings, the shape of this site creates some difficulties in its development. However, the amount of square footage being proposed is creating an equal, or greater, amount of difficulty in complying with this zone district's development standards. The staff is comfortable with the requested front setback variance in light of the information provided by the applicant. This information indicates that an ample landscaped buffer can be provided even with the ultimate development of the South Frontage Road. With respect to the required roof pitch, it is the feeling of the staff that a pitched roof could be accommodated on the stucture with slight reductions in the building footprints. While the staff is in support of the requested front setback variance, our recommendation concerning the variance request to the required roof slope is for denial. r] TO: Ron Phillips FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 3, 1987 RE: Preliminary recommendations on how to proceed with further evaluation of the Congress Hall proposal The staff has had an opportunity to consult a number of nationally known consulting firms following Tuesday's discussion of the Congress Hall proposal. The purpose of these contacts were to seek advice from experts on how to proceed with our evaluation of the Congress Hall proposal. It was a consensus of the people we contacted that the basic fundamental approach to evaluating a facility of this nature involves three steps. These include: Market Feasibility Economic /Financial Assessment Site /Programmatic Analysis The market analysis is generally the first of these three steps to be completed. Given the results of a thorough market analysis, determination can be made as to whether it is reasonable to pursue further study. The economic and site analysis will then provide more specific information in terms of project feasibility. The following provides more detailed information concerning each of the three components of the convention center analysis: 1. Market Feasibilit The Tourism Techniques study provides a solid basis for a thorough market analysis of a Congress Hall in Vail. Based on our conversations with convention center feasibility consultants, there is a need to further refine the capture rate as projected for this facility. Generallly, two additional steps need to be taken: a. Competitive Market Analysis Within Vail It is critical to determine what percentage of the meeting market we are presently capturing. In addition, close analysis of the existing market can more clearly define the charateristics of groups who have already used Vail for meetings or conventions. For example, usage patterns already established in Vail relative to seasonality, group size and type, lodging nd facility needs, and a more clear understanding of business lost for lack of adequate facilities will all supplement the TT study. r b. Competitive Market Analysis in Region Somewhat similar to the above mentioned analysis, the focus of this study would be on competing resort facilities in the region. 2. Economic /Financial Assessment The economic /financial assessment of a convention facility would include estimated building costs, expenses such as marketing and O and M, anticipated revenues (both direct and indirect), and financing alternatives. This analysis could also include recommended management strategies such as how its operation would interface with established entities within the Town. 3. Site /Programmatic Analysis This step would most logically be done concurrently with the economic /financial assessment. In many respects, the site /programmatic analysis is driven by the market feasibility information. For example, the individual markets for groups sizes will dictate the size of the facility, number of break -out rooms, etc. Alternataive uses would also be generated from the market study and refined during this process. Critical issues in the site analysis include environmental, planning (i.e. parking), transportation, and proximity to the Town's bed base. It should be understood that the information presented in this memorandum is the result of a limited amount of research conducted this past week. It is based on information we have received from experts in the field of preparing feasibility studies for convention facilities. While the fundamental approach to evaluating the feasibility of this type of facility is universal, there are undoubtedly specific issues in Vail that would need to be addressed. It would be our recommendation that any further study initiated by the Town be done in a comprehensive manner to address the multitude of interrelated issues inolved in this process. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to the Plaza Lodge Building located at 291 Bridge Street. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST Revised plans have been submitted for this proposal following the Planning Commission's work session on February 23. The revised proposal is very responsive to issues identified by the staff and Planning Commission during the course of the review of this project. Original concerns of the staff centered on the removal of the planters along Bridge Street and the elimination of the separated walkway between the planters and the Plaza Lodge. The goals of the applicant were to eliminate the grade change and steps to the walkway, while bringing storefronts out closer to the pedestrian traffic on Bridge Street. The compromise proposal that has been submitted appears to meet the goals of both the applicant and the staff. While the proposal will still change the appearance of this prominant section of Bridge Street, staff now feels that the overall effect of this change, both with respect to the building and from an urban design standpoint, will be positive. In addition, the proposal is no longer in conflict with Sub -area Concept 13 -A and as a result, a revision to the Urban Design Guide Plan is not required. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Guide Plan serves to identify physical improvements for strengthening the overall fabric of Vail Village. Referred to as Sub -Area Concepts, these improvements are proposed to reinforce the overall character of the village with particular emphasis on improving the pedestian experience. The primary concern with respect to this proposal centered around Sub -area Concept 13 -A. This reads as follows: Sub -Area Concept 13 -A. Raised sidewalk may become major pedestrian route during delivery periods. Slight widening warranted. Potential for open arcade for snow protection over wooden walk. • Landscape improvements include: new consolidated stairs, tie retaining walls replaced with masonry, upgraded plantings. The revised proposal maintains the integrity of the separated walkway along Bridge Street. While a substantial portion of the existing planters are removed, the walkway is anchored by two prominent planters at either end of the property. Near the entrance to the lodge are two additional planters that serve to define the separated walkway. While two portions of this wallkway become an extension of Bridge Street, it is the feeling of the staff that the planters proposed will still define the walkway and provide a viable alternative route during those times when the loading zone is occupied. While modifications are proposed for the walkway, staff feels that the intent of Sub -Area Concept 13 -A is still being met with this revised design. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following considerations address the primary form giving physical features of the Village. It is the goal of the Design Considerations that through their application, future changes will be consistent with the established Village 40 character and result in positive contributions to the Village experience. These considerations include the following: Pedestrianization As proposed, the separated walkway in front of the Plaza Lodge will be altered, but still serve as a useful and pleasing separated walkway from Bridge Street. This is particularly important considering the loading zone on Bridge Street adjacent to this property. The redesign will also eliminate the vast majority of the grade change, particularly at the north end of the property, which should improve the appeal of this walkway for the pedestrian. Vehicular Penetration Factors addressed in this consideration are not applicable to this proposal. Streetscape Framework The two types of improvements generally proposed to improve the streetscape framework include landsbaping and commercial expansions. While this proposal originally created an interesting paradox with respect to this consideration, the revised design responds well to this consideration by designing the retail expansion in conjunction with the street planters. This compromise proposal is consistent with the consideration as outlined in the Guide Plan. One element of the proposed infill that is consistent with the steetscape framework consideration is the paratiall iinfill of Vendetta's deck. At the present time the existing restaurant facade is recessed from other portions of the elevation resulting in a facade that is difficult to see. The existing situation does not provide a strong impression of visible activity or street life to the pedestrian in this area. The proposed infill would bring this activity out closer to the pedestrian way, thereby providing greater visual interest at this portion of the building. Street Enclosure The sense of enclosure from the building expansion has not changed from the original proposal. The sense of enclosure varies greatly along this section of Bridge Street and would not be negatively impacted by the building expansion. The one to two story expansion will, however, provide a more human scale for the Plaza Lodge. Street Edge As with streetscape framework, this consideration is addressed quite well through the most recent re- design. The building jogs in the proposal are very pleasing, and the structure follows the slight curve in Bridge Street. At the same time, the planters and raised curb proposed along the property line clearly define the street edge. Building Height Building height considerations are not applicable to this proposal because of the 1 to 2 story nature of this addition. views There are no impacts on major view corridors from this proposal. Service and Delivery Impacts on service and delivery have been mitigated by the new design that incorporates street planters. These will provide some relief between loading vehicles and pedestrians on the separated walkway. Sun /Shade While this proposal will still result in a very slight increase in shadow patterns on Bridge Street, it is felt that the impact is negligible and not of sufficient cause to recommend denial of this proposal. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is in support of this compromise proposal and feel the overall impacts on Bridge Street will be positive. The design solution proposed for the building was never an issue with the staff, and feel that it is a well done addition to the structure. Our concerns with the addition's impact on the walkway and street have been mitigated through the redesign. While there is a reduction in the amount of planter area, the location and design of the proposed planters are responsive to the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the integrity of the plan is maintained,•if not reinforce, through this proposal. Conditions of Approval Through previous approvals the owner of this propertyhas agreed to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district for Vail Village if and when one 40 is formed. We would recommend the following change to this condition: 1. The applicant's participation in public improvements (special improvement distrit), shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini- special" improvement district to re- design and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicant's contribution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village -wide district is formed. This condition is recommended to facilitate improvements to Seibert Circle if they are proposed prior to a Village -wide improvement program. An equitable credit program would ensure that the financial burden on the applicant does not increase (for example, the property owner would not be assessed twice for both programs. Costs incurred through Seibert Circle would be credited toward the property's fair share of a Village -wide improvement district). 2. The windows on the west elevation of the deck enclosure shall be operable so that "open -air" use of the enclosed area is possible. 0 P TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department March 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the Learning Tree preschool. Applicant: Learning Tree Preschool I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Learning Tree is a private, non - profit child care center located on the Town of Vail parcel known as the Mountain Bell site. This parcel is a 25 acre site owned by the Town of Vail and currently contains the Mountain Bell microwave facility, the ABC School, and the Learning Tree School. The parcel is zoned Agriculture. and Open Space. Schools are allowed as a conditional use. The existing Learning Tree lease extends through 1993. The original lease of the Learning Tree which was initated in August of 1978, stipulates that any buildings or other improvements will become the property of the Town of Vail upon expiration of the lease. The existing building is approximately 1,000 square feet. The proposed expansion entails the addition of approximately 560 square feet in a 14 x 40 foot addition to the north side of the building. The addition provides for area for an office, a parent conference room, increased toilet facilities and increased entry and storage areas. The existing building, as well as the proposed addition, are shown to be in a moderate rock fall zone as depicted on the original Town of Vail geological hazard maps. A site specific study has been conducted by Nicholas Lampiris. His determination is that this line can be adjusted and that no mitigation will be required for construction of this addition. 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 factor: Consideration of Factors. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Community Developmen provide quality day care of the Town of Vail. We negative impacts to the will present no negative . ability to provide this stipulations that are in t staff believes that the ability to is a benefit to the citizens and guests feel that this use has existed with no community and that the proposed expansion impact but will further enhance the service to the community. The lease effect require an admissions priority to students of parents who reside within the Town and parents whose major employment is within the Town. this service is a benefit to the community and see impacts involved in the addition. students whose We feel that no negative The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of pa ulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. As the proposed expansion is merely providing an expanded working area for the present operation, and does not include an increase in the number of students or employees of the facility, the Community Development staff sees no impact on the above criteria. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. As previously stated, the proposed addition is an increase in the current working area available to the school. It does not involve an increase in the number of employees or in the number of students. Therefore, there is no reason to believe there will be an increase in vehicular trips or an increase in parking demand. We see no impacts on the other factors with the proposed addition. There appears to be adequate parking and drop -off area currently. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The existing building is located on a 25 acre parcel that is surrounded by open space. The existing structure, along with the addition, presents no negative impacts to adjacent properties. The only forseeable impact we do see from this project is to the existing ABC School which is located immediately adjacent to the Learning Tree expansion. The applicant is working with the ABC School on this proposal; to date we have received no comment from the ABC School. III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the propo.sed 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, safaety, 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the conditional use permit request for the Learning Tree expansion proposal is for approval. We feel that the use involved provides a benefit to the community and feel that the only potential area of impact is to the ABC School. u TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a front and side setback variance for Parcel A; a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7 Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Michael Tennenbaum I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Michael Tennenbaum, is requesting a 12 foot variance from the required 20 foot front setback and a 10 foot variance from the required 15 foot side setback for the newly created Parcel A; a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Parcel A is a relatively long and narrow lot sloped from the south to north. Total lot length is 195 feet and the depth varies from 64 feet to 95 feet. The length of the building envelope (minus setbacks) is 155 feet, and the depth varies from 29 feet to 60 feet. As a result of the subdivision requested previously by Mr. Tennebaum, the lot was shortened by approximately 20 to 35 feet on the east end. The front setback entails encroachment of garage areas for each unit of approximately 12 feet into the required setback. The slope along this front setback area for the most part exceeds 30% which allows staff to waive setback requirements for garages. There is, however, some area on the east end of the lot that does not exceed 30% and thus technically requires variance approval. The requested side setback is for living space on the west end of the parcel. On the east end of the parcel the structure is located 30 feet from the property line. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the municipal code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the front setback variance and denial of the requested side setback 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. A. Front Setback Request In a situation where the average slope underneath the proposed parking areas exceeds 30%, the staff and Design Review Board may waive the required front setback standards. The west unit in this proposal does meet that criteria, however, the encroachment of the east unit is in an area of less than 30% slopes and thus technically requires approval of setback variance. In this area of the community, building lots of slopes greater than 30% are fairly common. There are many examples of garages placed within the front setback, both through staff waiver of request and through variance request approvals. We feel there is precedent for this request and that there is no negative impact on existing or potential uses in the surrounding area. B. Side Setback Request The parcel adjacent to the west end of Parcel A is owned by the Town of Vail as an open space tract, therefore the request does not present an immediate impact upon a building site on the adjacent lot. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is is treatment 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. A. Front Setback Request Staff feels that due to the slope and the narrowness of precedent of approving front areas on steep lots in this grant of special privilege i variance request. relative steepness of this the lot as well as the setback requests for garage area, that there would be no n the approval of the front B. Side Setback Request The Community Development staff feels that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. We believe there is little to no physical hardship on this parcel which would require a side setback variance. The length of the allowable building envelope is 155 feet. The lot was shortened a distance of 20 to 35 feet by the applicant under a recent application. A building envelope of 155 feet in width is adequate area in which to place a primary /secondary structure. Any claim of hardship due to inadequate length of the lot we believe is self imposed by the owner as a result of the . resubdivision and a pre - conceived design imposed on the �3 site. Furthermore, the design provides for 30 feet from the eastern property line, giving 15 feet of area wot work with to avoid a variance situation. Although there is no building lot to the west of this proposed variance, we feel that this would be a special treatment among sites in the vicinity and would constitute a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities public facilities and utilities, and public saw A. Front Setback Assuming that both structures will accommodate two car garages, then the parking requirements for this site are being met within their property lines. There is an indication on the site plan that a retaining wall will encroach slightly over the property line onto Town of Vail right -of -way. This will require final approval of the Public Works Department prior to Design Review Board approval. Other than that, we see no effect on the other factors involved in this criteria. B. Side Setback The effect of this proposal upon this criteria if the side setback variance is approved would be the potential impact of the proximity of the structure to the Town of Vail parcel should the Town ever desire to construct any public facilities on this parcel in the future. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commmission shall lmake 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: That 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation is for approval of the front setback variance and denial of the side setback variance request. We see little negative impact involved in the front setback request and believe that precedent has been set for this action. We feel that there is no physical hardship driving the side setback request and feel that it would be a grant of special privilege. We believe that this lot provides adequate space for the siting of a primary /secondary structure without requiring a side setback variance. We feel that any hardship is self imposed by the owner through his previous minor subdivision request and subsequent design. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 23, 1987 2:30 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearin 1. A request for a conditional use permit for commercial storage at the West Vail Mall located at 2161 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Venture /Mr. Dave Tyrrell 2. A request for a front setback variance and requests for conditional uses for a drive - through window and outdoor dining deck on Parcel A, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone Subdivision. Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership To be 3. A request for a setback variance to add retail space tabled by to the Lionshead Centre Building located on Lot 5, applicant Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium Assoc. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 3/23/87 PRESENT J.J.Collins Diana Donovan Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Byran Hobbs Pam Hopkins STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for commercial storage at the West Vail Mall located at 2161 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Vail Vail Mall Joint Venture /Mr. Dave Tyrrell Rick Pylman stated that the applicant was requesting to utilize 375 square feet of space located on the northwest corner of the lower level below Bullock's for storage. Dave Tyrrell was present representing the Vail Mall Joint Venture. Diana Donovan moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the . request for commercial storage. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. A request for a front setback variance and requests for conditional uses for a drive - through window and outdoor dining deck on Pacel A, A Resubdivi_.sionof Tract D, Vail das Schone Subdivision. Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership Rick Pylman explained that both setback variances and conditional uses were being requested. The property had recently been subdivided and rezoned to CCIII. Rick showed site and landscape plans and stated that the staff felt there would not be any negative impacts from the request. Jay Peterson represented the applicant and stated that he had worked with the staff for 9 months on the subdivision, rezoning and then this application. J.J.Collins stated that the applicant had been to DRB concerning the aesthetics for conceptual review. Peggy osterfoss felt the use was appropriate for the site. She wondered how snow removal would work and was told that the applicant had committed to hauling the snow away. Diana Donovan felt there should be a small area to store some snow. The applicant stated that there would be room on the westerly side, but to meet the Town of Vail • • code, would require more answered that many times away it doesn't quite ge space than there was available. Diana when snow is supposed to be hauled t done. Peter Patten asked how the parking had been computed, and was told that there were more spaces than the Town of Vail required, but the number of spaces was similar to other restaurants the applicant operated. Sid Schultz was concerned about snow removal and wanted to make certain that the DRB would focus on needed landscaping. Jim Vlele felt that regarding the setbacks, he felt it was better to use some of the unused portion of the road setback rather than push the building back and have to have more retainage. Diana asked if it would be possible to have higher landscaping on the back, and was told that small evergreens would be planted on the retaining wails. Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the conditional use permit request per the staff memo dated 3/23/87. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. Diana Donovan moved and Sid Schultz seconded to approve the setback variance request per the staff memo with concern of the PEC to DRB regarding landscaping and snow storage. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. . 3. _A request for a setback variance to add retail space too the Lionshead Centre Building located on Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium Assoc. Rick Pyman stated that the applicant requested to table the request to an unspecified date. Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to table the request. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 0 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for conditional use permits in order to have a drive - through window and a dining deck on Parcel A, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone Subdivision. Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant, the Wend Group Partnership, is requesting these conditional uses as well as a setback variance in order to develop a Wendy's restaurant on this site. This parcel was identified through the Land Use Plan as having the potential for a community commercial use. It was subsequently subdivided and rezoned to Commercial Core III. Commercial Core ITT requires as a conditional use, drive -up facilities and also any use which is permitted which is not conducted entirely within a building. The outside dining deck falls into this category and thus also requires a conditional use permit. This memorandum will deal solely with the conditional use permit requests. The setback variance request will be covered under a separate memorandum. The applicant feels that the proposed drive - through window will represent a large and essential part of the restaurant business. It is the applicant's statement that approximately 30% of sales will be from the drive - through window. This window is situated to allow for the stacking of up to 10 cars without an encroachment upon traffic circulation or parking. The drive -up window stacking lane will also be utilized as the loading area for the restaurant. The applicants have stated that loading occurs during hours in which the business is not open to the public. Should loading occur during restaurant hours, by utilizing the drive- through lane as the loading area, there would be no encroachment upon traffic circulation or parking. We feel that utilizing this area for this secondary use is a positive attribute in that it reduces the required amount of asphalt on this site. The conditional use request for outside dining consists of a small patio of approximately 400 square feet. The patio has been located on the south side of the building for maximum sun exposure, will contain several landscape planters and is separated by a guard rail from vehicular traffic on site. 0 II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permits based upon the following factor: Consideration of Factors. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Land Use process identified this parcel as a potential site for community commercial. Subsequent resubdivision and zoning supported by the Town staff and approved by the Town Council reaffirmed that development objective. The conditional uses requested for both the drive - through window and the outdoor dining patio are incidental uses customarily found associated with this type of restaurant. The Community Development Department feels that this use does meet the development objectives of the community and therefore the requested conditional use permit requests also meet those development objectives. The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, • parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The two conditional use permits requested have no impact on this criteria. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed outside dining patio has no impact upon this criteria. The concept of a drive - through window could, if improperly designed, negatively impact congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and traffic flow and control. However, we do feel that the building and site plan provide adequate stacking distance for the drive - through window and that the parking and traffic flow on this site will function well with no negative impacts. 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 two proposed conditional uses are incidental uses to the . permitted use on the site (a restaurant). Neither of the requested uses add bulk or mass to the permitted restaurant. In fact, the opportunity of a drive - through window reduces 0 the required size of the restaurant as does the availability of exterior seating. III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the pr02Osed 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, safaety, 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 both the conditional use permit request for a drive- through window and the conditional use permit request for an outside dining area. We feel that these uses are incidental to the permitted use on the site and create no additional negative impacts. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance on Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D. Vail das Schone Subdivision. Applicant: Wend Group Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, the Wend Group Partnership, is requesting a variance of five feet from the required 20 foot front setback. The parking and loading section of the CCIII zone district states that off - street parking and loading shall be provided with no parking or loading area located in any required front setback. The proposed site plan (enclsed) shows a five foot encroachment into this front setback. The requested encroachment is a portion of an access lane that leads to the parking area and associated travel lanes. The applicant states that no viable alternative design configurations are available other than reducing the width of the access lane to approximately 15 feet. The applicant goes . on to state that impact of the encroachment is minimal and is mitigated by the following factors: 65 - 70 feet of area exists between the property line and the edge of the pavement. The owners propose significant landscaping on the remaining 15 feet of front setback as well as the 65 -70 feet between the property line and the edge of pavement. 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 front setback 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 site plan that has been submitted for this proposal places the building well back from the required setbacks and places most of the parking and asphalt to the side of the property. The minor encroachment of the accessway into the • front setback still maintains a green space area of approximately 85 feet to the edge of pavement of the Frontage Road. • In relation to the other commercially approved properties along this area, this is an improvement with regard to the buffer from the Frontage Road. Many of the commercial properties developed along this road were developed through Eagle County and developed without the benefit of this regulation. Therefore, the buffer between the parking and the Frontage Road is minimal. We feel that the amount of buffer along with the intense landscaping plan proposed present a workable situation for this request. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified reaulation is The intent of the regulation allowing no parking within the front setback is to maintain an adequate buffer between parking areas and the public road. We feel that by maintaining the 15 foot area of the setback and by instituting an intensive landscape plan for the area between the parking lot and the Frontage Road, the intent of this regulation is being met and therefore granting of this variance would not be a special privilege. The majority of the commercial space that was developed along the Commercial Core III area was developed through Eagle County and does not maintain this requirement. 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 Community Development staff feels that the requested variance has no negative impact upon this criteria and in fact, is an attempt to enhance this criteria. The requirement could be met by narrowing this access lane to 15 feet in width. The applicant, in attempting to maintain appropriate safety standards, has submitted the variance request. We feel that the impacts are minimal and that we are gaining safe access in travel lanes through this request. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • 0 1 J III. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in The Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. We feel that the five foot encroachment into the 20 foot setback presents minimal impact when viewed in conjunction with the proposed landscape plan, and when recognizing that the distance between property line and the edge of pavement is up to and exceeds 70 feet. Discussion with the Town Engineer indicates that there is very little possibility of this road ever widening, and therefore this 70 foot distance will be maintained. We feel that this combination of factors complies with the intent of this section of the zone district and feel that any negative impacts are adequately mitigated and that it is not a grant of special privilege. r- -I 0 i' �• � 33 • , i „ .ry N x1 � r jTII c F I f x t SITE PLAN • r: TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for commercial storage at the West Vail Mall located at 2161 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Venture /Mr. Dave Tyrrell 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting to locate a storage space within the West Vail Mall. The space would be used as "dead file storage" for Land Title Guarantee. The space is approximately 375 square feet. The storage space is located on the northwest corner of the lower level below Bullock's and behind the television and film repair shop adjacent to the Kowloon restaurant. Presently the space is used as storage for the West Vail Mall. The West Vail Mall is located in Commercial Core III zone district which lists commercial storage as a conditional use in Section 18.27.030. This section of the code reads: "O. Commercial storage - as long as it does not include any existing exterior window display frontage on any public way, street, or mall area, and no existing exterior window dislay frontage on any public way, street or mall area is removed in order to provide commercial storage, and the commercial storge shall be limited to 10% of the gross commercial square footage of the building." The conditional use wording stipulates that 10% of the total gross commercial square footage: of the building may be used for storage. The West Vail Mall has approximately 38,000 square feet of commercial area. This results in 3800 square feet of space being available for commercial storage. The applicant's request of 370 square feet is well within the limit of 3800 square feet. At this time, the owners of the West Vail Mall have not leased out any other space for storage purposes. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit • based upon the following factor: Consideration of Factors.Relationship and on development objectives of the Town. aact of the use The intent of the Commercial Core III zone distict states: "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 to vehicular traffic than the other commercial zone districts within the Town of Vail. Commercial Core III district is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain a convenient shopping environment." Staff's opinion is that the West Vail Mall 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. The effect of the population, trans parks and retreat . needs. The storage space have no impact on • use of light and air, distribution of Dortation facilities, utilities, schools, ion facilities, and other public facilities is located in a basement level and will the factors listed above. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and Aarkinq areas. The entrance to the space is through an existing loading dock on the west side of the building. Land Title plans to make a minimal number of delivery trips to the space. Once the files are delivered, they will rarely need to access the information. Impacts on traffic will be minimal. 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. Staff believes that the storage area will have no effect upon the character of the area. 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, safaety, 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for 370 square feet of storage. The storage area is located in a basement level which is removed from the high use areas of the West Vail mall. Staff believes that the storage is a use frequently associated with commercial areas, and due to the fact that there are no negative impacts from the proposal, it is felt that approval of the request is warranted. • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 20, 1987 1 :30 P.M. SITE VISITS 3:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Approval of minutes of March 9 and March 23. 2. a. A request to adopt rules of procedure for home occupancy revocation hearings. b. Consideration of a request for a stay of execution of the order of the zoning administrator revoking Vail East Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit and establishment of a date to hear the appeal of the revocation of the East Vail Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit. 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a parking lot on top of the west half of the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation water plant located at 846 Forest Road. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated San Dist. 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a residence on Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tennebaum 5. A request for front, side, rear and stream setback variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential floor area variance and a variance from required landscaping in order to construct additions on Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation 6. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Josef Stauffer 7. A request for setback variances in order to construct additions to the property at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Howard, Judy and Steven Berkowitz 8. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage at 325 Forest Road. Applicant: Tim Drisko 9. A request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new zone district to be entitled "Hillside Residential ". Applicant: Town of Vail • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 20, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Hobbs STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Rick Pylman Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of March 9 and March 23. Diana Donovan moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 9. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the meeting of March 23. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. a. A request to adopt rules of procedure for home occupancy revocation hearings. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that for the first time, a home occupancy permit revocation was being appealed. He explained that this would be a quasi - judicial hearing and the PEC would act like a judge and would decide whether or not to uphold or overturn the revocation of the license. Larry gave the Planning Commission a list of rules of procedure. Diana Donovan moved to adopt the "Commission Regulations Setting Forth Procedures Applicable to Appeals of the Revocation of Home Occupancy Permits by the Zoning Administrator." The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the vote to adopt was 6 -0 in favor. 2. b. Consideration of a request for a stay of execution of the order of the zoning administrator revoking Vail East Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit and establishment of a date to hear the appeal of the revocation of the East Vail Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that he felt there was no harm done by granting a stay of execution, since there would probably not be very much business until. June. Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to hold the hearing of this license on May 27 at 3:00 PM. The vote was 6- 0 in favor of this date. • . 3. A request for a conditional use permit In order to construct a arkin lot on top of the west half of the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation water plant located at 846 Forest Road. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation T)i st-ri rt- Peter Patten explained that this building was located in the PUD zone district and the Planning Commission sets the standards for this zone district as applicable. UEVCSD wished to relocate their parking facility from Town of Vail land and Vail Associates property to their own property. He showed site plans and explained that the staff was concerned that there be some type of screening to the west as well as to the north. Dave Mott, applicant, stated that he had no problem with landscaping to buffer the view to the north, but it was difficult to do now until the width of the road is known. He felt that UEVCSD should not be asked to submit a bond to the Town of Vail since he felt this was inappropriate between two government entities, but was willing to submit a letter of credit. He added that he would be willing to raise to 42" the rail on the parapet wall to the west, but felt that no amount of screening would be adequate to hide the parking from the building to the west. Peter stated that but that a letter buffer to the west adjacent property. Town Council, and a bond was standard procedure with everybody, of credit would be fine. He added that some was important for future development on the Peter presented the parking proposal to the they had no problems with the proposal. Pam Hopkins was concerned about having enough landscaping to the north and having it done well. She felt that with the new road so close to the existing road, enough landscaping was very important. Sid Schultz and Diana Donovan agreed. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she did not feel comfortable approving the request until she had more information on the final design of the new ramp and whether or not there would be enough room to landscape the area for adequate screening. J.J. Collins' main concern was with making certain that there would be enough landscaping provided when the Highway Department's design was completed. He felt that there really was no way to plan the landscaping without State Highway Department input. J.J.'s second concern was with screening the lot to the west. He felt that with the present conditions, the proposed parapet wall was adequate, but was concerned that future use of the property to the west would change the • • required screening. Peter's concern was that in the future the Town could not go back and ask for more or different screening. J.J. moved to approved the request for the conditional use permit conditional upon Design Review Board review and in light of requirements for landscaping on the north property line, especially as it would be related to the new exit. Also required would be a letter of credit from the applicant. The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the vote for approval was 5 -0. 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a residence on Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tennenbaum Rick Pylman showed site plans and explained that the applicant was requesting a 10 foot variance from the 15 foot side setback requirement for a lot which had recently been created by the applicant. Rick stated that the applicants also owned the property to the east (Parcel A) and were willing to restrict development on Parcel A to a distance of 25 feet from the property line by use of a deed restriction or covenants. Rick explained that the staff requested that this area be left as . undisturbed open space, but the applicants declined to leave this buffer undisturbed. Rick also stated that the side setback area requested for encroachment contained several fairly significant natural features, including two large spruce trees. The staff recommendation was for denial of the side setback variance because they felt there was no physical hardship driving the side setback encroachment and felt it would be a grant of special privilege. Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that the applicants could have achieved the requested setbacks if they had requested a special development district, but had preferred to go through a subdivision process instead. They felt that any problems could be achieved through the variance procedure. He felt the integrity of the setbacks was being maintained. J.J. Collins stated that he did not see why a building could not be designed in such a way that it remained within the setbacks and did not destroy large trees. Jay replied that this was the area in which to place the house to take advantage of the views. J.J. pointed out that the applicant had a clear lot on which to build and plenty of room. Jay replied that when the trade -offs became too great, they decided to ask for a variance. He added . that hundreds of hours were spent on various schemes on all three sites. Peggy asked if there was any interest in protecting the two evergreen trees that would be lost. Jay replied that they were already spending a lot of money on landscaping. Peggy said J.J. did a good job of expressing her views. She felt that she would work with the proposal if the lost landscaping would be replaced. Jay stated that a landscaped buffer could be a condition of approval. Kurt Cegerberg stated that they were trying to bring landscaping into the building area and attention would be paid to bring landscaping into the buffer area. Diana felt it was too bad that the applicant first created the lot and then could not design a house to fit the lot. Jay replied that he could have asked for a special development distict and gotten rid of the property line and kept within the interity of the zone code and received approval. He added that he would rather use the variance procedure as long as he could keep the integrity of the zone code. Sid shared a lot of the feelings the other members stated. He wished it hadn't gotten to this state, but felt if there was a 30' buffer between the houses, it would preserve the distance factor. He added that he did not feel driven to preserve the . rock outcropping. Pam felt that there was no hardship on which to base the granting of a variance. Jay replied that any time the PEC is given a variance, they look at it on a site by site basis, that each project stands alone. Jim Viele agreed with Jay with respect to the proces. He added that if there is no objective judgement involved, there would be no variance procedure. He stated that in the overall view, the purpose of the setbacks is to maintain the distance of separation between dwellings. He wondered if the project would be a better one if it conformed to the setback regulations and added that he would rather see the house where is was proposed to be rather than take out additional trees. J.J. asked why the house was sited where it was on Parcel A to the west, and Kurt replied that they were trying to pick up views of Gore Range and down valley and that the dwelling was broken up to help to reduce the massiveness of the project. J.J. stated that on Parcel B he saw plenty of room within the required setbacks. 0 Curt said he could not argue with the fact that one can fit something on the lot, but the trees were a major concern. Jay added that on any given site one can build without going into setback areas, but it may make an uninteresting town. J.J. pointed out that each time he had seen the PEC challenge an architect, the architect had been able to come up with a plan within the setbacks. He repeated the fact that the architect in this case had a clean piece of property. Jay answered that they had voluntarily torn down the existing structure and should be given latitude to build, that they were being penalized for making a clean site. Viele spoke in favor of the proposal as long as the buffer would remain. Jay answered that there would be a deed restriction that only the Town of Vail could remove the buffer. Pam Hopkins pointed out that another owner could hire Jay to ask to remove the buffer. She added that the PEC was going through this process because Parcel A had to be a minimum site. Jay said the purpose of the subdivision was to stop from having two old homes being added onto. He added that they knew they might have to ask for variances when they planned the subdivision. Peter Patten felt that the natural features should be preserved within the 15 foot setback area and added that this was a self created hardship. Jim Viele moved to approve the variance with the findings that the strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zone code. He specified that particular attention be paid by the DRB of landscaping planned to be in the 30 foot buffer. Sid seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor and 2 (JJ and Pam) against. 5. A request for front, side, rear and stream setback variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential floor area variance and a variance from required landscaping in order to construct additions on Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal, stating that the applicants wanted to build two 2 -car garages and additional square footage allowed under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The staff recommendation was for denial as it was felt the additions could be constructed within the setback areas. Tom Briner, one of the architects on the project, spoke in favor of the project and Dan Rickli, another architect, explained that there seemed to be a discrepancy in the amount • of square footage that they were adding. Jerry Lewis and John Kennerly, applicants, also spoke in favor of the project. Rickli felt that garages should not be counted as site coverage if they were not counted as GRFA. He also proposed eliminating 4 parking spaces and decreasing the curb cuts from 4 to 3. Jim Viele asked Betsy if the staff had had time to review the new proposal, and she replied that they had not. Craig Snowdon, architect representing the adjacent neighbors to the west, Steve Berkowitz, read a letter from Berkowitz objecting to the encroachments, stating that views would be negatively impacted. J.J. felt it was difficult to consider the proposal with a discrepancy in statistics. Peggy Osterfoss agreed and also felt concern for Berkowitz's views. Rickli disagreed that the additions would impact the views from the Berkowitz property. Peggy added that the burying of the garage was a step in the right direction, but she stated that she would like to see fewer than 3 road cuts with more landscaping instead of asphalt. Diana agreed and added that her main concern was the stream setback. Sid's biggest concern was site coverage. He also felt there was too much asphalt. Briner mentioned that this was a DRB issue. Pam Hopkins abstained from comment because her firm was . working on the Berkowitz proposal. Jim Viele stated that when a proposal contains so many variance requests, it is a good indication that too much is being placed on the site. Jerry Lewis asked if he could table and Peter answered that the item could be tabled until 4/27 if the applicant could get revised figures and drawings into the Community Development Departmant by Wednesday morning, the 22nd. Lewis requested to table to 4/27. Diana moved and Sid seconded to table the request until April 27. The vote was 5 -0 -1 (Pam abstained from voting.) 6. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. Tom Braun presented the amendment request and stated the staff recommended denial, citing the need for additional parking, assurances the Ski Museum would be relocated, and the need for accommodation units. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, reminded the board that twice the Vail Village Inn complex had submitted phased projects, but the potential developers could not fund the . projects. Now Joe Staufer will develop the new phases himself. Jay explained the valet parking and stated that it was a temporary measure until the next phase could be constructed. He stated that it was not economically feasible for Mr. Staufer to construct additional parking with this phase. • Jay stated that the applicant was willing to restrict the dwelling units per the staff recommendation. Regarding the Ski Museum, Jay stated that 4,000 square feet of building could be given to the Town to use free of charge for any use the Town would want. Pam asked if valet parking was planned for the commercial area, and Jay replied that it was not. Joe Staufer stated that he had 30 - 50 parking spaces that are always empty. He added that the Sonnenalp, Plaza, and Bell Tower had all expanded and none had added any parking. Jay then pointed out that there were no large projects being constructed at this time which were not phased. Pam agreed with the parking, and felt that perhaps more locals would be using this parking lot. Sid also did not have any problem with the parking and felt that to receive the 4,000 square feet of space in the building was better for the Town than for the Town to receive $15,000 to relocate the Ski Museum. He did feel that the new residential units should be controlled for public use. Diana felt the units needed to be available for rental. She felt that the Museum relocation must be worked out and must be a part of this amendment. Joe Staufer felt that the Town did not gain anything by "kicking the owner out" especially if the owner wanted to be in Vail for two months in the summer. Mr. Staufer suggested that the unit be available for rental and not be the primary residence of the owner. Diana stated that she did not patronize many of the stores in the Vail Village Inn complex because she did not have any place to park. Diana asked for a commitment to finish the building as proposed. However, she still felt that there would be a parking problem. Jay said that for the parking to work, all the phases must be done. Peggy Osterfoss felt that the proposal should include assurance that the developer will relocate the Ski Museum and relandscape because a landscaped area was being removed in the proposal. Jay replied that with the new proposal, the Town of Vail would end up with a large chunk of real estate. He added that the applicant was willing to participate in redoing the intersection. Peggy stated that she did not want to see the landscaping issue lost in the shuffle, and felt the responsibility rested with the developer. More discussion followed concerning parking. Peter pointed out that parking spaces under the condos were controlled by a gate and were under utilized. Tom felt that it was the responsibil- ity of the developer to provide parking on the site. J.J. referred to the memo which indicated a shortfall of 100 spaces. He was told 18% of the spaces were required to be valet and he wondered how the decision was made to have 18% of the spaces be valet. Tom replied that it varied with use. He added that phases I and II contained 22,000 square feet and phase III contained 10,000 square feet with no parking provided. He added that he felt it was the repsponsibility of the developer to provide parking on the site. Joe Stauffer said he would like to be able to pay into the parking fund as did businesses in commercial Core I and II. J.J. suggested that perhaps Staufer could pay the Town for parking at building permit time and the Town could repay Staufer when his parking was complete. The Ski Museum was discussed. Tom stated that at present the amended SDD did not address the needs of the Ski Museum. Jay pointed out that the space offered to the Town was worth $1 Million. J.J. said it seemed like an opportunity for the Town, the space could be sold for a substantial amount of cash. Tom pointed out that one condition was that it be used for the public. Jay stated that they were willing to remove that stipulation. J.J. felt the key issue of the owner /rental question was occu- pancy and this issue was discussed. Also discussed was the deletion of landscaping for parking. Saundra Smith stated that they were willing to remove two parking spaces and place landscaping in place of the spaces. Peter felt to approve the proposed shortfall of parking would be inconsistent. He pointed out that the Westin was not able to do any more construction until the parking structure was finished. He stated that the Plaza and Bell Tower were different, in that they were in a pedestrian area and paid into the parking fund. He pointed out that the proposal under construction was adjacent to the 4 -way stop with vehicle access and must have on -site parking. J.J. discussed the parking figures. Joe Staufer proposed to make the dwelling units be available for rental when they were unoccupied. Sid Schultz moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the amendments to SDD 6 as submitted with the following conditioins: 1. The use of the units be restricted to non - primary residence and be part of a rental pool. 2. The applicant shall participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district for the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. . 3. The vote was 5 -1 in favor. • J.J. left at this point. 7. A request for setback variances in order to construct additions to the property at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Vill lst Filing. Applicants: Howard Judy and Steven Berkowitz Rick Pylman showed a site plan and explained the proposal, adding that the staff recommendation was for approval. Craig Snowdon, architect for the project, explained the plans. Peggy Osterfoss suggested the deck be only over the garage, and Craig said he would reduce the deck. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4 - 0 - 1 abstention (Pam). 8. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage at 325 Forest Road. Applicant: Tim Drisko Tom Braun showed an improvement survey and explained the request. Gary Walker, representing the applicant, stated that the main reason for the location of the garage was to have access to an existing driveway and parking in front of the garage. Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 9. A_ request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new zone district to be entitled "Hillside Residential." Applicant: Town of Vail This item was tabled. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: April 2 0,1987 SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase 4. Applicant: Mr. Josef Staufer Final approval for the last phase of Vail Village Inn (Phase 4 of SDD6) was granted by the Town Council in February of 1985. An 18 month extension of this approval was granted in January, 1987 for the exact plan that was previously approved. in general terms, the approval of Phase 4 involved the demolition of the existing hotel, Pancake House, and Food and Deli. To be constructed were 175 accommodation units, approximately 16,000 square feet of retail space, and 324 underground parking spaces. The construction of this final phase was to have completed all development potential as established by ordinance, for this property. Application has been made for a number of amendments to the existing ordinance governing the development of this property, as well as approval for the phased development of the project. Planning Commission action on this request involves making recommendations to be passed on to the Town Council for their final review. The following memo outlines the issues related to is these requests for both the proposed amendments and the proposal to phase the development of the project. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PHASING PLAN The existing approval be constructed in one is his desire to comp phases as oppposed to provided for only one contemplated. for Phase 4 was presented and approved to phase. The applicant has stated that it Lete this final phase in three separate one. However, at this time information is of the three phases that are being The first phase proposed involves the construction of a building located at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. This structure would be connected to the existing Food and Deli portion of VVI with a second and third floor skyway. The building closely resembles the previous approval in terms of design and how it would be connected to the main portion of the hotel. There are a number of issues that will need to be addressed relative to this phasing plan. They include the following: • 1. Design A great deal of time and effort went into reviewing the massing and siting of this structure during the previous approval in 1955. The goal of these efforts was to ensure a design that was consistent with the original development plan adopted for this site in 1976. Generally, it was the intention of this plan for the property to be developed with greater densities and mass along the Frontage Road and a gradual "stepping down" of structures toward Meadow Drive. While this structure along Meadow Drive has been modified from the original approval, staff feels these design changes are minor and still in keeping with the intent of the original plan for SDD6. 2. Interim Changes to the site in the area of the proposed Meadow Drive structure_ include a slight relocation of the access off of Vail Road, the introduction of a loading zone, and the removal of approximately 1,000 square feet of landscaped area to provide additional surface parking. The proposed location for the loading zone is directly adjacent to Vail Road. From a design standpoint, this location is unacceptable to the staff. Concerns over this location center around the high visibility of the loading zone in relation to vehicular and pedestrian ways. There is also a strong concern over the removal of landscaped area to provide for surface parking. The introduction of additional surface parking is inconsistent with the desired goals for Vail Village as well as the previously approved plan for this project. The significance of this additional parking is magnified by the fact that mature evergreen trees would be removed to accommodate it. 3. Parking The staff has a number of concerns with the parking solution as proposed with this phasing plan. These concerns center around the project's overall deficiency in providing parking on site, the utilization of a tremendous number of valet spaces during the interim plan, and the notion of adding additional development to this project with no appreciable gain in on -site parking. To date, this project has developed in three phases and over the course of this development has fallen short of its required on -site parking. Phases 1 and 2 (predominantly the commercial areas along Meadow • Drive) were developed without on -site parking. The C lst phase of Phase 4 Comm. 4,765 16 0 Resi. 14 units 28 44 0 --------------- - -- 267 171 (multi --use credit) - 13 254 The information for this table was derived from data compiled during the last review of Phase 4. The number of spaces provided do not reflect the valet spaces as proposed with this application. 3 development of Phase 3 involved a total of 106 structured spaces. These 106 spaces were over and above what was required for Phase 3 development (condominiums along the Frontage Road). It was • intended that the development of the additional spaces would go toward making up some of the short fall that existed from Phases 1 and 2. As the Planning Commission is probably aware, existing restrictions on access to this structure has limited the utilization of these spaces and, as a result, done little to make up for the existing short fall on the site. We are now asked to review additional development on the property, again with little actual new parking being provided. The following table outlines in greater detail the parking situation for the Vail Village Inn. EXISTING CONDITIONS (PARKING) Phase Use Sq Ft Spaces Reg. Spaces Exist. 1 Comm. 16,128 53 0 2 Comm. 6,473 21 0 Resid. 4 condos 8 0 3 Comm. 101600 34 106 (structure) Resid. 29 condos. 47 VVI Hotel, Deli, etc. Cam /rest 5,610 23 65 (surface) Hotel 52 units 37 223 171 C lst phase of Phase 4 Comm. 4,765 16 0 Resi. 14 units 28 44 0 --------------- - -- 267 171 (multi --use credit) - 13 254 The information for this table was derived from data compiled during the last review of Phase 4. The number of spaces provided do not reflect the valet spaces as proposed with this application. 3 • The following table outlines in greater detail the proposed valet parking. The parking section of the zoning code requires clear and unobsructed access to on -site parking provided within a development. An exception to this can be granted when valet service is provided. There are no other standards related to the utilization of valet parking outlined in the code. As an interim solution to parking, the applicant has proposed the introduction of valet parking throughout the project. When considering these valet spaces, the following changes are made to the parking provided on site: PARKING PROPOSED WITH THIS PHASE Phase Total Clear Access Valet % # Spaces Spaces Spaces Valet 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 135 51 84 62% Surface 60 40 20 33% Spaces 195 91 104 53% As demonstrated by this table, over one half of the parking spaces provided on site will require valet service to be utilized. This percentage is unacceptable to the staff. While a portion of valet parking for a lodge is acceptable, it is infeasible to think that valet parking is workable or appropriate for meeting the demands for commercial space for this development. The realities of the existing situation on this property are that a maximum of 64 surface spaces are accessible for all the commercial uses on the site. This is assuming that the 106 spaces within Phase 3 are unaccessible to the general public. In addition, of the 64 surface spaces on site, a good percentage of those are restricted to specific tenants. For all practical purposes, there is no additional parking being provided for these commercial uses. Another aspect of the valet parking proposed on the surface lot is the amount of trip generation that will occur between the properties. Assuming that the valet service will be based out of the front desk of the hotel, the utilization of valet spaces adjacent to the Food and Deli would require a doubling of necessary trips through the 4 -way stop. This trip generation is serving to congest an intersection that is already at capacity many times of the year. 4 • REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN A number of amendments have been requested to Ordinance #1, 1985. This ordinance established the development plan, statistics, and conditions of approval relative to the initial review of this project. While many of these amendments are minor, a number of them have implications relative to the development of Phase 4. The original ordinance and a copy of the applicant's amendments requested have been attached to this memorandum. The following is the staff's response to each of these amendments. Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are merely housekeeping amendments to recognize the amended plans as submitted for this first phase of the competion of the project. In many cases the ordinance makes reference to the approved plans as previously submitted. These references address issues such as distances between buildings, proposed locations and design of structures, parking provisions, etc. The staff feels there are no pertinent issues relative to the above amendments. Amendment 4. This amendment refers to the density permitted within Phase 4 of the Vail Village Inn project. The existing ordinance reads as follows: The gross residence 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 units and 72,400 square feet devoted to accommodation units in Phase 4 of SDD6. With respect to this particular section of the ordinance, the GRFA numbers were previously established with the 72,400 square feet available in Phase 4 being the difference between what is existing in other phases and the overall allowable. A minimum of 175 accommodation units were specified in the ordinance to insure that accomodation units be provided in the development of Phase 4. The amendment requested by the applicant would allow for the development of dwelling units in this phase of Phase 4. As proposed, the second, third and fourth floors of this structure would accommodate 14 units, each with at least one lock -off unit. Staff concern with this approach centers around the utilization and ownership of these units. As per the written application we have received, the units could be condominiumized with no restrictions on owners' use or any . requirements to manage these units in some type of short 5 • term rental pool. While it is true that accommodation units could be condominiumized, the condo conversion ordinance establishes restrictions on owners' use as well as requiring the units to participate in a rental pool. As proposed, there are no assurances that these units would not be developed, sold to individual owners, and not participate in a rental pool. Under this scenario, this proposal is a dramatic departure from the intent of Ordinance #1, 1985 as it is presently written. Amendment #7 This amendment addresses the seven conditions of approval that were established during the last review of this proposal. Of concern to the staff are amendments proposed to conditions No. 5 and 6. These conditions address the relocation of the ski museum as part of the development of Phase 4. The existing conditions are worded as follows: 4. "The board of directors of the Colorado Ski Museum and the developers come to an agreement on terms for the relocation of the Museum in Phase 4 of the Vail Village Inn prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the event that the ski museum would vacate its space in Phase 4 of the Vail Village Inn, the Town of Vail shall be given exclusive rights to assume the Ski Museum's lease of the space. It shall be understood that in the event the Town of Vail does assume the use of this space, all uses in this space shall be of public purpose in nature." 5. The developer fund the demolition and landscaping of the museum site through one of two options: a. Deposit to the Town a check for $15,000 to be used by the Town to complete the work, or, b. The developer submit a landscape plan to the Town for approval as an element of the overall plan for Phase 4. The relocation of the Ski Museum became an essential element of the redevelopment plan during the last review of this proposal. This was the result of trying to find a balance between the needs of the developer and the original design plan for this property. Generally speaking, the design plan adopted for this site emphasized the massing of structures to step down from the Frontage Road to East Meadow Drive resulting in a pedestrian scale of buildings along the Meadow Drive pedestrian corridor. In addition, this plan called for a substantial amount of landscaped open space at the southwest corner of the property. The developer's program for the building necessitated placing a structure in this portion of this property and the solution proposed was to relocate the Ski Museum to free up that site to be developed as a park. After much discussion, this was agreed to as a reasonable compromise maintaining the integrity of the design plan as well as meeting the needs of the developers. The two conditions of approval were designed to ensure that the Ski Museum would be relocated and that the site be landscaped in conjunction with the development of this project. These assurances came in the form of requiring the Ski Museum to agree to the move before construction was initiated and through the funding of improvements to the Ski Museum site. The commitment by the developer to provide these conditions was seen as a trade off for the opportunity to develop what was intended to be a landscape portion of the site. The applicant has proposed the following amendment to these conditions: "The developers and /or owners of Phase 4 agree to transfer by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Such condominium unit shall be approximately 3986 square feet in size and shall be located as indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the application." The applicant has also requested that Condition #5 (that the developer fund or provide the landscaping of the Ski Museum site) be completely deleted. While the developer is still proposing to provide the space for the Ski Museum, the Town has lost all assurances that the Ski Museum will in fact occupy that space and vacate its existing building. In addition, the burden of removing the existing Ski Museum structure and landscaping the site has now fallen on the shoulders of the Town or some other entity. Both of these conditions were established to accommodate the desires of the developer to construct Phase 4 in locations that were designated as open space. Two years ago during the final review of this project, it was agreed upon by all parties that the relocation of the Museum become the developer's responsibility. These conditions will effectively absolve the developer of that responsibility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION During the last review of this project in 1985, the staff strongly supported the approval of the project. That proposal involved predominantly structured parking to accommodate all phases of Vail Village Inn, a commitment to develop accommodation units, and strong assurances that the relocation of the Ski Museum woubd be provided in conjunction with this • • 1-1 development. The phasing proposal submitted at this time falls short on each of these considerations. While it may be feasible to mitigate the issue over the units by instituting use restrictions, and the Ski Museum may be resolved through further negotiation between the developer and the Ski Museum, staff feels strongly that the issue of parking is not being solved through the implementation of valet service. We are bound to view this proposal as what possibly could be built out of the project. As a whole, the project has been deficient in parking for a number of years. To allow additional development on the site without additional parking would be nothing short of irresponsible. For years the parking that is not provided on this site has been made up somewhere within.the Town. One can assume that adjacent properties and the Town parking structure have absorbed this burden. With the ever increasing utilization of the Town structure, it is simply infeasible that any additional burden be placed on this facility by allowing private development to proceed without carrying its fair share of the parking requirements. Although the staff remains positive regarding the quality of the overall previously approved project and we recognize that our concerns could be mitigated in the future by immediate follow - through with the next phase, it is our responsibiity to fairly evaluate this proposal as if this is the final product. With this in mind and to be consistent with our position on similar proposals, we cannot support the present proposal. Staff recommendation for this phasing program and the proposed amendments is denial. k1Q NF} AT�P3ENPUM TO A PL�Os,T�ON FOR AMF MENT POR szPF_'r.J.AL EVEL_OPMENT USTTU NQS.Al The following changes need to be made to Ordinance No. 1 Series of 1985 in order to proceed with the proposed structure to be located on Meadow Drive. 1. in Section 2 additional reference should be made to the current set of plans as submitted for the proposed structure located on Meadow Drive. I would assume that this could be called the new Phase IV and the remaining portion of the project would be referred to as Phase V. 2. In Section 6 the paragraph makes reference to Phase IV regarding the minimum distance between building, the only thing that should be added should be possibly a date of the current plans as submitted. 3. In Section 7 Subparagraph Bp once again Phase IV would be the current Phase IV with the plans dated accordingly. 4. In Section S the 120,600 sq.ft. of GRFA should remain . the same, 175 accommodation units should also remain the same, however, the 72,400 sq.ft. should be reduced by the sum of 5.378 sq.ft. which represents one -half of the total square footage of GRFA in the current Phase IV. This amount of square footage has been devoted to units with a kitchen. The 72,400 sq.ft. should therefore be amended to read 67,022 sq.ft. 5. In Section 9 the language pertaining to Phase IV should once again make reference to the plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce with the current date on such plans. 6. Section 10 should be amended to reflect the current parking plan on the set of plans submitted with our application. 7. In Section 11 regarding conditions of approval the following changes should be made: as Once again Phase IV should be reflected by the current set of plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce. b. Subparagraph one should remain the same. c. Subparagraph two should remain the same. d. Subparagraph three remains the same, however, we are not in need of such approval during this phase and that approval would only be necessary upon the development of the next phase. r Ll • e. Subparagraph four should be deleted. The following language should replace the existing Subparagraph four: The developers and /or owners of Phase 1V agree to transfer by General Warranty Deed to the Town of Vail free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Such Condominium unit shall be approximately 3,386 sq.ft. in size and shall be located as indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the application. There would be no restriction on the Deed for the use by the Ski Museum, however, the space should be used for some public purpose by the Town of Vail. f. Subparagraph five would be deleted. g. Subparagraph six can stay the same. -t -. f. •/ , I COMMISSION REGULATIONS SETTING FORTH PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO APPEALS OF THE REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPANCY PERMITS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Section I. In accordance with Section 2.24.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, the Planning Commission is authorized to adopt rules for the transaction of business before it. Section 2. Section 18.58.190 provides that the appeal of any action of the Zoning Administrator in connection with the issuance or denial of a home occupation permit or the conditions attached thereto, may be filed with the Planning Commission by any resident or property owner within thirty (30) days following such action. In order to establish a framework for the hearing of such an appeal, the following procedures are adopted as applicable thereto: 2.1 Parties to the review of such an appeal shall include the resident or property owner perfecting the appeal and the Zoning Administrator or his representative who has revoked the home occupancy permit. Notice of the time of the hearing of an appeal shall be served personally on the parties whereby first class mail to the last known address of the party to be notified. In the event that the party perfecting the appeal has obtained legal representation and legal counsel, and legal counsel has indicated such to the Town, then notification shall be sent to the office of the attorney representing said party. In fixing the time and place of the hearing, the Planning Commission will give due regard to the convenience of the parties and their representatives. 2.2 The Planning Commission or other hearing officer shall have the authority to sign and issue an administrative subpoena; rule upon offers of proof and receive evidence given under oath; dispose of all motions; direct the parties to appear and confer to consider the simplification of issues, admissions of fact or documents to avoid unnecessary proof; reprimand or exclude from the hearing any person for any improper or contemptuous conduct in the Commission's presence; and take any other action con�iFt -4- ir,; +k t1. having requested the issuance of the subpoena may request a continuance of the hearing and apply to the District Court for appropriate remedies to compel such appearance. A witness shall be entitled to fees and mileage provided for a witness in a Court of record. 2.4 The Zoning Administrator shall have the burden of proof, based upon the civil burden or preponderance of the evidence, and every party to the proceeding shall have the right to present his case or defense by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence and to copduct such cross examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. Subject to these rights and requirements, where a hearing will be expedited and the interest of the parties will not be substantially prejudiced thereby, the Planning Commission or other hearing officer may receive all or part of the evidence in written form. The parties may offer such evidence as they desire and shall produce such additional evidence as the Planning Commission or other hearing officer may deem necessary to any understanding and determination of the appeal. The Planning Commission or other hearing officer shall be the judge of the relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered and conformity to the legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary. The Town Manager or other hearing officer may receive and consider the evidence of the witnesses by affidavit, and shall give such evidence only such weight as it deems proper after consideration the objections made to its admission. All parties to the hearing may make objections to evidentury offers, which shall then be noted in the record, in the absence of an objection, the hearing may be conducted informally and failure to request any procedure shall constitute a waiver thereof. 2.5 It shall be the duty of the Planning Commission or other hearing officer to consider whether the action taken by the Zoning Administrator or his representative shall be sustained based on the evidence presented at the hearing and the home occupancy ordinances of the Town of Vail. The Planning Commission or other • hearing officer shall have the power to sustain, modify or reject the action of the Zoning Administrator. LAE /bsc >X ` r 1 LJ r� LJ NOTICE OF APPEAL EAST VAIL RENTALS hereby serves notice pursuant to Section 18.58.190 of the Vail Municipal Code upon the Town of Vail, Colorado, and its Planning Commission of its appeal of the purported revocation of The Home Occupation Permit issued to East Vail Rentals. In the event the Town of Vail declines to reverse the purported revocation and reinitiate the permit without hearing, East Vail Rentals hereby requests The Planning Commission hold a hearing on this decision in order to allow East Vail. Rentals to present testimony and evidence on its behalf. AS GROUNDS FOR APPEAL and in further support of this Notice of Appeal, East Vail Rentals states as follows: 1. The revocation is invalid and of no effect under Section 18.58.180 of the Vail Municipal Code, which specifies the revocation may be done only by the Zoning Administrator. The Notice of Revocation, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Exhibit A, indicates the revocation was made by the Town Planner, of the Office of Community Development, not the Zoning Administrator. 2. The revocation was a unilateral decision without notice to East Vail Rentals or an opportunity to respond to the issues, charges and accusation, leveled against it by unnamed person(s). 3. The revocation was in direct response to a small, yet well orchestrated group of citizens, who do not accurately reflect the feelings, beliefs and sentiments of the neighborhood or citizen of the Town. Public statements of various Town of Vail officials contained in an article in "The Vail Daily ", attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Exhibit B, indicate those Town Officials were unduly influenced by this group of people and made their decision based upon public pressure. 4. The revocation was based upon undocumented and unsubstantiated claims to which East Vail Rentals has compiled evidence to respond to and refute at an appropriate hearing in an orderly fashion, including but not limited to figures in vehicular traffic, citizen opinions and neighborhood activities. • • c 5. If East Vail Rentals had been given notice of the proposed revocation and afforded even a minimal oppor -. tunity to respond, the revocation, in all likelihood, would not have been issued and East Vail Rentals has a reasonable probability of succeeding in having its permit restored forthwith upon granting of such a hearing. 6. The decision of revocation should be stayed pending full hearing and review as East Vail Rentals will suffer immediate and continuing irreparable injury, the injury is likely to continue and compound on a daily basis. Specifically, East Vail Rentals will in effect be deprived of its sole place of business which will cause loss of revenue and business. Staying of the revocation pending a full and complete hearing will not cause prejudice to the Town or complainant(s) as there will be little, if any, rental business after the ski season and these conditions will continue into June. 7. The revocation was based upon facts which were presented to the Town by interested, biased persons, and the Town, by admission of Town employees contained in the article from "The Vail Trail" attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Exhibit C, did not investigate or make attempt to corroborate. 8. The revocation is unduly burdensome upon East Vail Rentals especially in light of the fact that numerous other businesses, operate on a continuing basis in the neighborhood. WHEREFORE, East Vail Rentals requests the follow- ing relief: a. This appeal be heard at a hearing at which time East Vail Rentals will be allowed to confront its accusers and respond to the accusations and present evidence on its behalf. b. The revocation of the Home Occupancy Permit be stayed pending a resolution of all issues herein. C. That the revocation of the Home Occupancy Permit be reinstated with or with hearing. 14 DATED this (e_!f_ day of April, 1987. EAST VAIL RENTALS. INC. Mlen C. Christensen ---I Cosgriff, Dunn & Abplanalp Registration No. 13707 Post Office Box 2299 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476 -7552 0 • s , r STATE OF COLORADO ) } ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } t 1, Patricia Branca, being first duly sworn upon my oath, state that I have read the above Notice of Appeal and the contents therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Z22� Zae4 I I Patricia Branca, Secretary- Treasurer East Vail Rentals, Inc. I hereby certify that the foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me this 41A day of April, 1987. III My commission expires: i _3f j 07 D ff Witness my hand and official seal. �i Public MN02 • n U • MIR of uaiv'I 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81G57 (303) 476 -7000 March 11, 1987 Mr. Norman Branca East Vail Rentals P.O. Box 1033 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Mr. Branca: office of community development The Department of Community Development has received numerous complaints regarding the operation of East Vail Rentals, Inc. at 5045 Main Gore Drive. The documentation associated with these complaints indicates that vehicular traffic related to this business is in excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings. Through the authority granted by Section 18.58.180 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, citing Section 18.58.160 of the Municipal. Code, as well as the conditions of approval stipulated on the Home Occupation Permit, I hereby revoke the Home Occupation Permit issued to East Vail Rentals, 5045 Main Gore Drive, effective April. 15, 1987. The continuance of this use past April 15, 1987 will constitute a zoning violation. This decision may be appealed to the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 18.58.190 of the Municipal, Code. I have enclosed copies of all referenced sections of the Municipal Code for your information. If you have any questions, please call me at 476 -7000. si.r�. 're y, Ri Pylman Town Planner RP:br EXHIBIT "A" Usinesses m, III E a st fail resic ents an a7 y n b hbbrhoocl - business, traffic Town of Vail planner flick Pylcman said �3y Jody Faust a Monday That he granted a }ionic Occupation Ua:ry Surfwriltr : Business Permit last Sept. 2.4 to East Fail Rentals, at 5045 Main Gore Dr., owficd and A "mom and pop" out -of -home property,; . operated by Norman "Corky" 13ranct and rental business in Fast Vail is embroiled in a his wife, because he believed the colmltc controversy - pitting- the: Town of Vail business met all the town's rcquircriicnts for Corriniunily Development., Department ' a permit. against local residents. •- .: AccordillgL to the permit application Town leas received nearly a dozen' submitted by Branca last fall, approximately 11kiv5 iii recent weeks from as[ Vail resi- three custoniors per day would enter and exit dents angry not only abautl;ast Vail Rental's his business. . Borne Occupancy Pcrmit, but with the town "We didn't regard that as out of the orditn- - -issuing pcmlits in any residential area. ary," Pylentari said. RC. Mcrcur . said inn recent letter to the . But, Pylcman included as a condition of Town Council, "It is difficult to believe that approval, a note on Brarlca's alrlllicatioll stal- 1 a responsible municipal government would ing ih u his department had already received allow a commercial business to operate in a a complaint regarding traffic from die busi- wcIl- established residential riciPbborhood." Please scc Cunirgrcr%j rage 15 f with a a , CO3at ro ver ">��� .dig or-- -•sma rl, license. r-ecllfir-ecl for all home, businesses in Vall. 13y Valcnc J. Smith Pbify S it w'rilc Qixrating a business out of your honk in Vail without thc pro per Iiccnsingcould lead to an apllC:lT:rilcc in municipal couil. Cll:cnccs of ever being sunlrnoned, however, are quite slim for bu-sincss people working out of their homes widlin the town's boundaries, "We don't h:uldlc it that w•ay," said Vail's to%vn cicrk Pam Ilrandrncycr. "For die most part, people are cooperative." tiLtny operators of small, horde- 11ss0d busincsscs appear Unaware of the licensing ploccss. Such misunderst.mding is often to blame For the lack of correct business licensing in Vail. Frequcntly, an individual who isollcrat- aril Dally tiYedaesaay. March 18. 1987 Page 15 :�ottfroversy :less. He warded Branca that if the roblem persisted, the department Would review his application and possibly revoke his permit. Branca said Monday that the corn -' -irit last fall wasn't legitimate hec he has only operated his busiriCss out of the current address since January: After receiving l I letters in recent weeks from Branca's neighbors and citizens around Vail conccmcd that heavy commercial traffic way . disrupting the safety and solitude of their residential community. Pyic- man revoked the permit, The zoning ordinance, passed in 1973, governing such permits slates ``a home occupation shall not generate significant vehicular traffic in Excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings." "Tfic permit should have been revoked, and we've done it,­ said Community Development Director Peter Patten Mond. Pylcman said the revocation letter he sent Branca March 11, basically gave him one month to cease opera- tions out of his home, as well as the option to appeal the decision before the Planning and Environmental Commission at its next meeting. . Branca said he will "absolutely" fight for his perniii, and has solicited the help of several attorneys. "We put him into the position of coming into the appeal process, Pylcman said. "It will bring every - body together to work th is thing out." owners of the complaints from resi- dents about traffic. Out of 505 Annual Business Licenscs issued by the Town of Vail this year, 9 percent involved part- or full -time out -of -home businesses which also required a 550 Home Occupancy Business Permit, accord- ing to town clerk Pam Brandmcycr. "Nobody more than the Commun- isy Development Department wants a residential community to remain resi- dcniial," Patten said. Despite the recent flow of However, Branca said the town community criticism of Home Occu- acted "hastily" in revoking his' pancy Business Permits, Patten said permit without first contacting him, "the system is working." "We've orconducting its own investigationof had only two problems out of .the actual level of traffic generated by hundreds of permits issued. *, his business. "It appears as if this business has He said that the other case involved reached a level where it should be a real eswe operation which got too operated out of commercial office large for home occupancy.That busi -. space," Pyleman said, and added that ness moved into commercial office his department undoubtedly fell some space when the town informed the pressure from the comp]ai- letters . ing sonic kind of business on llic.sidc — in addition to their full -time occupation — is unnware di:it birth ail Ammal tlusincss License and a Home ac(ip.incy Pcimit ;sac requi rcd. 'If you conduct business in the Tov.li of Vail, you should llavc a Guist•," Bl:mdll •y- cr Baal. lii;it applics to activiticS cvi0nriid principally by IClcphone or mail, lii'lil hand- Crafts or an ohjrcts, le,!Chinr arld ttiioring lrlstrlc6oil (if lwo pupils at .1 Bloc, dICSIM;tS - ing. emillctic sales and lilorv. I lofiw (ILCIIJIAl tions are unacceptable for such businessCS :Ls a clinic, rcaaurant, an6gll0 shop or vetCfina- rian's oft ice. ' I11ec ool10 ob%liil1110101111:rc(lliccm: rin Vail varies acc'llniing to th sii0 o! l'u.inc >x- '1Jic fee for an Arnlual BUS:11CI> Please scc Lice , • F4 w t�1 x C r• rt q .771e Vail Trail — March 20, 1987.— Sectlorl A ast eta busi-nes-s Owner says loss of permit eoul.d destroy. livelihood By AIARK I-IUFFD1AN For Corky and Patty Branca, the revocation this week of the permit for their home business could mean disaster. The 13rancas, owners and operators of &-ist Vail Rentals, run what Corky Branca calls a "mom and pop" rental and property management service for East Vail units. It's a low -key business, Branca says, one that he never dreamed would ber.6me the center of a neighborhood battle. But it has. Acting on complaints from neighbors, the town of Vail this week revoked Branch's home occupancy business permit- lie's pot 30 days to appeal, which he says he will. if the permit isn't reinstated, he says it will mean the end of a business that lie and his wife have worked years to build. The town and The Vail Trail have received a flurry of letters in the past two weeks about East Vasil Rentals. Except for one letter supporting Branca, at] the letters have said that East Vail Rentals is generating a huge amount of traffic that endangers local residents and threatens the nature of the residential neighborhood, on Alain -Gore Drive near the eastern limits of Vail. Neighborhood hurt Among the comment in letters received by The Trail were that East Vail Rentals "totally destroys the nature of the neighborhood," that "traffic generartecI poses a danger to the children, Joggers, and those enjoti-ing it quiet walk in the area," that operating a management company at the location "goes beyond the limits of coexisting in a secure and clearly residential environ- ment," that the permitissued for the business "is unfair to the residents and homeowners and unsafe for the community at large," and that allowing such a business in a residential area means that "the quality of life here will go straight downhill," It's news to Branca, who said this week he dnesn't think his business is doing any of the terrible things people say it is. He says the issue has been "overdramatized." Branca said the only person who hats talked to him personally about his business is neighbor Alike Reid. Branco said that he creme away from that talk feeling that any problems orcomplainIs could be worked uut. That the matter has turned into a public brittle "has been a shock," he said. Branca moved into the house last summer, and, after spending thousands of dollars on remodeling, opened the business in January. He says the amount of traffic the business creates is small, no more than three cars a day. That figure comes from counts by a traffic engineering firm lie hired. The firm's study, 11n111a•n said, also reported that traffic into his business accounts "for less than 1 percent of the traffic on Mnin Cure Drive,- Branca said he thinks neighbors who claim. that his business creates a lot of traffic have been misled by watching rite comings and goings -of contrnetors who did the remodeling to bcrilcl the office for the husiness. "I thin% they've been confused' about the tremendous amount of remodel- Ing constructinn work going on here," Branca said. "'There's been plumbers and electricians and contractors. Having this remodeling going on made us look very busy, and we have been very busy with construc- tion." But he said that's not a fnir way to judge what traffic his business creates. Branca said he ran the same business the same way with the same number of customers out of acondonzinium at Timberfalls for years and never heard a complaint. And he said that since moving in January "my business hasn't taken on or lost a unit." If anything, he said, he expects to do less business in the near future because his wife is pregnant and won't he able W help as much as in the past. That the town derided to revoke his permit without studying the situntiun also surf sited Brnnra. The town's ordinance regulating home oceutsancy business permits, aduptcd in 14)7:3, says that such Permits can he granted if the business does "not generate significant vehicular traffic in excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings," Branca said the town can't really know whether he)'s vinlntcd that lam:uage "because no one has really come out here and done a study of the traffic." Petri- fatten, Vail director of Community Development, said he dues believe there's a problem based on the reaction of neighbors. which he said is the best way the town has to judge. "It's the type of ordinance based oil believing what people• tc•il us when they come in," fatten said, adding that he thinks 13ranc•a diws generate more than three visits a tlav at his business. "We don't have 12 people, six of whom are looking forzoning violations. Wehave to go on a complaint basis, and we -permitis r t I:: - •,,...may revoKe n' An office addition to Corky and Patty Branca's home in East Vail angered their neighbors about increased traffic in the area. Photo by Mike Rawlings. let People who risk for permits know Chat up front." Patten said he thinks "the town's got a good home occupancy ordinance" based on allowing businesses in residential areas. "if we don't have people noticing it." When such businessesoperate without notice, he said. "then it's fine ... butifitgetsoutofhand we have to stop it." Patten said he thinks that Branca's business is "too successful for the location -- those are the facts as we understand them." Threatens livelihood For Branca, loss of the permit is bad, so had that it could mean the failure of the business. "When we moved in here, it was it dream come true," he said. "This is our sole means of support. Westarted ihehusiness with one condo, and we would work until two or three in the morning after working at the West Lail Liquor Mart at night. lv(e built everything we have on ~ ` merit. we didn't horse• money from banks or relatives. And now this is my entire livelihood, 100 percent of my income. "I can't run my business from the village, my customers want ` me to be in the area. And considering there is no other commercial space available to ` my knowledge that can he leased in the East Vail area, the _ damage to my business will mount." It's especially frustrating for Branca, who believes that he does a job that has to be done, and that helps Vail. "I believe I offer a valuable. service here, a service that helps Promote tourism, that bringsin People to ski on the mountain and spend money in the stores ~, and rent condominiums. As for the future, especially if his appeal for renewal of his. permit fails, Branca said he . doesn't know. " We're out of the shuck part, ". he said. 4'13ut it's scatry to think that our only means of income ends in three weeks," TO: Planning and Environmental. commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 20, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a residence on Parcel B, a Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mr. Michael Tennebaum I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Michael Tennenbaum, is requesting a 10 foot variance from the required 15 foot side setback for the newly created Parcel B: a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Parcel B is roughly 901 x 100' with a narrow dog leg that extends to the east of the property. This parcel contains slightly more than 12,500 square feet, which is the minimum lot size for the Single Family zone district. This parcel was created through a previous subdivision action by Mr. Tennenbaum. Mr. Tennebaum resubdivided the Primary /Secondary zoned Lots 14 and 17 into three parcels. Parcel A which remained a Primary /Secondary zoned property and Parcels B and C which each became Single Family zoned parcels. The applicant, who still controls the adjacent Parcel A, has stated a willingness to restrict development on Parcel A to a distance of 25 feet from the property line. By restricting this development through either covenants or deed restrictions, the applicant would provide a 30 foot separation between structures equal to the normal 15 foot setback from each property line. The proposed site development which encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 15 foot setback from property line also entails creating an access easement, retaining wall and asphalt drive through this 30 foot area. The actual driveway that accesses Parcel B initiates approximately 20 feet from the property line on Parcel A. In an effort toward compromise, the staff requested the applicant to maintain this 30 foot buffer as undisturbed open space. The applicant, however, declined to amend the site plan and design program to allow this buffer. The side setback area requested for encroachment contains several fairly significant natural features, including two large spruce trees. 0 0 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 setback variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the re ested variance to other existing or Potential uses and structures in the vicinity. In a situation where the average slope underneath proposed parking areas exceeds 30 %, staff and Design Review Board may waive the required front setback standards. The garage area for this proposal meets this criteria, so the location of the garage in the front setback of this proposal is not an issue. With regard to the encroachment into the side setback, staff feels that if the applicant were willing to restrict development including site work to a 25 foot setback on Parcel A through a deed restriction or covenant to which the Town is a party, there would be little impact on other potential structures in the vicinity. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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 Community Development Department staff feels that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. We believe that there is little to no physical hardship on this parcel requiring a side setback variance. In fact, we see significant natural features on the lot located within the 15 foot setback which enhance the site and should be preserved. The subdivision regulations are designed to ensure that an adequate building envelope will be created during development or subdivision of any lot. The applicant, through recent previous actions, created this lot and should be able to design within the parameters of that parcel of ground which he has created. Any claim of hardship due to lot size or shape is self imposed by the owner as a result of the previous resubdivision application. • Effect of the re distribution of facilities, publ safetv. nested variance on light and air, opulation, transportation and traffic c facilities and utilities. and public There is little impact upon this criteria by this proposal. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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; 40 The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for denial of the side setback variance. We feel there is no physical hardship driving the side setback request and feel that it would be a grant of special privilege. Indeed, physical features within the area of the 15 foot setback warrants its preservation. This lot was recently created and great efforts were taken at that time to ensure that this lot did meet the minimum lot requirement for this zone district. We feel adequate space exists for the siting of a single family structure without requiring a setback variance. Finally, any hardship is self - imposed by the owner through his previous minor subdivision request and subsequent design. 4, b i SL } � vj lid — C1� t oy r� Vv v MV }I y vg C a° o �� } jj / :f 1 r r \ th 6 p ` P j4r �t f j4 N n r y z r rn ra r z 7 c., r+to a0tyxr�+ u:1 o r 0 m m a w 0 N f + I D 6 r rr�n •o W W". to `G 9 M tt N "1 CD 0 LQ O w w N -A 0 am �a5•r m r► m w u 120 m PC! I. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 20, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances for a garage located at 325 Forest Road, Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Tim Drisko I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED On September 8, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed setback requests for a proposed garage on this property. The requests were for encroachments of 9 feet into the side setback and 10 feet into the front setback. The application was approved by a 6 -0 vote. Construction errors have resulted in the garage being located closer to the side lot line than previously approved by the Planning Commission. As existing, the garage encroaches 12.7 feet into the side setback. After learning of the problem with the location of the garage, the applicant requested approval from the Punning Commmission for the structure as presently constructed. The September 8th Planning 0 Commmission memorandum of the original request is attached j for your information. 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 setback variances 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. As constructed, the garage is located 2.3 feet from the side property line. The previous approval granted a variance to locate the garage 5.75 feet from the property line. It is the feeling of the staff that the additional encroachment proposed will not adversely affect properties in the vicinity of this structure. Existing vegetation should also adequately buffer the structure from the adjacent parcel. It should also be noted that the location of the garage is 17 feet from the front property line as opposed to 10 feet as approved with the original proposal. 10 The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff has historically been supportive of variance requests for garage additions throughout the Town. This is particularly true in the Forest Road area where topography and the location of existing structures make site planning difficult. 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 and utilities, and public safety. There are no significant effects on any of the above mentioned factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • 10 The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request. The previous review of this approval established the physical hardships on this site that necessitated approval of setback variances. These physical hardships are still present in reviewing this application. The same is true with respect to special privilege. In reviewing the existing location of the garage, it is the feeling of the staff that there is no significant increase in any impact on adjacent properties. For these reasons, the staff is supporting the requested variance. The location of the existing garage is obviously a result of human error. The staff has traditionally taken a hard line on other projects that requested variances after the fact. This request differs from those in that physical hardship and special priviege were previously established by the Planning Commission review this past September. In addition, with the exception of location, the garage is constucted as approved . by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. These reasons distinguish this proposal from other similar requests the Planning Commission has reviewed in the recent past. 0 38, i' ai ,j:z1 1 0'r 8 S t t N �- 7 W Z w m A m 0,01 1 m D Cn Cl A x Cif 44.2' G'ZI 0 9Z Ul O _ OI N N N N m 20.6 ` 2a.9' ^? N N O1 005' E .o .y v m � - +s1 � iJ m v r- -� n Cb r r 0 C m X m CO (n W b G r p N W cn in m r� ,f v D 0 —i A m r- 0 m n W to 1 0 X m y z i c G � v m r- 0 N O O OD 146.40'_ "'- y V n TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 46 FROM: 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. 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 variance to other existing or 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 degree to which relie enforcement of a s ecifie compatibility and uniform to attain the objectives privilege. f from the strict or literal d regulation is necessary to ity of treatment among sites of this tit interpretation and n the vicinity or e without grant of special 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 16 neighborhood. To approve this request would be consistent with previously approved variances and would not be a grant of special privilege. � 10' The effect of the r utilities distribution of is facilities and 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 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. -2-9/8/86 PEC 6 17 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. . - 3--9/8/86 PEC 10 7 • d� 10 Q�1 =�f1 lli t� o� .n TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 20, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to create a roof top parking lot on the west side of the Vail waste water plant. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated sanitation District (UEVCSD) wishes to relocate their parking facility from Town of Vail and Vail Associates property on the east side of Forest Road near Gore Creek to their own property. The property is zoned Public Use District (PUD) and the Planning Commission sets the development standards for this zone district as applicable. Basically, this means that the applicant proposes a development plan which the PEC subsequently approves, denies, or approves with modifications. Proposed is a 10 foot wide driveway coming off the north end of the existing parking lot and curving around to the west to access the roof top area over the final clarifiers. The parking area would contain 23 new parking spaces primarily to be used by UEVCSD employees. Although the proposed driveway abuts the northern property line in certain areas, it is located entirely on UEVCSD property. Very minimal disturbance of existing landscaping will be necessary to accommodate the new drive. (See attachment) Originally, the UEVCSD contacted the State Highway Department regarding the possibility of a small right -of -way encroachment to accommodate the driveway. The State Highway Department is not willing to allow any changes in this right - of -way until final designs have been completed for the I -70 interchange modification project to be completed in 1988. The applicant has proposed additional landscape screening on the northwest corner of the site. However, the trees would need to be located on State Highway right -of -way and, again, this will not be allowed until final designs are completed for the new ramps and other roadway improvements in this area. 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 factor: I[] Consideration of Factors. • Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. • • The proposal is moving in the right direction with regard to the development objective of providing required parking on site. The UEVCSD has utilized Town of Vail and Vail Associates property for a temporary dirt parking lot for a number of years. This unscreened parking lot located on open space was not in keeping with the development objectives of the Town, and the proposal rectifies this situation. The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The removal of the existing parking lot will allow the new recreational path to continue undisturbed all the way to Forest Road rather than go through a parking lot. This not only improves the aesthetic experience of the pedestrian and bicyclist, but also improves the safety factors. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The staff would prefer the access driveway be two lanes in the interest of automotive safety. However, site constraints are such that this is not possible, and the fact that this is a private parking lot, primarily for employees, will help to mitigate that situation. Pedestrian ingress /egress will be accommodated via a new stairway on the east side of the lot to the offices. The layout of the parking area itself provides adequate access and maneuvering room for the vehicles. The Town Engineer has reviewed the proposal and given his approval. Removal of snow from the parking area itself will be accommodated by the construction of gates on the south parapet wall of the roof top structure. Snow will be pushed toward this area and subsequently off of the roof top structure through the gate openings. It is important that the snow removal from the driveway area be stored on UEVCSD property and not plowed into State Highway right -of -way. The applicant feels that this can be accomplished without any problems. iEffect 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 site of the roof top parking area will be visible as one descends the new off ramp from I -70 driving south toward the South Frontage Road. It is important that adequate landscape screening and /or fencing be provided to minimize the visual impacts of this parking lot. As mentioned above, the applicant has agreed to add additional trees on the northwest corner of the lot (actually occurring on State Highway right - of -way) once the Interchange design is complete and with the approval of the State Highway Department, we feel that this landscaping plan or a possible fence on a parapet wall for screening purposes can be determined by the Design Review Board. 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, safaety, 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the conditional use request for the UEVCSD to locate a roof top parking lot at their sanitation plant. We feel the proposal is much superior to the existing dirt parking lot located off site, and that with adequate screening, the negative aesthetic impacts of the parking area will be minimal. Although we have a concern with the narrow driveway accessing the parking area, we feel that the control and ultimate safety of those using that driveway are the responsibility of the applicant. One condition of approval is conditional: 1. The Design Review Board shall review the project and approve an adequate method to screen the parking lot from public view. Included in this Design Review Board review shall be the consideration of some type of fencing located on the parapet wall on the west side of the parking area to screen the parking lot from the adjacent Town of Vail parcel. A bond or letter of credit will be required for the landscaping at the time of building permit. • FOREST ROAE) 4 o -t 20 s m Z yvye W1W jLL1 o dJ O� w Ul (P F:£ o d Y 0 °c fo f(1 `jam X O L 1J z z�7 yl o� ?l k a w IL c� d z a h 3 y V w -1 4 Y � o T Q � J Q. to t 0 t 4 a CD 0 a, a o� S :%A\ \f 0 N w 0 U Z w Q Q 'N �Zw z a -a vs o coq F � o' % Q -N w a W 1l tlti w 2a O a tL p Z O z�7 yl o� ?l k a w IL c� d z a h 3 y V w -1 4 Y � o T Q � J Q. to t 0 t 4 a CD 0 a, a o� S :%A\ \f 0 N w 0 U Z d _ Z 4 V F � o' � F 1l ` N O Fi F6 O� v O Q x. 1 a. wu d 4 u0 [� pf U 7 111 F- � oLU m m wm :3 Q 20 w 6 W w Oa tj �nao� Z Z ZIuUE W �l lei. lii Vw� u0. 7tLa l w IL a w bt T Y J S w p ww �'od z�7 yl o� ?l k a w IL c� d z a h 3 y V w -1 4 Y � o T Q � J Q. to t 0 t 4 a CD 0 a, a o� S :%A\ \f 0 N w 0 U Z d _ Z 4 V F � o' � F 1l O 1wi1 v CJ !7: Q 0� 1 a. 0.z 4 u0 [� Q¢ U 7 W oLU � wm :3 Q 20 w 6 W w tj �nao� ZIuUE W �l lei. lii 0 • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 20, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for setback variances in order to construct an addition to the property at 315 Mill Creek Circle, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Howard, Judy and Steven Berkowitz I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The existing Berkowitz residence has approximately 30 square feet of GRFA remaining. By utilizing the additional GRFA ordinance which allows up to 250 square feet of GRFA per unit and the credits allowed for garage space, the applicant is able to add an addition to this property. The majority of the additional GRFA being utilized is for an addition to the east side of the house, which is well within setbacks and will require no variances. Due to the siting of the existing structure on the parcel, the applicant has chosen to locate a single car garage on the southwest side of the dwelling. This siting places the garage within the front and side setbacks. By utilizing the grade and the foundation requirement for the garage, the applicant has extended an existing bedroom in the structure to the west, thus placing approximately 90 square feet of GRFA underneath the garage and within this front and side setback area. There is an additional area of development above and behind the garage which encroaches approximately 1 foot into the side setback for an area of approximately 4 square feet. The flat roof structure of the garage contains a deck area which extends an additional three feet to the west beyond the garage, thus creating further encroachment into the setback. There is an existing spruce garage which the applicant to buffer this garage from II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS tree at the site of the proposed will relocate further to the west the adjacent property. Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variances based upon the following factors: • Consideration of Factors: • The relationship of the re Vested variance to other existin or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Town of Vail has historically supported front setback variances for garage additions to existing structures. In this case, the siting of the existing residence and the siting of the proposed garage also present a side setback variance. The Mill Creek Circle area in particular, as well as other development areas of the Town of Vail present existing examples of this type of development. If this application were for new development on a vacant site, the staff would probably not be able to support this. However, we do recognize the hardship of the location of the existing structure and also recognize the desirability of covered parking. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is The proposed garage is being located in the only area of this parcel that is viable to develop as covered parking. Recognizing the existing residence as a physical hardship, we feel that approval of the setback variance for the garage would not be a grant of special privilege. The applicant is also utilizing the additional GRFA ordinance to further develop his property. A portion of that GRFA is located below the proposed garage development. Staff has taken the position that development of additional GRFA through this ordinance should present no requests for variances. We feel, however, that this request is an exception to this position. Due to the location of the garage and the foundation requirements, this bulk and mass will be created regardless of the bedroom expansion. We feel, therefore, that it is an efficient use of space and can recommend approval of the setback variances without feeling that this is a grant of special privilege. The addition to the third floor of the structure encroaches in such a minor way that we feel the impacts are neglible. We do feel, however, that the deck extension off the roof of the garage three feet further toward the property line is unnecessary and would be a grant of special privilege and we would not recommend approval of that specific portion of this design. C: The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Currently, the entire parking available to this development is located on Town property in the road right -of -way. By developing this covered parking area, the applicant is constructing required covered parking completely within their own property lines. We feel that is an improvement to the current situation on this site and is a benefit to the transportation and traffic facilities as well as public safety. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. FINDINGS The Plannina 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval of the side and front setback variance requests for the garage structure and the associated bedroom below and the minor encroachment above the garage on the third floor. We would condition this approval upon scaling back of the deck on top of the garage so that it encroaches no further into the setback than the structural wall of the garage. We feel that on -site development of parking is a benefit to the community and a benefit to this site in particular and that the associated GRFA development is not a grant of special privilege. LJ • 1 k ju ;• • TO: Planning and Environmental. Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 20, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for front, side, rear and stream setback variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential floor area variance and a variance from required landscaping in order to contruct additions to duplex units located on Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicant is requesting these variances to construct garages and additions to an existing duplex. The request is for two 2--car garages and additional GRFA to each unit, including 250 square feet to each unit as permitted under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The structures are nonconforming in that they are already above their allotted GRFA and encroach into the rear setback by 4 feet. The applicant's statement is attached. Zoning Statistics: Zone: Primary /Secondary Site Area: 12,583 sf TOTAL UNIT A ALLOWED GRFA: 3145 1258 EXISTING GRFA: 3586 sf 1392 sf EXISTING PLUS 250 4086 1642 REQUESTED: 4462 1689 (plus garages) GRFA REQUESTED OVER 250 ALLOWABLE 376 47 Assuming 250 (Ord 4) to each unit and credits as listed below. UNIT B 1887 21.94 sf 2444 2773 329 iREQUESTED CREDITS: Mechanical 100 50 50 Storage 350 200 150 Airlock 25 25 0 Site Coverage Statistics Allowed: 2,516, 20% of 12,583 (site area) Existing: 2,371, 18% of site area Requested: 4,223.7, 33.5% of site area Setback Requests In this zone district, required setbacks are 20 in the front and 15 on the other three sides. The applicant is requesting to encroach into the front setback area in three places for 10 feet, 8 feet and 6 feet. The proposal also encroaches 7 feet into the side setback area and and 2.5 feet into the rear setback area with decks. Decks at this level are only allowed to encroach 5 feet into the setback area. Setbacks from minor stream courses is 30 feet from the center of the stream. The applicant wishes to encroach 11 feet into the stream setback on the west side of the property. • 60% of the site must be landscaped in the primary /secondary zone district. The request is to allow the applicant to landscape only 51% of the site. 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 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. 1. GRFA. It is important to other potential uses and structures in the vicinity that proposals conform to general development standards. When proposals do not conform, there is a negative impact on the neighborhood. The ability of this parcel to handle additional GRFA is being strained. Ordinance 4 states that "...proposals L' for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town of Vail development standards." This request entails 376 square feet of GRFA over and above 250 square feet for each unit permitted under Ordinance 4. This additional GRFA is clearly contributing to the impact of the development. 2. Front, Rear and Side Setbacks The easterly unit presently encroaches into the rear setback 4 feet. The applicant is requesting six setback variances. To increase the number of setback variances to this degree has a negative impact upon the neighborhood. The degree of encroachment from the garages on the front setback is directly related to the additional GRFA proposal. 3. Setbacks for Decks Decks which are five feet or higher from ground level must not intrude into the setback areas more than five feet. Decks at this level which do extend into the setback area more than 5 feet have a greater visual impact than decks at ground level. The neighbor to the east will decidedly be affected. The staff feels the decks can easily be constructed within the setback areas by reducing the size of the additions to the dwellings and /or the decks themselves. 4. Landscaping The landscaping proposed is 51 %, rather than the minimum of 60% as required under Town of Vail development standards. Ordinance 4 states that one criteria which must be met before additional GRFA is granted is "...any dwelling unit ... shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscape standards... the staff shall review maiantenance and upkeep of the existing dwelling unit and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with Design Review Guidelines." With this direction, staff feels the minimum 60% of landscaping must be complied with. This is particularly true when requesting a GRFA variance and GRFA under Ordinance 4. 5. Site Coverage It is this variance request which the staff feels will have the most impact upon the neighborhood. Excess site coverage greatly affects other properties in the vicinity. This lot is small, 12,583 square feet, and . thus it is most important that there be no more site coverage than the maximum in order to maintain adequate open space. Some consideration may be given to this request if it involved only garages. However, in light of the requested GRFA, the ramifications of the site coverage variance request becomes more significant. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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 spec rivile e. 1. GRFA The main reason for Ordinance 4 is to encourage the upgrading and improvement of property by allowing property owners to add 250 square feet to older structures, even those already over their allowable GRFA. This property can take advantage of this generous ordinance without requiring even more GRFA than the 250 allowed. The staff believes there is no physical hardship unique to this property that would dictate an increase in GRFA to this degree. 2. Setbacks While it may not be possible to build 2 garages entirely within the front setback, staff believes perhaps only . one front setback variance request of possibly 4 to 5 feet may be necessary for the westerly garage. It appears possible to place the easterly garage and additions entirely within the front and side setbacks. The additional GRFA is clearly driving the locations of these garages. 3. Setbacks for Decks The staff does not feel there is any physical hardship related to the rear or stream setback variance requests for the decks. 4. Landscaping There is no apparent reason to grant relief from enforcement of the landscape requirement of 60% of the site. Presently there is approximately 2,439 square feet of asphalt on the site. Proposed is to have 1,644 square feet of driveway and parking area. The proposal would park 12 cars. The applicant could come closer to meeting this requirement if the large amount of surface parking aras were reduced. In addition, Public Works Department has requested fewer road cuts. Four road cuts are unacceptable. L� I• • 5. Site Coverage As stated earlier, it is vital on a lot of this size follow the Town of Vail development standards, particularly with regard to Ordinance 4. Ordinance a privilege, not a right, to Vail property owners. ask for the additional 250 and then to also request coverage exceeding the allowable (as a result of the additional. GRFA) is definitely 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 publi c safety. This proposal would have no effect on the above factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: to 4 is To site 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the requested variances. Though the Town passed Ordinance 4 to allow extra density of 250 sgyare feet, the ordinance specifically addressed the fact that in granting this extra density, proposals would be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties and applicable Town of Vail development standards. Staff feels strongly that this development proposed has shown no consideration for existing development guidelines as outlined in the zoning code and in Ordinance 4. The staff would be willing to work with the applicant to solve site development problems if a proposal is made which complies more closely with the development guidelines. It should be understood that the staff will be unable to support any requests for additional GRFA, and any variances to site /development standards resulting from additional GRFA (under provisions of Ordinance 4) will be reviewed very critically. It will be the burden of the applicant to clearly demonstrate the physical hardship involved in any revised proposals. However, our recommendation of this proposal is for denial. • • F aE ,�3 d uj WZ Nil f f i �ta \ iymi I/ 1i k �` •'FAA 'Y2£ % .\ •�,. �_��$� r_- _�1 iii "-4 Ir • Q) � � 0 a r Q) 11r �i • 4--) Q) co S_ O7 R -) C F— � A S� O Q) vOi Q C O b Q Q) (L) c) CO .F) cti as Q) O V) •r V) S- Qi C O (1) � 0) a O •I-) ca Jr co O C O ) U :3 Q) Q) 07 p) C U I N 3 N 4- O C O •r 4-' .r- ti a) i-) Q) • r VI V) •r •N O V) 4-) -r C r +' _ C i U Q) 4--) ¢ a b7 4-3 V) •r^ X Q) (D 4-) Q) > O .C] c0 "O (3) S- +� Q) U S- (b V) V) Q) Cr S- S Q) ^ Vl ^ V) 4) G o Q. V) 4 V) r Q O V fo O 1— Q) 4- O v) O U o r 0 � r 1' R O O. 4--) ctl O Q) i d U S- •r U Q) U r r 0) C O r c6 V) U co -I- (3) � • co Q) [c5 S2 1' VOi Q) O F� G ^ O 0O 4' R :::3 cUd L) (3) o V) C O i-) •r^ '� co Q) O O. O S- R • N (3) •k) 4- v) S- D U 1' co 'a ° O U O •I� Q) S- (b V) (3) L co U a Q) V) Q) •1-) O N Q) S- � I-- > N V) d) 7 0) C G ON . • 4-•' co w "O C N .10 Q) +) U o U V) X Q) r V) r- 4.3 O U C Cn •r co � U 3 U N O O C-) (a R V) C2 O C cu O O T cd 4-- (D N -C-- i-) U o Q) U ftl U Q} Q) V) Q) � r r V) C)) +-) O C O 4- •c c6 S-• c0 Q) Q) Q) S- (1) (n d! o) co > A -0 Q) Q) Q) S- U V) ?. N (d V1 •r^ cd 3 O _- 'r O {� ° � 'Y 4-3 C O G •r o 4 (L) •r Q) > c0 O r ro r r r � V) ) -I-' 4--) 0 co �- O 4--) =5 -0 +� V) C7 O O R O Q i- (a 4-) -c- Q) •r^ r -F, o r r Q) U (6 r^ (ZI V) r fi t-- A Q) 4- co U r- Sfl � S_ ° r =1 V) Q) r 4-) •r r- •r ray 4- U 4- 4- co S- W a W Q C1 U .. ci 0 C U Q) U (3) U a � ; L Nm1Y1 co a �.. o C C) O Z 0 n C E-= ` 3 4 3 E W FC) u I� r Q) 4--) Q) co S_ O7 R -) C F— � A S� O Q) vOi Q C O b Q Q) (L) c) CO .F) cti as Q) O V) •r V) S- Qi C O (1) � 0) a O •I-) ca Jr co O C O ) U :3 Q) Q) 07 p) C U I N 3 N 4- O C O •r 4-' .r- ti a) i-) Q) • r VI V) •r •N O V) 4-) -r C O u•) N (O 'a C co cn •O (3) O Q3 J_- { 3 C Q) V) p U b7 c •r R m N co r _0 r U 5.- •m W) �) (3) C U r •r +' _ C i U Q) 4--) ¢ a b7 4-3 V) •r^ X Q) (D 4-) Q) > O .C] c0 "O (3) S- +� Q) U S- (b V) V) Q) Cr S- S Q) ^ Vl ^ V) 4) G o Q. V) 4 V) r Q O V fo O 1— Q) 4- O v) O U o r 0 � r 1' R O O. 4--) ctl O Q) i d U S- •r U Q) U r r 0) C O r c6 V) U co -I- (3) � • co Q) [c5 S2 1' VOi Q) O F� G ^ O 0O 4' R :::3 cUd L) (3) o V) C O i-) •r^ '� co Q) O O. O S- R • N (3) •k) 4- v) S- D U 1' co 'a ° O U O •I� Q) S- (b V) (3) L co U a Q) V) Q) •1-) O N Q) S- � I-- > N V) d) 7 0) C G ON . • 4-•' co w "O C N .10 Q) +) U o U V) X Q) r V) r- 4.3 O U C Cn O Ln A .Q cn •r (n CO (3) co Q) Q) r r f •> ctl "O U Z3 qZ3 N S- � U 3 U N O O C-) (a R V) C2 O C cu O O T cd 4-- (D N -C-- i-) U o Q) U ftl U Q} Q) V) Q) � r r V) C)) +-) O C O 4- •c c6 S-• c0 Q) Q) Q) S- (1) (n d! o) co > A -0 Q) Q) Q) S- U V) ?. N (d V1 •r^ cd 3 O _- 'r O {� ° � 'Y 4-3 C O G •r o 4 (L) •r Q) > c0 O r ro r r r � V) ) -I-' 4--) 0 co �- O 4--) =5 -0 +� V) C7 O O R O Q i- (a 4-) -c- Q) •r^ r -F, o r r Q) U (6 r^ (ZI V) r fi t-- A Q) 4- co U r- Sfl � S_ ° r =1 V) Q) r 4-) •r r- •r ray 4- U 4- 4- co S- W Planning and Environmental Commission April 27, 1987 3:00 P.M. 1. A request for variances in order to construct additions at 303 and 305 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation 2. A request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new zone district to be entitled "Hillside Residential." Applicant: Town of Vail 19 Planning and Environmental commission 4/27/87 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Peggy Osterfoss Pam Hopkins Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Hobbs STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. _Request for variances to construct additions at 303 and 305 Hanson Ranch Road. �- Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis The staff presentation was made by Betsy Rosolack who ended her discussion by saying the staff recommended denial. The staff felt the additions could be accomplished within the setback area. Tom Briner began the presentation for the applicant, followed by the architect, Dan Rickli, who described the amendments since the previous submittal. Jerome Lewis, the applicant stated that he felt he was being penalized by owning . a small lot and pointed out that there was quite a bit of open space on three sides of the dwellings. Jay Peterson, respresenting Steve Berkowitz, the adjacent neighbors to the west, stated that he agreed with the staff in that the additional GRFA was driving the need for setback variances. Berkowitz still objected to the front setback variances. Sid Schultz stated that with the amount of open space around, the setback variances did not bother him. The amount of site coverage did bother Sid, but he felt that perhaps the size of the lot did constitute a hardship regarding site coverage. He felt that the DRB should take a close look at the parking and pointed out that in other zone districts, parking was usually screened. Diana Donovan had mixed emotions about the setbacks requested. She felt that burying the garage helped to mitigate the east side encroachment, but would have liked to have seen the front setback encroachments decreased and necessary only for garages. Peggy Osterfoss stated that the applicant had undoubtedly worked to reduce the amount of requested variances from the last PEC meeting and felt that the added landscaping on the east side helped to mitigate the encroachment. She said that since Rickli stated he could eliminate the deck encroachment, . that he should do that. She did not feel that the size of the lot was a particular hardship. J.J. Collins stated that although the adjacent open space did mitigate the proposed construction, there seemed to be enough space within the setbacks to accomplish what the applicant was trying to do without going outside of the setback line. Regarding views of the Gore Range from the Berkowitz property, Collins repeated that he felt the applicant could accomplish the additions within his own setbacks. Jim Viele felt the additions were satisfactory and an improvement in the previous plan. He agreed with Peggy with respect to site coverage and felt the size of the lot was not a particular hardship. Viele did feel the front setback was a special circumstance and stated that a 60 foot right -of -way was a lot of room for traffic. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the requested variances with the findings including "The strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other proerties in the same district." There would not be any deck encroachment. The vote was 5 -0 -1 with Pam Hopkins abstaining. 2. Hillside Residential Zone • After discussion, Donovan moved and Collins seconded to recommend approval to Council with 1/2 acre as the minimum lot size and the density control to be 20% of each 100 square feet up to 30,000 square feet and 5% over 30,000; plus equestrian centers added to conditional uses if they are located on a minimum of 5 acres of common area. The vote was 4 -1 in favor. (Peggy had left.) u 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 27, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances and a site coverage variance in order to contruct garages and additions to a primary /secondary residence located on Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicant is requesting these variances to construct garages and additions to the primary /secondary residence. The request is to add to each unit a 2 -car garage and additional square footage, including 250 square feet as permitted under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The existing structures are nonconforming as they are already above their allowed GRFA and encroach into the rear setback by 4 feet. The applicant presented the proposal at the April 20th PEC meeting, and asked to table in order to verify GRFA statistics. He has reduced the GRFA request with the result that he no longer needs variances to GRFA, landscaping, or rear or stream setback requirements. Zonina Statistics: Zone: Primary /Secondary Site Area: 12,583 sf Site Coverage Allowed: 2,515 200 of 12,583 (site area) Existing: 1,908 15% of site area Requested: 3,511 270 of site area gPtharkc Required: 20 ft front 15 ft each side Roof overhang may be 4 ft into setback. Decks 5 ft above ground may encroach 5 ft into setback. • .7 L� Requested: Secondary Unit West A front setback variance of 8 ft for a garage and GRFA addition over the garage plus a setback variance for an additional 4 feet for a 12 foot variance of the roof overhang. Primary Unit (East) • front setback variance of 6 feet for the garage. • front setback variance of 1 foot for a deck. • side setback variance of 6 feet for the garage. r_n'+a Primary (East) Secondary (West) Allowed GRFA 1887 1258 ------------------------------------------------------- Existing 2038 1378 Plus credits Mechanical 50 30 Storage 57 Proposed GRFA (credits excluded) 2038 1378 Total credits used Mechanical 50 50 Storage 173 200 Airlock 23 25 Ordinance 4 additions 230 208 Total Proposed including Ord 4 and credits 2514 1861 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 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. 1. Front and Side Setbacks Although the encroachments have been reduced, the staff believes the garage to the east could be moved further north and west to avoid setback variances. The garage is being pulled into the setback due to the proposed location of the additional square footage. It is felt that the proposed encroachments have a negative impact upon the neighborhood. 2. Site Covera It is this variance request which the staff feels will have the most impact upon the neighborhood. The site coverage has been reduced from the previous proposal of 33% to 27% The effects have been partially mitigated by berming the easterly garage and placing a patio over it. However, the staff feels that it is important on a lot of this size (12,583) that there is no more site coverage than the maximum in order to maintain adequate open space. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation 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. 1. Setbacks While it may not be possible to build 2 garages that do not encroach at all into the front setback, staff believes that the encroachments can be reduced if the additional square footage is added to the site in areas that will not create the need for setback variances. 2. Site Coverage As stated earlier, it is vital on a lot of this size to follow the Town of Vail development standards, particularly with regard to Ordinance 4. it is true that the garages contibute to the excess site coverage. However, the 250 s.f. additions also contribute to the site coverge which is a grant of special privilege. 0 The effect of the requested variance on light and air distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This proposal would have no effect on the above factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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. 0 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the requested variances. Though the Town passed Ordinance 4 to allow extra density of 250 square feet, the ordinance specifically addressed the fact that in granting this extra density, proposals would be reviewed closely with respect to 4 • • • site planning, impact on Town of Vail development development proposed must development guidelines as Ordinance 4. adjacent properties and standards. Staff feels conform more closely to outlined in the zoning applicable that the existing code and in We also believe that the garages are an improvement to the site. However, it is staff's opinion that the garages could be sited in a manner that would minimize if not negate the need for setback variances. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 20, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Hobbs STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Rick Pylman Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of March 9 and March 23. Diana Donovan moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 9. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the meeting of March 23. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. a. A request to adopt rules of procedure for home occupancy revocation hearings. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that for the first time, a home occupancy permit revocation was being appealed. He explained that this would be a quasi - judicial hearing and the PEC would act like a judge and would decide whether or not to uphold or overturn the revocation of the license. Larry gave the Planning Commission a list of rules of procedure. Diana Donovan moved to adopt the "Commission Regulations Setting Forth Procedures Applicable to Appeals of the Revocation of Home Occupancy Permits by the Zoning Administrator." The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the vote to adopt was 6 -0 in favor. 2. b. Consideration of a request for a stay of execution of the order of the zoning administrator revoking Vail East Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit and establishment of a date to hear the appeal of the revocation of the East Vail Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that he felt there was no harm done by granting a stay of execution, since there would probably not be very much business until June. Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to hold the hearing of this license on May 27 at 3:00 PM. The vote was 6- 0 in favor of this date. 0 . 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a parking lot on top of the west half of the Upper Ka,le.Valley Water and Sanitation water plant located at 846 Forest Road. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District Peter Patten explained that this building was located in the PUD zone district and the Planning Commission sets the standards for this zone district as applicable. UEVCSD wished to relocate their parking facility from Town of Vail land and Vail Associates property to their own property. He showed site plans and explained that the staff was concerned that there be some type of screening to the west as well as to the north. Dave Mott, applicant, stated that he had no problem with landscaping to buffer the view to the north, but it was difficult to do now until the width of the road is known. He felt that UEVCSD should not be asked to submit a bond to the Town of Vail since he felt this was inappropriate between two government entities, but was willing to submit a letter of credit. He added that he would be willing to raise to 42" the rail on the parapet wall to the west, but felt that no amount of screening would be adequate to hide the parking from the building to the west. • Peter stated that a bond was standard procedure with everybody, but that a letter of credit would be fine. He added that some buffer to the west was important for future development on the adjacent property. Peter presented the parking proposal to the Town Council, and they had no problems with the proposal. Pam Hopkins was concerned about having enough landscaping to the north and having it done well. She felt that with the new road so close to the existing road, enough landscaping was very important. Sid Schultz and Diana Donovan agreed. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she did not feel comfortable approving the request until she had more information on the final design of the new ramp and whether or not there would be enough room to landscape the area for adequate screening. J.J. Collins' main concern was with making certain that there would be enough landscaping provided when the Highway Department's design was completed. He felt that there really was no way to plan the landscaping without state Highway Department input. J.J.'s second concern was with screening the lot to the west. He felt that with the present conditions, the proposed parapet wall was adequate, but was concerned that future use of the property to the west would change the is 0 required screening. Peter's concern was that in the future the Town could not go back and ask for more or different screening. J.J. moved to approved the request for the conditional use permit conditional upon Design Review Board review and in light of requirements for landscaping on the north property line, especially as it would be related to the new exit. Also required would be a letter of credit from the applicant. The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the vote for approval was 5 -0. 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a residence on Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17 Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tennenbaum Rick Pylman showed site plans and explained that the applicant was requesting a 10 foot variance from the 15 foot side setback requirement for a lot which had recently been created by the applicant. Rick stated that the applicants also owned the property to the east (Parcel A) and were willing to restrict development on Parcel A to a distance of 25 feet from the property line by use of a deed restriction or covenants. Rick explained that the staff requested that this area be left as undisturbed open space, but the applicants declined to leave this buffer undisturbed. Rick also stated that the side setback area requested for encroachment contained several fairly significant natural features, including two large spruce trees. The staff recommendation was for denial of the side setback variance because they felt there was no physical hardship driving the side setback encroachment and felt it would be a grant of special privilege. Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that the applicants could have achieved the requested setbacks if they had requested a special development district, but had preferred to go through a subdivision process instead. They felt that any problems could be achieved through the variance procedure. He felt the integrity of the setbacks was being maintained. J.J. Collins stated that he did not see why a building could not be designed in such a way that it remained within the setbacks and did not destroy large trees. Jay replied that this was the area in which to place the house to take advantage of the views. J.J. pointed out that the applicant had a clear lot on which to build and plenty of room. Jay replied that when the trade -offs became too great, they decided to ask for a variance. He added that hundreds of hours were spent on various schemes on all three sites. Peggy asked if there was any interest in evergreen trees that would be lost. Jay already spending a lot of money on lands did a good job of expressing her views. would work with the proposal if the lost replaced. protecting the two replied that they were gaping. Peggy said J.J. She felt that she landscaping would be Jay stated that a landscaped buffer could be a condition of approval. Kurt Cegerberg stated that they were trying to bring landscaping into the building area and attention would be paid to bring landscaping into the buffer area. Diana felt it was too bad that the applicant first created the lot and then could not design a house to fit the lot. Jay replied that he could have asked for a special development distict and gotten rid of the property line and kept within the interity of the zone code and received approval. He added that he would rather use the variance procedure as long as he could keep the integrity of the zone code. Sid shared a lot of the feelings the other members stated. He wished it hadn't gotten to this state, but felt if there was a 30' buffer between the houses, it would preserve the distance factor. He added that he did not feel driven to preserve the rock outcropping. Pam felt that there was no hardship on which to base the granting of a variance. Jay replied that any time the PEC is given a variance, they look at it on a site by site basis, that each project stands alone. Jim Viele agreed with Jay with respect to the proces. He added that if there is no objective judgement involved, there would be no variance procedure. He stated that in the overall view, the purpose of the setbacks is to maintain the distance of separation between dwellings. He wondered if the project would be a better one if it conformed to the setback regulations and added that he would rather see the house where is was proposed to be rather than take out additional trees. J.J. asked why the house was sited where it was on Parcel A to the west, and Kurt replied that they were trying to pick up views of Gore Range and down valley and that the dwelling was broken up to help to reduce the massiveness of the project. J.J. stated that on Parcel B he saw plenty of room within the required setbacks. Curt said he could not argue with the fact that one can fit something on the lot, but the trees were a major concern. Jay added that on any given site one can build without going into setback areas, but it may make an uninteresting town. J.J. pointed out that each time he had seen the PEC challenge an architect, the architect had been able to come up with a plan within the setbacks. He repeated the fact that the architect in this case had a clean piece of property. Jay answered that they had voluntarily torn down the existing structure and should be given latitude to build, that they were being penalized for making a clean site. Viele spoke in favor of the proposal as long as the buffer would remain. Jay answered that there would be a deed restriction that only the Town of Vail could remove the buffer. Pam Hopkins pointed out that another owner could hire Jay to ask to remove the buffer. She added that the PEC was going through this process because Parcel A had to be a minimum site. Jay said the purpose of the subdivision was to stop from having two old homes being added onto. He added that they knew they might have to ask for variances when they planned the subdivision. Peter Patten felt that the natural features should be preserved within the 15 foot setback area and added that this was a self created hardship. . Jim Viele moved to approve the variance with the findings that the strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zone code. He specified that particular attention be paid by the DRB of landscaping planned to be in the 30 foot buffer. Sid seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor and 2 (JJ and Pam) against. 5. A_request for front, side, rear and stream setback variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential floor area variance and a variance from required landscaping in order to construct additions on Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal, stating that the applicants wanted to build two 2 -car garages and additional square footage allowed under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The staff recommendation was for denial as it was felt the additions could be constructed within the setback areas. Tom Briner, one of the architects on the project, spoke in favor of the project and Dan Rickli, another architect, IP explained that there seemed to be a discrepancy in the amount of square footage that they were adding. Jerry Lewis and John . Kennerly, applicants, also spoke in favor of the project. Rickli felt that garages should not be counted as site coverage if they were not counted as GRFA. He also proposed eliminating 4 parking spaces and decreasing the curb cuts from 4 to 3. Jim Viele asked Betsy if the staff had had time to review the new proposal, and she replied that they had not. Craig Snowdon, architect representing the adjacent neighbors to the west, Steve Berkowitz, read a letter from Berkowitz objecting to the encroachments, stating that views would be negatively impacted. J.J. felt it was difficult to consider the proposal with a discrepancy in statistics. Peggy Osterfoss agreed and also felt concern for Berkowitz's views. Rickli disagreed that the additions would impact the views from the Berkowitz property. Peggy added that the burying of the garage was a step in the right direction, but she stated that she would like to see fewer than 3 road cuts with more landscaping instead of asphalt. Diana agreed and added that her main concern was the stream setback. Sid's biggest concern was site coverage. He also felt there was too much asphalt. Briner mentioned that this was a DRB issue. Pam Hopkins abstained from comment because her firm was working on the Berkowitz proposal. Jim Viele stated that when a proposal contains so many variance requests, it is a good indication that too much is being placed on the site. Jerry Lewis asked if he could table and Peter answered that the item could be tabled until 4/27 if the applicant could get revised figures and drawings into the Community Development Departmant by Wednesday morning, the 22nd. Lewis requested to table to 4/27. Diana moved and Sid seconded to table the request until April 27. The vote was 5 -0 -1 (Pam abstained from voting.) 6. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6, Vail village Inn. Tom Braun presented the amendment request and stated the staff recommended denial, citing the need for additional parking, assurances the Ski Museum would be relocated, and the need for accommodation units. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, reminded the board that twice the Vail Village Inn complex had submitted phased . projects, but the potential developers could not fund the projects. Now Joe Staufer will develop the new phases himself. Jay explained the valet parking and stated that it was a temporary measure until the next phase could be constructed. He stated that it was not economically feasible for Mr. Staufer tc construct additional parking with this phase. Jay stated that the applicant was willing to restrict the dwelling units per the staff recommendation. Regarding the Ski Museum, Jay stated that 4,000 square feet of building could be given to the Town to use free of charge for any use the Town would want. Pam asked if valet parking was planned for the commercial area, and Jay replied that it was not. Joe Staufer stated that he had 30 - 50 parking spaces that are always empty. He added that the Sonnenalp, Plaza, and Bell Tower had all expanded and none had added any parking. Jay then pointed out that there were no large projects being constructed at this time which were not phased. Pam agreed with the parking, and felt that perhaps more locals would be using this parking lot. Sid also did not have any problem with the parking and felt that to receive the 4,000 square feet of space in the building was better for the Town than for the Town to receive $15,000 to relocate the Ski Museum. He did feel that the new residential units should be controlled for public use. Diana felt the units needed to be available for rental. She felt that the Museum relocation must be worked out and must be a part of this amendment. Joe Staufer felt that the Town did not gain anything by "kicking the owner out" especially if the owner wanted to be in Vail for two months in the summer. Mr. Staufer suggested that the unit be available for rental and not be the primary residence of the owner. Diana stated that she did not patronize many of the stores in the Vail Village Inn complex because she did not have any place to park. Diana asked for a commitment to finish the building as proposed. However, she still felt that there would be a parking problem. Jay said that for the parking to work, all the phases must be done. Peggy Osterfoss felt that the proposal should include assurance that the developer will relocate the Ski Museum and relandscape because a landscaped area was being removed in the proposal. Jay replied that with the new proposal, the Town of Vail would end up with a large chunk of real estate. He added that the applicant was willing to participate in redoing the intersection. Peggy stated that she did not want to see the landscaping issue lost in the shuffle, and felt the responsibility rested with the developer. More discussion followed concerning parking. Peter pointed out that parking spaces under the condos were controlled by a gate and were under utilized. Tom felt that it was the responsibil- ity of the developer to provide parking on the site. J.J. referred to the memo which indicated a shortfall of 100 spaces. He was told 180 of the spaces were required to be valet and he wondered how the decision was made to have 180 of the spaces be valet. Tom replied that it varied with use. He added that phases I and II contained 22,000 square feet and phase III contained 10,000 square feet with no parking provided. He added that he felt it was the repsponsibility of the developer to provide parking on the site. Joe Stauffer said he would like to be able to pay into the parking fund as did businesses in Commercial Core I and II. J.J. suggested that perhaps Staufer could pay the Town for parking at building permit time and the Town could repay Staufer when his parking was complete. The Ski Museum was discussed. Tom stated that at present the amended SDD did not address the needs of the Ski Museum. Jay pointed out that the space offered to the Town was worth $1 Million. J.J. said it seemed like an opportunity for the Town, the space could be sold for a substantial amount of cash. Tom pointed out that one condition was that it be used for the public. Jay stated that they were willing to remove that stipulation. J.J. felt the key issue of the owner /rental question was occu- pancy and this issue was discussed. Also discussed was the deletion of landscaping for parking. Saundra Smith stated that they were willing to remove two parking spaces and place landscaping in place of the spaces. Peter felt to approve the proposed shortfall of parking would be inconsistent. He pointed out that the Westin was not able to do any more construction until the parking structure was finished. He stated that the Plaza and Bell Tower were different, in that they were in a pedestrian area and paid into the parking fund. He pointed out that the proposal under construction was adjacent to the 4 -way stop with vehicle access and must have on -site parking. J.J. discussed the parking figures. Joe Staufer proposed to make the dwelling units be available for rental when they were unoccupied. Sid Schultz moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the amendments to SDD 6 as submitted with the following conditioins: 1. The use of the units be restricted to non - primary residence and be part of a rental pool. 2. The applicant shall participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district for the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. • 3. The vote was 5 -1 in favor. 10 J.J. Left at this point. 7. • A request for setback variances in order to construct additions to the property at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Vill 1st Filing. Applicants: Howard, Judy and Steven Berkowitz Rick Pylman showed a site plan and explained the proposal, adding that the staff recommendation was for approval. Craig Snowdon, architect for the project, explained the plans. Peggy osterfoss suggested the deck be only over the garage, and Craig said he would reduce the deck. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4 - 0 - 1 abstention (Pam). 8. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage at 325 Forest Road. Applicant: Tim Drisko Tom Braun showed an improvement survey and explained the request. Gary Walker, representing the applicant, stated that the main reason for the location of the garage was to have access to an existing driveway and parking in front of the garage. Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 9. A request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new zone district to be entitled "Hillside Residential." Applicant: Town of Vail This item was tabled. • C] • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 27, 1987 SUBJECT: Hillside Residential Zone District In late February, the Planning Commission and Town staff held a work session on the proposed Hillside Residential zone district. Four main issues that came out of that work session were: 1) minimum lot size, 2) allowable GRFA, 3) size of the caretaker unit, and 4) location and siting of the caretaker unit. The staff has since revised the proposed Hillside Residential zone district to reflect these concerns. The minimum lot size has been increased from 21,780 square feet to 30,040 square feet. We have developed a formula to assess GRFA to these lot sizes. The formula is enclosed in your packet as a work sheet. The formula that was derived allows 15% of buildable area up to the minimum lot size and 5% of developable area above the minimum lot size. The staff chose this formula over many others because we felt it met the directions given by PEC in the work session. That direction was to allow enough GRFA at minimum lot size to accommodate the type of development desired but to also prevent over - development of the lot by allowing too much GRFA. The allowable size of the caretaker unit had been discussed as possibly being a ratio of the allowable GRFA or as a prescribed maximum size. Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting revolved around what we were trying to accomplish with the caretaker unit. If it was a true caretaker unit, it did not need to be a ratio of the allowable GRFA, but a set maximum size. The staff has set this at 1200 square feet, which was felt an adequate size for a caretaker unit. The location of the caretaker unit was discussed and it was felt that a carriage house type of development with the caretaker located in the garage structure would be appropriate. The Planning Commission did feel that the caretaker unit should be integrated into the main unit or into a garage structure and should not be a separate freestanding structure. We have attempted to reflect this desire in the wording of this district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In conclusion, the staff is comfortable with this zone district as currently written. We feel that the changes in recommendations which have been worked out with the Planning • Commission will be beneficial to this districts and we feel that this district now represents a clear direction of what the Land Use Plan states as a desire for a Hillside Residential zone district. The staff recommends that the PEC recommend adoption of the Hillside Residential Zone District as presented. 0 40 4. Accessory Uses The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HR district: A. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreational facilities customarily incidental to single family uses B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 5. Lot Area and Site Dimensions The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty thousand square feet (30,000) of contiguous buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of fifty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square eighty feet on each side within its boundaries. 6. Setbacks . In the HR district, minimum front setbacks shall be twenty feet, minimum side setbacks shall be fifteen feet, minimum rear setbacks shall be fifteen feet. 7. Height For a flat roof or mansard roof the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet. 8. Density Control Not more than a total f t dwelling units shall be permitted on each site. Not more than -�..a.,�� square feet of gross residential floor area (CRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first t- W_rt_y__t w4saM square feet of site area, plus not more than five square, feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted ¢for ,eA, h_..o.ne..�r- ` hundred square feet of site area over th4�y t4ra a�square feet. On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed twelve hundred square feet of gross residential floor area (CRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold separately from the main dwelling. This unit may be integrated into the main dwelling or may be integrated within a garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure. r� 9. Site Coverage is Not more than fifteen (15) percent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. 10. Landscaping and Site Development At least seventy (70) percent of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet with a minimum area of not less than three hundred square feet. 11. Parking Off- street shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. C] � 0 • • MIN) LOT @ 21190 611FA(.20,.05) 4356 4367 4417 4467 4`17 4567 4617 4667 4717 4767 4617 4667 4917 4967 5017 5067 5117 5167 5217 5267 5317 5367 ;417 5467 5517 5567 5617 5667 5717 5767 5445 9801 11479 14157 0 MIN. LOT @ 30 LOT SIZE ------------------------------------- 66FA {.15,.05} tit'iFAt.15,.10) 21760 3257 3267 22000 3300 3300 23000 3450 3450 24000 3600 3600 20JO00 3750 3750 26000 3900 3400 27000 4050 4050 26000 4200 4200 29000 4350 4350 30000 4540 4500 31000 4550 4600 32000 4600 4700 33000 4650 4600 34000 4700 4900 35000 4750 5000 36000 4600 5100 37000 4850 J21J0 38000 4900 5300 39000 4950 5400 40000 5000 5500 41000 .10O 5600 42.600 5100 5700 43000 5150 5800 44000 5200 5900 45000 5250 6000 46000 5300 6100 47000 5350 6200 48000 5400 6300 44900 5450 6400 50000 5500 6500 43560 5176 5856 130680 9534 14569 174240 11712 18924 217800 13390 23L80 0 0 • MIN) LOT @ 21190 611FA(.20,.05) 4356 4367 4417 4467 4`17 4567 4617 4667 4717 4767 4617 4667 4917 4967 5017 5067 5117 5167 5217 5267 5317 5367 ;417 5467 5517 5567 5617 5667 5717 5767 5445 9801 11479 14157 0 , HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) DISTRICT Sections: 1�S yrj U1L� Purpose 2., cD� Permitted Uses 3. ,o'2)OConditional Uses 4.,olo Accessory Uses S..(�,w Lot Area and Site Dimensions 6. .t:�(,,;,Setbacks 7. Height 8. Density Control 9. -'Site Coverage 10.- `)F�Landscaping and Site Development 11. • ObParki ng i. Purpose The Hillside Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Hillside Residential District is intended to insure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable low density high quality residential development of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 2. Permitted Uses • The following uses shall be permitted in the HR district: Single family residential dwellings One caretaker apartment per lot. 3. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Public utility and public service uses B. Public buildings, grounds and facilities C. Public park and recreation facilities I• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 11, 1987 2:15 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. A request for density and setback variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Mr. Paul. Johnston 2. A request for an amendment to a special development distict in order to change a tennis court to a parking lot at Vail Run Resort (SDD5) Applicant: Mr. William Fleisher 3. Work session on Blu's and Sweet Basil deck enclosures El • Planning and Environmental Commission May 11, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Vi.ele ABSENT Pam Hopkins STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request for density and setback variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road on Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mr. Paul Johnston Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed view analysis • drawings, elevations and site and floor plans. She explained that the staff recommended denial, but if the PEC approved the request, the staff recommended 4 conditions of approval. John Perkins, architect for the project, stated that the project was not giving the Christiania a lot of reimbursement, but was more back -of -house space to improve the operations. Paul Johnston, the applicant, stated that up to this time, the Christiania had not had enough common area, that whoever designed the Christiania did not design a large enough entry and lobby area. He mentioned that competition has escalated among lodges. Regarding the landscaping of the parking area next to Hanson Ranch Road, he felt that the landscaping might not survive because of snow plows. Kristan answered that the landscaping may need more design work but could be designed with snow removal considerations. Sid questioned how much landscaping could be put between the parking lot and street. He felt that since the plan basically supported the goals of the Village Master Plan, he felt it was not right to penalize the applicant because the Plan was not finished. Sid felt amenities should be encouraged. Paul added that the addition to Sarah's was mainly for serving breakfast. He also mentioned that he has had ongoing conversations with VA concerning making the parking lot into underground parking, but that so far the conversation was more of a monologue. Peggy agreed with Sid. J.J. wondered why the Christiania did not take advantage of the attic space and add even more rooms to maximize the addition. Paul responded that the basic roof line should be maintained and that the attic space had a very low ceiling. J.J. felt that the unit development was not an issue as GRFA, landscaping and site coverage standards were maintained. Jim Viele agreed. Diana felt the DRB should find out which trees would be removed and which saved. J.J. moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request with findings including "there are exceptions or extraordinary cirumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone." Also given as the reason was the fact that the proposal conformed to the Village Master Plan. The vote was 6- 0 with conditions 1 through 4 in the memo and landscaping must be addressed at DRB, especially trees that will be lost. 2. A request for an amendment to a special development district in order to change a tennis court to a par_ king lot at Vail Run Resort SDD5 . Applicant: Mr. William Fleisher Kristan Pritz presented the memo and showed a site plan. She stated that the staff recommended approval of the request. Bill Fleisher, the applicant, added information about the • present parking situation. He proposed building a berm with a wall of railroad ties with 8' -10, trees. If there is no berm, he proposed that the trees be 15' high. He said he may also put trees in front of the bubble. Ann Sullivan, manager of read a letter of protest pollution, and reduction were the reasons for the distributed and read froi parking lot. Simba Run to the west, distributed and stating that noise, lighting, of value of Simba Run condominiums protest. A letter was also n Nicholas Giancamilli protesting the Bill Fleisher responded that he felt the parking lot would be 15 feet from the property line and that there was another 30 feet to the Simba Run building. He felt that the upper Simba units would not be affected because people look out, not down. He stated that there were two courts in the tennis bubble. He also stated that the parking lot would be used mainly for cars which park all day long, so the noise factor would be minimal and that Vail Run did not experience undesirables in their parking lot. He felt that Simba was aware of the propety line when they built their units. Ann Sullivan replied that the 12 units that she was referring to would look down at the parking lot. She did not feel that 15 foot trees would buffer the parking lot from the higher units. -2- Kristan confirmed that the southwest corner of the tennis court was 12 feet from the property line. J.J. Collins felt that this was a situation that ought to be addressed between neighbors. He did not feel comfortable making a decision with the amount of information available. He saw no reason Vail Run could not provide parking on their site but J.J. felt the parking lot impacts should be mitigated and some compromise should be reached. Peggy Osterfoss felt that the lack of adequate parking for Vail Run needed to be addressed. She stated that the fact that Vail Run was in the County when it was constructed did not help to make a decision. Peggy felt that to have parking within 30 feet of a condo would not be pleasant for the condo owners unless there was a significant amount of landscaping between the parking lot and Simba Run. On the other hand, parking was needed for Vail Run. Diana wondered if the lot would work in the winter, with regard to drainage and also asked where snow would be pushed. Fleisher responded that there would be a 10 foot opening in the fence toward the Frontage Road and the snow would be pushed out of that opening. Diana wondered if a wooden fence would help reduce the amount of noise and light from headlights. Fleisher stated that 3/4 of the lot was pointed away from Simba. Diana asked if parking could be restricted to people staying a week and Fleisher said the lot would probably be used that way because a lot of people arrive with two cars and leave one parked for a week or two. He stated that the underground parking was used for owners of the condos, and the people leasing the commercial spaces were not allowed to use the underground parking. Sid stated that he could see the need for additional parking for Vail Run, but wanted more information to see how the parking related to the improvement survey with regard to the Simba Run property. He felt additional landscaping should be used, and DRB should address low impact lighting. Jim Viele asked if the lot fell under the size requirement to have interior landscaping, and Kristan read the requirements which stated that 10% of parking lots which contained 15 or more spaces must have interior landscaping. Viele felt this was a DRB issue. Kristan noted that this would decrease the number of spaces, but the applicant would still be gaining many parking spaces. Fleischer said that with the cost of the ramp, it was important to keep all spaces, but if he lost only 3, the ramp would still be worth while. Viele stated that studies of parking requirements for commercial space in Vail found that parking was generally adequate, but that there was an obvious . need at Vail Run for parking for residential purposes. He felt that the DRB should be made aware of the need for landscaping -3- and reduction of any lighting impacts on adjacent properties. Discussion followed concerning putting the parking lot where the bubble exists, and Kristan stated that the staff had looked at that possiblility, but that the grades appeared too steep to allow a ramp to be built in that area. Bryan Hobbs moved and Sid Schultz seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council of the parking lot request with direction to the Design Review Board that specific attention be placed in negating the negative impacts of the parking lot with respect to simba Run via landscaping, low lighting and ways to reduce noise. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. A work session followed concerning deck enclosures at Blu's and Sweet Basil restaurants. The board was reminded that the next meeting was to be the special hearing of the home occupation permit revocation and would be May 27 at 1:30 P.M. The meeting of May 25 would be held on June 1. • -4- L • T0: FROM: � 0 10 DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department May 11, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District #5, Development Area A, Vail Run in order to convert an existing exterior tennis court to parking, creating a total of 21 additional parking spaces. Applicant: Vail Run Resort I. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST: The applicant, Vail Run Resort, is requesting to amend SDD #5, to allow for the conversion of an existing tennis court to parking. Construction of the access ramp to the tennis court would eliminate five existing parking spaces. The proposed parking plan for the tennis court area shows the creation of 26 parking spaces for a total new additional parking of 21 spaces. The Vail Run project was developed within the jurisdiction of Eagle County and upon annexation to the Town of Vail was zoned SDD5. Ordinance 6, Series of 1986, established Special Development District No. 5 and describes the development plan simply as the existing conditions on site. The ordinance goes on to list permitted and conditional uses. However, there is no mention of parking requirements or site requirements such as certain recreation facilities and the maintenance thereof, or any criteria related to site coverage, landscaped areas, etc. The applicant, in a previous submittal, detailed a parking analysis that shows a shortfall of 97 spaces when comparing existing conditions to current Town of Vail parking standards. 11. IMPACTS OF PROPOSAL The ordinance establishing Special Development District 5 states no specific requirements regarding the recreational facilities available to Vail Run Resort. The loss of the existing exterior tennis court is mitigated by the fact that there remains two existing covered courts within the adjacent bubble. The applicant has certainly proven a need for additional parking on this site and is going to some length in order to secure parking that they feel is necessary for the functioning of their property. The only concern of the Community Development Department is the impact of the conversion from recreational facility to parking on the adjacent Simba Run units. The applicant has proposed a buffer of 15 foot tall Colorado spruce trees. We would encourage the Planning Commission to carefully examine the adequacy of this proposed buffer and pass along any concerns to the Design Review Board. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommendation is Development Department feels sufficiently demonstrated a parking and we feel that the is the southwest corner of t Simba Run property. We do f could be increased to furthe for approval. The Community that the applicant has need for additional on- -site only impact of this proposal he lot that is adjacent to the eel that the proposed buffer r reduce this impact. • TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental commission Community Development Department May 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for density and setback variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road on Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REMODEL Mr. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania Lodge, is requesting to add a third floor of five accommodation units, to rearrange the existing lodge units, and to add common area. This request requires density and setback variances. Below is a list of the expansions and adjustments made to each floor. A. Ground Floor !Garden Level Expand Unit 105 and combine Units 107 and 109 for an increase of 95 square feet of GRFA. Convert 1 dwelling unit to housekeeping office, 300 square feet. New laundry space, 378 square feet. B. First Floor Expand Unit 205 and combine Units 207 and 209 for an increase in GRFA of 83 square feet. Lobby and storage area: 186 square feet. Lobby office: 103 square feet. Sarah's Bar: 366 square feet. C. Second Floor Expand Unit 305 and combine Units 307 and 309 for additional GRFA of 83 square feet. Add Unit 301A = 418 square feet. Common space: 402 square feet D. Third Floor Five new accommodation units = 2,015 square feet GRFA. Loft expansion for existing dwelling unit of 284 square feet. Common space: 344 square feet. Essentially, three accommodation units and one dwelling unit are being lost due to the re- arrangement of rooms. Six new accommodation units are created through the expansion for a net increase of 1 accommodation units. E. Parking Lot Paving and Landscaping The proposal also includes the upgrading of the existing Christiania parking lot located across the street from the lodge. V.A. owns the entire lot and uses the western portion of the parking area. The Christiania leases the eastern half of the lot from Vail Associates. The owner proposes to asphalt his portion of the lot as well as to add landscaping to the entire property. Landscaping is proposed for the south and north sides of the lot. F. Mill Creek Path Landscaping, Trash Enclosure A foot path with a small seating area is proposed to be built along the east side of Mill Creek. The path would be an informal stepping stone path with a seating bench adjacent to the creek. The path would be located between the Christiania split rail fence and Mill Creek. The owner is also proposing to create a trash enclosure that screens the lodge's trash area from this path as well as from pedestrians on Hanson Ranch Road. A landscape buffer would also be added on the west side of the trash area. II. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES A. Density Variance The property is located in the Public Accommodation zone district which allow 9 dwelling units or 18 accommodation units. (Please note that 2 accommodation units or units without kitchens = one dwelling unit or a unit with a kitchen.) The existing lodge has 25 accommodation units and two dwelling units which equals 14.5 dwelling units. This creates a nonconforming situation in that the property is already 5.5 dwelling units over the allowable 9 dwelling units. The proposal calls for a total of 28 accommodation units plus one dwelling unit which equals 15 dwelling units. A variance is needed for the additional accommodation unit (.5 dwelling units -2- • � 0 The request does not require a GRFA may have up to 13,232 square feet of GRFA is 7,397 square feet. Proposed new third floor would be 10,075 squa property would have 3,157 square fee after the remodel is built. B. 20% Common Area Variance variance. The lodge GRFA. The existing GRFA including the re feet. The t of GRFA remaining Common area includes halls, closets, lobbies, stairways and common enclosed recreation facilities. The allowed common area is 2,646 square feet. Presently, 2,255 square feet of common area exists. The proposal adds 1,955 square feet of additional hall space, lobby area, accessory office, and storage. A variance is necessary for the 1,574 square feet of common area over the allowable of 2.646 square feet. C. Setback Variances The Public Accommodation zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the lodge. A zero setback exists on the east side of the property as the Christiania Lodge connects directly with the Christiania Condominiums to the east. A 17 foot setback exists on the west side of the property as the southwest corner of the building encroaches three feet into the 20 foot setback area. The rear setback is 20 feet. The proposal maintains all of the existing setbacks except for the front and west side setbacks. A second floor cantilevered office and accommodation unit over the Christiania's main entrance creates a three foot encroachment into the 20 foot front setback. The 3 foot encroachment requires a variance. A proposed porte cochere off of the main entrance will have a support column that will be located at the property line. A zero setback is needed for the support column. The roof of the porte cochere would also overhang 3 feet onto the overhang would not exten planter encroachment. blic right-of-way. The roof eyond the existing 3 foot The new third floor of accommodation units expands an additional 3 feet into the west setback creating a 14 foot setback. A variance is necessary for the 3 foot encroachment. MIS . III. CHRISTIANIA LODGE ZONING STATISTICS Zone District: Public Accommodation Site Area: .3797 acres or 16,540 sf Density: [25 dwelling units (d.u.) /acre] [2 a.u. = 1 d.u.] Allowed: 18 a.u. or 9 d.u. Existing: 25 a.u. + 2 d.u. or 14.5 d.u. Existing units over allowable: 5.5 d.u. Proposed: 28 a.u. + 1 d.u. or 15 d.u. Difference: 1 a.u. or .5 d.u. Total amount over allowed after remodel: 12 a.u. or 6 d.u. GRFA: (.80) Allowed: Existing: Proposed: 10 Remaining after addit. 20% Common Area: Allowed: Existing: Proposed: Amount over allowed: 13,232 7,397 10,075 3,157 (.20 of allowable GRFA: Halls, closets, lobbies, stairways, common enclosed recreational facilities) 2,646 sf 2,255 sf 4,220 sf (30 % as opposed to 20 %) 1,574 sf Note: 80 sf of common area is added to the Christiania condominiums 10% Accessory Lodge, Rest /Bar, Recreational, Retail: (10% of GRFA) Allowed: 1323 sf Existing: 780 sf Proposed: 1146 sf -4- Setbacks: Required, 201 all sides Existing: Front: 15 ' E. Side 0' W. Side 17' Rear 20' Proposed: Front: Porte cochere, support columns and roof = 0' Roof overhangs 3' on T.O.V. right -of -way Second floor office + a.u., 3' encroachment =17' setback Expanding third floor, 4' encroachment, maintains existing encroachment = 15' setback East Side: Same, 0 setback West Side: Expanding . third floor, additional 3' encroachment = 14' setback Rear: Same, 20' setback Site Coverage: (.55 of site area) Allowed: 9,097 sf Existing: 5,235 sf Proposed: 6,090 sf Remaining 3,007 sf Landscaping: (.30 of site) Required: 4,962 sf Existing: 7,490 sf Proposed: 6,635 sf or 40% of site Height: Allowed: 48' sloping roof, 45' flat roof Existing: 36' Proposed: 401- 6" Under by: 71- 6" -5- � 0 PARKING Existing Proposed Use # Spaces Use # Spaces Grd Flr 8 a.u. 5.27 7 a.u. 4.97 1 d.u. 2.0 lst Floor 8 a.u. 5.27 7 a.u. 4.69 Sarah's 714 sf= 6.00 714 sf + 32 seats 10.00 2nd Floor 9 a.u. 5.85 9 a.u. 6.15 1 d.u. 2.00 1 du + loft 2.00 3rd Floor 0 5 a.u. 4.02 26.39 31.83 Christiania Condos 9.00 9.00 35.39 40.83 or 36 spaces required 41 spaces reqd 33 on site - 36 grandfathered 3 space grandfathered 5 spaces for addition The new parking requirement of 5 spaces is handled on site. An additional two spaces are also available due to the restriping of the lot and the use of valet parking. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Density Variance: The remodel of existing lodge rooms and the new accommodation unit are very compatible with the existing uses and structures in the area. A view analysis also indicates that the third floor addition willl have minimal impacts on views from adjacent properties. The surrounding properties are either zoned Public Accommodation or Commercial Core I. Both zone districts promote lodge uses. -6- � 0 The 20% common area variance is directly related to the density variance. in order to add new rooms and upgrade the lodge, it is necessary to add adequate lobby, hallway, and accessory office space. The additional common area that is proposed will improve the functioning of the lodge and is not in excess of what is a reasonable amount for these uses. Setback Variances: Front: The porte cochere support column and roof overhang provide an improvement for the entry to the lodge. The encroachment is an unenclosed structure which decreases the impact of the encroachment. Town of Vail Public Works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the encroachment and have no problem with the location of the structure. There is also an existing planter in this area that encroaches three feet beyond the property line. The Porte cochere would not extend the encroachment beyond this point. The second floor office and accommodation unit expansion does decrease the 20 foot setback to 17 feet. However, the front setback is already 15 feet at its narrowest point. For this reason, staff believes that the second floor expansion will have no negative impacts on adjacent properties. The expansion of the third floor merely maintains the existing front setback of 15 feet. West Side Setback: The expansion of the third floor decreases the west setback from 17 feet to 3 feet. However, an existing roof overhang and second floor balcony already create a 14 foot setback. It is felt that the new third floor bay windows that create the three foot encroachment will have minimal impact on adjacent properties. East Side Setback: With respect to the zero setba. encroachment maintains what is property. In general, the staff believes that not impact the property or adjacent pre - existing setbacks do. For this variances are considered to have no adjacent properties. -7- ak on the east side, this already existing on the the setback variances do uses any more than the reason, the setback major negative impacts on • B. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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. Density Variance: To approve the additional accommodation unit under the existing review criteria for a variance would be considered a grant of special privilege. However, staff's opinion is that this is the type of proposal which the Village Plan is designed to encourage as long as zoning standards are met. Due to the fact that the Village Plan is not approved, the staff must continue to work with the variance criteria. Given this situation, the approval of the accommodation unit is considered to be a grant of special privilege as there is no hardship that warrants approval of the project. Setback Variances: The staff believes it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the setback variances, as the encroachments due to the remodel do not increase beyond those that already exist on the property except for the west setback which has minimal impacts, as the encroachment is due to several third floor bay windows. C. The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This proposal will have no impacts on this criteria. D. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Vail Village Master Plan Even though the Village Plan is not approved at this time, staff's opinion is that the plan's preliminary goals and objectives generally reflect the opinions of the Planning commission and Town Council as well as community members who have reviewed these statements at public meetings. The plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges, the addition of accommodation units, the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open space. i• a • This proposal supports the plan's objectives by improving existing lodge units and adding new units while complying with site development standards. The paved parking area and landscaping improve the appearance of an existing eyesore in a very visible portion of the Village. The pedestrian path and seating area also enhance open space for pedestrians. Please see the attached list of Village Plan Goals and Objectives which relate to this project. Urban Design Guide Plan Sub -Area Concept No. S: Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive. The Urban Design Guide Plan calls out for the path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The owner proposes to add a stone foot path which is a positive improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village area. Even though the path was originally proposed for the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side provides a nicer walking experience. The west side of the . creek has a trash room for Cyrano's as well as several utility boxes which make it an unpleasant area to walk through. 10 Parking Improvements The proposal includes upgrading the parking lot by adding landscaping and paving. The owner leases this parking space from Vail Associates. It is true that under any expansion plan for the lodge, even if it did not require Planning Commission review, the staff would request that the parking area be landscaped and paved. However, the owner is also proposing to landscape the remainder of the parking lot which is owned by Vail Associates. It is felt that this landscaping will provide a much needed buffer between the parking lot and adjacent uses. 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. MIZ 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the setback variances and denial • of the density request. The setback variances can be supported, as the encroachments are not increased from those that presently exist on the site. Due to the fact that the Village Plan is not yet approved by the Town Council, staff is unable to support the density request. Our opinion is that this is the type of proposal that the Village Plan encourages, as all zoning standards are basically met. Staff would like to be able to support this type of prject once the Village Plan is approved. However, the staff feels that we must try to be consistent with our decision making and use the existing criteria for variance requests. For these reasons, we must recommend denial of the project. If the Planning Commission approves this request, staff would recommend the approval include the following conditions: 10 1. The Christiania parking lot be paved and landscaped. The proposal would also include landscaping the western portion of the lot owned by Vail Associates. 2. The owner would complete the pedestrian path between the existing bike path and Mill Creek Court Building. This path would also include a small seating area. -10- �J I• 3. The existing trash room on the northwest Corner of the site would be enclosed and screened by landscaping. 4. One of the new accommodation units will be restricted as short term rental units permanently and will not be taken out of the short term rental program at any time. The restriction will continue to apply even if the project is condominiumized or the ownership changes. This condition shall be written in a legal statement submitted to staff by the owner before a building permit will be issued. -11- • • APPLICABLE VAIL VILLAGE PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal #1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain Vail's sense of community and identity. Objective #2: Provide incentives for the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy: Allow increased levels of development as identified by the Action Plan or consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan. Goal #2: Foster a strong tourist industry and to promote year - around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective #3: Increase the number of residential units throughout the Village area available for short -term overnight accommodations. Policy: The development of accommodation units are strongly encouraged. Any residential units that are developed above existing density levels shall be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short -term rental. Objective #5: Encourage the continued upgrading and renovation of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Objective #6: Identify and implement improvements throughout the Village to embellish the physical design features and pedesstrian amenities of public spaces. Goal #3: Recognize as a top priority the importance of maintaining and enhancing the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective #1: Physically improve the existing pedestrianways throughout the Village by landscaping and other improvements. Policy: Require streetscape improvements in and along pedestrianways in conjunctioin with any infill development projects. -12- • Goal #4: Preserve existing open space areas and expand greenbelt opportunities. Objective #1: Recognize and improve the open space found throughout the Village (landscaped buffers, plazas, parks, active recreation areas and open space) and to cognizant of the different role each plays. Goal #5: Improve the transportation system and infrastructure by increasing both its capacity and efficiency throughout the Village area. objective #1: Meet the parking demand throughout the Village by the utilization of both public and private parking facilities. -13- TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 11, 1957 SUBJECT: Proposed exterior alterations to Blu's and Sweet Basil Applications will be made to the Planning Commision for exterior alterations involving deck enclosures for both Blu's and Sweet Basil. The applicants have requested a work session with the Planning Commission to make a preliminary presentation of these projects. While we have not held work sessions for projects of a similar nature in the past, we feel that this work session has merit with respect to the proposals' relationships to the proposed Gore Creek walkway. While the Planning Commission will not be asked to make commitments as to their reaction on these projects, any comments would be helpful to the applicants in the preparation for their formal submittal later this month. At the time this memo was prepared, staff had not seen drawings relative to these proposals. We have met with the applicants a number of times and offered conceptual comments concerning our attitude toward these deck enclosures. It is generally the feeling of the staff that north facing decks such as these may be enclosed under certain circumstances. These would include, or necessitate, totally operable windows. The enclosure should also be as transparent as possible. As a staff, we have felt for some time that given operable windows, any restauranteur will open these windows when weather permits. This opinion has been supported by Blu's small enclosure of two years ago. As the PEC may recall, this expansion was for operable windows, and it was demonstrated that when weather complied, Blu's had the windows open, providing not only deck space, but a strong sense of activity along the street from the indoor dining area. We feel that this concept is valid, and if the proposals for these decks are consistent with the idea of using operable, transparent enclosures, the staff does not have a fundamental problem with enclosing the decks. As stated, the staff has not seen the material that will be presented to the Planning Commission on Monday. For this reason, we are unable to provide any further information concerning design and compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. With respect to Blu's, a proposal will also be made to expand a portion of the dining deck onto Town of Vail land. The Town Council has authorized the applicant to proceed to the Planning Commission in much the same manner that the Lancelot Restaurant and Gorsuch Cafe have done in the past few years. As a result, we have no staff recommendation at this time. Planning and Environmental Commission May 27, 1987 1:30 P.M. Public Hearing: 1. Hearing of an appeal of the revocation of a home occupancy permit. 2. Preliminary review of exterior alteration requests in Commercial Cores I and Ii f a. Blu's b. Sweet Basil !( C. Gasthof Gramshammer d. Lionshead Center e. Antlers f. Treetops j g. Golden Peak House h. Plaza Lodge 3. Appointment of a member of PEC to the Design Review Board for June, July and August. 10 Planning and Environmental Commission June 1, 1987 2:30 P.M. Site Inspections 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing I. Approval of minutes of 4/27 and 5/11. 2. A request for a front setback variance in order to enlarge an existing residential area above a garage on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a density variance in order to enclose a 8 balconies and 2 decks at the Treetops Condominiums located at 450 East Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association • • Planning and Environmental. Commission June 1, 1987 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT J.J. Collins STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 4/27 and 5/11. A motion was made by Diana Donovan and seconded by Bryan Hobbs to approve both minutes. The vote was 6--0 in favor. 2. A request for a front setback variance in order to enlarge an existing residential area above a garage on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian • Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed site plans and elevations. She stated that the existing garage and covered stairway currently project about 2.1 feet into the front setback at the structure's northwest corner. The variance requested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The staff recommended approval of the request. Buff Arnold, architect representing the applicants further explained the request. Kristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the primary unit, and that one must be removed prior to construction of the requested addition. Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the staff memo plus the condition that one kitchen be removed from the primary unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a densit variance in order to enclose 8 balconies and 2 decks at the Treetops Condominiums located at 452 East Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association Kristan Pritz explained the request, showing site plans and elevations. She explained that the staff recommended approval of the exterior alterations and denial of the density variance. Tom Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the board that the staff must look at the property in black and white, but that the board could look at the grey areas with respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase in GRFA was minimal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed were useless because they were so small and that they were unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for storage. Pam Hopkins felt that these were good arguments in favor of the variance requested, but stated that she did not have a legal way to approve the decks. She felt the improvements would enhance Treetops Condos. Sid Schultz agreed with Pam and asked if the staff would look at Ordinance 4 again to try to find a way to include small changes to multi - family buildings. Diana Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she could not vote for the enclosures as enclosed decks. She felt that the space was used as a walkway, not a deck. Kristan stated that the concern when writing Ordinance 4 was that balconies and decks would be enclosed and result in flat facades which impact mass and bulk. It was difficult to know where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA would be appropriate. Peter asked if all the units which would enclose their decks had other outdoor space, and Briner replied that all of the units did have other outdoor space. Briner also stated that all of the windows would become bay windows which would give relief to the facade. He added that awnings would also be added. Jim Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward improvement to the property with additional GRFA. He felt that the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He also felt it would be good to go back to Ordinance 4 to see if changes could be made with reference to multi- family units. Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989 World Cup races. She stated that they were willing to be the scapegoats because she felt they would set a good example for the rest of the community and inspire others to fix up their property. Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Tom Briner estimated that 75% of dollars to be spent on the project would be for enclosing the decks, and possible 15% for landscaping. Diana felt there must be some way to allow projects which benefit the community to such an extent as this. Peggy Osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3 -4 months before there would be a change in the law. Peggy felt a policy change was needed. Pam felt that this was such a minimal amount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to base a policy related to percentages. Diana Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance on the basis that this is the type of project the town would like to see for three reasons: 1. There is a minimal percentage of increased GRFA. 2. Substantial landscaping and substantial improvements to the structures will be done in excess of that required. (This is a major emphasis of the proposal and does not include maintenance and upgrading which would normally be required.) 3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed balconies will remain for each unit. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request for the exterior alteration. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. • • C7 TO. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to enclose 10 decks at the Treetops Condominium Building #2 APPLICANT: Treetops Condominium Association I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting a density variance to enclose 10 existing outdoor decks on the south side of the building. The Treetops Building #2 is the east building behind the Treetops commercial building. Five of these decks are 39 square feet each and five are 46 square feet each, which creates a total additional GRFA request of 425 square feet. The existing GRFA on the site is 36,369 square feet. The allowable GRFA in Commercial Core 11 for this project is 30,952 square feet. The project is presently over the allowable GRFA by 5,417 square feet. If this request is approved, the project would be 5,842 square feet over the allowable. II. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST In August of 1983, the Treetops Condominium Association requested a rezoning of their property from High Density Multi - Family (.60) to Commercial Core II (.80) zoning. This request was made in order to construct the commercial expansion to the north of the two residential buildings. Under High Density Multi- Family zoning, the project was allowed 23,214 square feet of GRFA. Due to the rezoning, the project is now allowed 30,952 square feet. The rezoning increased the allowable GRFA by 7,738 square feet. In January of 1984, the Condominium Association requested an exterior alteration in order to add the retail expansion above the existing parking structure. In July of 1986, a request was made to enclose 10 decks for an additional GRFA of 665 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the request. The Planning Commission moved to deny the request, as it was felt that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the additions. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of the motion. The Treetops Condominium Association appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Town Council. The Town Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. LJ III. ZONING STATISTICS Zone District: Commercial Core II Site Area: + 38,690 square feet* GRFA: (.80) Allowable: 30,952 sf Existing: 36,369 sf Amt. over allowable: 5,417 sf Proposed: 5 decks @ 39 sf = 195 5 decks @ 46 sf = 230 Total Proposed: 425 sf Amt over after additions: 5842 sf Total GRFA after additions: 36,794 sf Units: Allowed: 22 d.u. Existing: 26 d.u. Proposed: 0 Common Area: (200 of Allowable GRFA) Allowed: 6,190 Existing: 4,390 Proposed: bridge 80 lobby 260 Existing & Proposed 4,730 Remaining 1,460 site Coverage: (70 %) Allowed: 27,083 sq Existing: 21,670 sf Proposed; 300 sf Exist & Addit. 21,970 sf Remaining 5,113 sf Setbacks Required 10 ft all sides. No impact with proposal 0 Landscaping: (200 of site area required) Required: 7,738 sf Existing: 12,000 sf approx. Height: Allowed: 48' sloping, 45' flat Existing and proposed: same Parking: The units that have deck expansions have existing GRFA totals that range from 1315 sf to 1326 sf. The deck expansions of 39 sf or 46 sf do not increase the square footage above 2,000 sf which is the breaking point for additional parking. * Total site area was calculated by Bud Stikes, The Engineering Group, Inc. Property lines do not close, so square footage is + 38,690 square feet. IV. 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 additions are compatible with the existing uses in the area. The general upgrade of the entire project will have a positive impact on uses in the vicinity. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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's opinion is that this request would be a grant of special privilege due to the fact that there is no physical hardship which would warrant the variance. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove physical hardship and the fact that the granting of the variance will not be a special privilege in order to get approval for the LJ • • density variance. Due to the fact that it is difficult to make the arguments of physical hardship and lack of special privilege when reviewing a density request, Ordinance #4 of 1985 was adopted to allow for small GRFA additions without the need for variance approval. Unfortunately, this ordinance does not provide a means for allowing additions to units in multi- family buildings. Units of this type were omitted, as the Town Council and Planning Commission were concerned about the potential to increase the bulk and mass of multi - family buildings to a point where there would be negative= impacts due to the additions. Legal issues also contributed to the inability of this ordinance to accommodate multi - family additions. In respect to this request, Ordinance #4 does not provide any relief from having to review multi - family additions with the density variance criteria. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities ublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no significant impacts on any of the above factors. V. RELATED POLICY IN VAIL'S COMMUNTY ACTION PLAN Community Design 2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. 5. Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of property owners and of the Town. This proposal for the deck enclosures and the other general improvements to the project supports the Community Action Plan policies. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VI. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.' There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposal involves both a density variance and exterior alteration request. The exterior alteration criteria are used to review the design issues related to the request. Even though the proposal compares favorably given the alteration criteria, the staff must recommend denial of the overall request, as we cannot support the density variance. The original concern of the Council and Commission concerning multi- family additions was that the building's bulk and mass may be increased to a point where negative impacts would occur from the expansions. In this situation, the expansion and overall improvements to the property are considered to be positive. However, staff must abide by the variance criteria, and therefore must recommend denial of the request. Basically, the staff has the same position that was outlined in the July 14, 1986 memo when 10 deck enclosures were also being considered for this project. It is true that there are no significant impacts resulting from this proposal. However, the staff does feel that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the request. It must also be noted that the property is over the allowable GRFA and number of units for development under Commercial Core II zoning. III A. VARIANCE REQUEST In accordance with that provision of Ordinance No. 4 allowing for an . increase of 250 square feet to single and duplex dwelling units as an inducement for the upgrading of existing structures, the Treetops Condominium seeks a variance to allow a total addition of 425 square feet to the existing GRFA total of 35,971 square feet - an increase of 1.1% The proposed additional GRFA comprises of 4 balcony enclosures and 1 deck enclosure at 39 square feet and 4 balcony enclosures and 1 deck enclosure at 46 square feet each. The balconies to be enclosed are 3.5 feet wide. They provide little to no room for outdoor furniture, i.e. no outdoor activity, but have been utilized as storage areas visible from the vicinity of the bike path. The area is being added to the living rooms, not the bedrooms thus the bed base and /or density will not be increased. The request and subsequent approval of this variance is necessary for the Association's approval of the entire up- grading package which includes: 1. Added protected entrances to both buildings. 2. An increase of landscaping along the bike path. 3. An increase of landscaping at the west building entrance. This feature faces East Lionshead Circle and will provide a more attractive public foreground to the building. 4. Additions of wood siding to the east building and remodeling Is of the east building balcony railings to provide a visual consistency of materials, detail and color between the two residential buildings. 5. An upgrade of exterior lighting. A -1 The requested variance does not effect other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A -2 The literal interpretation of the ordinance: a. Makes impractical the use of existing balcony space for its intended use as an outdoor sitting area b.- Promotes continuing difficulty of policing and maintaining the given balconies due to their propensity to be utilized as general storage areas c. Precludes unit owners from taking advantage of inducement offered other (single and duplex) unit owners to upgrade their properties d. Disallows at this time a structured, unified and visually consistent approach to balcony enclosures that otherwise might not occur if and when Ordinance No. 4 was to be amended to include multi - family projects e. Precludes any of those advantages to unit owners through additional GRFA that have accrued to unit owners in other . projects who have clandestinely enclosed their balconies S a � VISUAL IMPACT OF REQUEST 500 sq.ft. 1W allowable Duplex addition 5000 sq.ft.. to GRFA <--- w 10% of total • Treetops 35971 sq.ft. Requested 425 sq.ft. addition to actual GRFA = 1.1% of total Comparison indicates that the allowed visible impact of a duplex may be 9 times greater than that requested by Treetops. COMPARISON OF IMPACT ON ALLOWABLE GRFA VS ACTUAL GRFA Allowable GRFA: 31240 Requested 425 sq.ft. addition �- ----� = 1.3% Actual GRFA 35971 The requested 425 sq.ft. has almost equal significance when compared to the Allowable GRFA and Actual GRFA. The difference is .2% or 60 square feet. The applicant believes that the variance request is a reasonable trade off against the several upgrading improvements that will add benefit as well to the Lionshead appearance. Requested 425 sq.ft. addition A -3 The request variance does not effect distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. • TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to enclose 10 decks and redesign entries to the Treetops II Condominium Building Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association I. THE PROPOSAL The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting an exterior alteration and density variance* for the following construction at the Treetops II Building (east condominium building): 1. Enclosure of: 5 existing decks @ 39 sq ft per deck = 195 sq ft 2. Enclosure of 5 existing decks @ 46 sq ft per deck = 230 sq ft • 3. Enclose pedestrian bridge, = 80 sq ft 4. Redesigning the existing lobby and creating a new lobby entry, = 280 sq ft The association is also proposing to do an entire upgrade of the existing project which would include: 1. An added protective entrance at the east entry. 2. An increase of landscaping along the bike path (south side of the project). 3. An increase of landscaping at the west building entrance. 4. Additions of wood siding to the east building and remodeling of the east building balcony railings to provide a visual consistency of materials, detail, and color between the two residential buildings. 5. An upgrade of exterior lighting. * A density variance is required for the 10 deck enclosures, as the project is already over the allowable GRFA. Please see the memo concerning the density variance for a more detailed analysis of this request. iII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II ZONE DISTRICT Section 18.26.010 Purpose The Commercial Core II zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Commercial Core II zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD There are no sub --area concepts that relate to this proposal. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR T,TnNRRRAD A. Height and Massing: This consideration emphasizes the creation of a well defined round floor pedestrian area to overcome the canyon effect of tall buildings. It states that "building expansions shall generally be limited to one story and two stories or as can be demonstrated to have a positive visual and functional effect." Staff's opinion is that the improved entry ways, landscaping, lighting and new sidewalks will further define pedestrian areas. The height and massing of the entry is only one story which complies with this consideration. B. Roofs: Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are acceptable for building expansions. It is important to integrate expansions with existing buildings so as to avoid a patch work, "tacked on" quality for Lionshead. C. The applicant has proposed an entry addition and deck additions that are compatible with the existing condominium building. The proposed entry addition to building No. 1 has a form and pitch matching that of the sloped roofs on both condominium buildings. l+r�r�r.rol -e ��r�r.ro�a hl r'�r.lr This proposal complies with these materials. The entries will be stucco. Horizontal wood siding will be added to Building #2 to match Building #1. Trim colors and stain colors will match for both buildings. D. Facades /Transparency: This consideration addresses primarily round floor commercial facades and encourages the use of windows for storefronts. Even though this proposal is a residential expansion, it should be noted that the new construction will have an adequate amount of transparency throughout the expansion. The new entry has many windows and shallow bay windows are proposed at the ten locations of the balconies for Treetops II. E. Decks and Patios: Functional decks or patios, primarily for dining, are strong street life elements in Lionshead and are highly encouraged, on either the ground or second floor level. This consideration refers primarily to commercial decks. As the applicant has stated, "Narrow existing balconies on Building #2 are proposed to be enclosed by bay windows. These existing balconies are not functional in terms of providing seating for dining, sunning or any other outdoor activity." Remaining deck and balcony railings on Building #2 are to be replaced with railings matching Building #1. F. Accent Elements: Judicious use of colorful accent elements, consistent with existing character of Lionshead are encoura ed. The applicant has stated that, "To assure that there is no loss of relief to the south facade at Building #2 due to balcony enclosures, awnings are proposed to be integral with the bay window assembly. Awnings will be canvas, with a color and pattern acceptable to Design Review Board. Additional landscaping at the west entry and along the bicycle path will include annual flowers and shrubs. New lighting is also proposed for the entire project. Staff's opinion is that the accent element guideline refers mostly to commercial areas. However, the lighting and landscape improvements will only improve the appearance of this project. Our opinion is that the awnings are not necessary to maintain relief to the south facade. However, this is a Design Review Board issue. G. Landscape Elements The proposal adds additional landscaping in the area of the west entry and on the south side of the project. Staff believes that these improvements are in compliance with this consideration which encourages the use of plant material to accent buildings. 0 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration request. It is our opinion that the proposal complies with all of the Design Considertions for Lionshead. The project creates significant improvements to the Treetops project. • 0 flay 4, 1987 briner /scott architects 143 e. meadow dr. nail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476.3038 Ms. Kristan Pritz Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd' Vail, Co. 81657 As you requested attached is a synopsis of how the proposed Treetops Condominium additions and upgrade relates to the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Lionshead. The location of the project is east of that area described in the Urban Design Plan; there being, I guess, a rather tenuous connection at the "East Mall Entry" due to Treetops Plaza building. The improvements we speak of in our proposal are of course behind (south of) that commercial building and actually "out of the way" of that part of Lionshead for which the Urban Design Guide Lines were most intended. Never the less: I. re: Subarea Concepts A. East Mall Entry There are no concepts directly related however: 1. Proposed increase of landscape and formalizing of pedestrian entrance will provide improved building foreground as viewed from East Mall Entry. 2. Proposed enclosed and covered entrys and bridge will provide increased pedestrian protection and security. 3. Proposed landscaping along bike path separates private areas from public way; gives stronger sense of entry into Lionshead sector. II. re: Design Considerations A. Height and Massing Al A one story enclosed entry lobby is proposed to extend approximately 12' from the south face of Building No. 1. A2 A proposed portico entrance, one story, would parallel the drive and connect with the existing entry /stair Of Building No. 2. Both entrys would be further defined by sidewalks, exterior lighting and planting. B. Roofs B1 The proposed entry addition to Building No. 1 has a B2 form and pitch matching that of the sloped roofs on B3 both condominium buildings, Ms Kristin Pritz May 4, 1987 Page Two B. Roofs The proposed portico roof at the entry to Building No. 2 is flat to permit as much light as possible into the court behind (to the south). B4 The proposed entry addition roof will overhang approximately B5 5' the entry doors to provide protection from snow. Snow B6 will slide on to the proposed landscaped terrace. The portico roof is flat to limit the amount of snow sliding on to the adjacent driveway. An approximate 1' - 6" roof overhang is being proposed for Building No. 2. B7 The roof materials will be a single ply membrane (gray) not requiring rock ballast. C. Facades - Walls /Structure Cl The proposed entry structures will have walls stuccoed. horizontal wood siding will be added to Building No. 2 to match Building No. 1. C2 Wall planes on both buildings will be painted white to match one another. Wood siding on Building No. 2 will be stained to match existing wood color on Building No. 1. C3 Trim colors will match Building No. 1. C4 Facade colors will be limited to three. is D. Facades - Transparency Dl The proposed entry to Building No. 1 will be glazed on D2 two of three sides from entry level floor to ceiling. D3 The proportion of glazing to solid wall of the proposed entry is 75%: west wall -solid = 168 sq.ft. south wall -solid = 132 sq.ft. east wall -solid = 96 sq.ft. D4 Windows at entry will be grouped together. Proposed windows in entry stair of Building No. 2 are to be located in the west wall above the fourth floor landing.These will be "pierced" openings approx- imately 30" square in order to fit within the existing masonary unit module. D5 Window units at the entry will be large,broken by a horizontal million at 7' + (door head height). D6 Shallow "Bay" windows are proposed at 10 locations of narrow blaconies on Building No. 2. These will protrude only 1' - 0" with a "reveal" at head and sill to set these windows off of adjacent wall surface (please see page 3 of accompanying sketches of accent features.) These windows will be divided into units with proportions comparable to those elsewhere on building. • Ms Kristin Pritz May 4, 1987 Page Three D. Facades - Transparency D7 Window trim will match trim on Building No. 1. D8 Entry doors will have a full lite of glass. D9 Both proposed building entrances will appear recessed due to the depth of roof or portico overhang above. Dl0 The proposed addition to Building No. 1 allows for a secure and controlled entrance. There is at present no control of access to open condominium corridors. E. Decks and Patios El Narrow existing balconies on Building No. 2 are proposed to be enclosed by "Bay" windows. These existing balconies are not functional in terms of providing seating for dining, sunning or any other outdoor activity. E2 The decks to be enclosed are visible from the public way below (bicycle path). Some of the decks have been utilized for general storage. Others have not been maintained. The proposal to enclose these decks will improve the overall appearance of the building. (E3) Remaining deck and balcony railings on Building No. 2 are to be replaced with railings matching Building No. 1. F. Accent Elements Fl To assure that there is no loss of relief to the south facade at Building No. 2 due to balcony enclosures, awnings are proposed to be integral with the bay window assembly (see sketch, page three). Awnings will be canvas color and pattern acceptable to DRB. Additional landscaping at entry and along bicycle path will include annual flowers. Exterior lighting will be handled in consistant manner on both Buildings No. 1 and No. 2. Exterior lighting is to be incorporated into ceiling of proposed portico entrance to Building No. 2. Ambient lighting from fixture within the proposed entrance to Building No. 1 will highlight this space. (See pages 7 and 5). Graphics are being studied (See page 1 and 2). V �No • E 6 MP%Ll.., ��TF�y =14 'Z4 1c; I .� vAA -Wou p� rk 4,A4 C t'4 Y¢'" s-�viti r Y • • • M� aV IA �Q r /r } 1 Planning and Environmental Commission June 1, 1987 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT J.J. Collins STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 4/27 and 5/11. A motion was made by Diana Donovan and seconded by Bryan. Hobbs to approve both minutes. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. A request for a front setback variance in order to enlarge an existing residential area above a garag 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian e on Lot Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed site plans and . elevations. She stated that the existing garage and covered stairway currently project about 2.1 feet into the front setback at the structure's northwest corner. The variance requested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The staff recommended approval of the request. Buff Arnold, architect representing the applicants further explained the request. Kristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the primary unit, and that one must be removed prior to construction of the requested addition. Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the staff memo plus the condition that one kitchen be removed from the primary unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 6--0 in favor. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a density variance in order to enclose 8 balconies and 2 decks at the Treetops Condominiums located at 452 East Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association Kristan Pritz explained the request, showing site plans and elevations. She explained that the staff recommended approval • of the exterior alterations and denial of the density variance. ri Tom Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the • board that the staff must look at the property in black and white, but that the board could look at the grey areas with respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase in GRFA was minimal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed were useless because they were so small and that they were unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for storage. Pam Hopkins felt that these were good arguments in favor of the variance requested, but stated that she did not have a legal way to approve the decks. She felt the improvements would enhance Treetops Condos. Sid Schultz agreed with Pam and asked if the staff would look at Ordinance 4 again to try to find a way to include small changes to multi- family buildings. Diana Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she could not vote for the enclosures as enclosed decks. She felt that the space was used as a walkway, not a deck. Kristan stated that the concern when writing Ordinance 4 was that balconies and decks would be enclosed and result in flat facades which impact mass and bulk. It was difficult to know where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA would be appropriate. Peter asked if all the units which would enclose their decks had other outdoor space, and Briner replied that all of the • units did have other outdoor space. Briner also stated that all of the windows would become bay windows which would give relief to the facade. He added that awnings would also be added. Jim Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward improvement to the property with additional GRFA. He felt that the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He also felt it would be good to go back to Ordinance 4 to see if changes could be made with reference to multi- family units. Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989 World Cup races. She stated that they were willing to be the scapegoats because she felt they would set a good example for the rest of the community and inspire others to fix up their property. Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Tom Briner estimated that 75% of dollars to be spent on the project would be for enclosing the decks, and possible 15% for landscaping. Diana felt there must be some way to allow projects which benefit the community to such an extent as this. Peggy Osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3 -4 months before there would be a change in the law. Peggy felt a policy change was needed. Pam felt that this was such a minimal amount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to base a • policy related to percentages. Diana Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance on the basis that this is the type of project the town would like to see for three reasons: 1. There is a minimal percentage of increased GRFA. 2. Substantial landscaping and substantial improvements to the structures will be done in excess of that required. (This is a major emphasis of the proposal and does not include maintenance and upgrading which would normally be required.) 3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed balconies will remain for each unit. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request for the exterior alteration. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Addition Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The Austrians are requesting a variance to allow an encroachment of approximately 2.1 feet into the 20 foot front setback of Lot S. Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. The existing garage and covered stairway currently project approximately 2.1 feet into the front setback at the structure's northwest corner. This encroachment decreases to zero at the eastern portion of the garage. The applicants wish to enlarge the existing space by 138 square feet above the garage by extending the floor out to the front building line. This creates a small triangular piece of habitable floor space which will be within the front setback at the • second floor level. The expanded living space will be made into a dwelling unit. II. APPLICANTS' JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicants feel that: ... "there exists a practical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing structure, and feel that a variance is clearly allowable under the zoning ordinance. Adjacent properties are developed out to the front setback lines, and the property to the west appears to have habitable space well into the front setback. Thus, this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and would not be injurious to other properties, since all construction would be within the existing building line. New construction would also be masked in height by the existing stair tower to the west, and would be no higher than the existing garage roof. Thus, the new space would not significantly increase the mass of the garage. . In summary, the applicants feel that there are no adverse impacts generated by this variance, and that an unnecessary hardship would result from respecting the front setback. All of this encroachment is permitted by Sections 18.58.070 (Supplemental Regulations) and 18.69.050 L. (Hazard Regulations)." • III. ZONING STATISTICS Total Site Area: .98 acres or 43,076 square feet GRFA: Allowable 5,904 sf Existing: 3,543 sf Proposed: primary unit 164 sf garage unit 138 sf Total 302 sf Total GRFA (exist and remodel): (new stair and living space) 3,845 sf Allowed: 5,904 Remaining after addit. 2,059 sq The project has 2,059 square feet of additional GRFA even . after the remodel and additions are made to the project. The only variance that is needed is for the 2.1 foot encroachment on the northwest corner of the garage. IV. 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 to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The 2.1 foot encroachment will have no impacts on adjacent properties. The addition will merely enlarge an existing second floor space. The expansion is also adjacent to the stair tower which will minimize any visual impacts of the addition. • The degree to which relief from the strict and 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 felt that there is a physical hardship due to the existing location of the garage. It should be noted that when the project was originally built, the garage was not proposed to encroach into the 20 foot front setback. However, according to the section of the code relating to development in areas having an excess of 30% slope, the garage could have encroached into the front setback, as the slope beneath the garage was 42% according to the original plans. This design consideration was not used in the original proposal. Staff's opinion is that there is a physical hardship due to the existing location of the garage and that the applicants deserve relief from the strict interpretation of the front setback requirement. It is not considered to be a grant of special privilege, as many other homes in this area have encroachments into the front setback. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.- This proposal will have no impacts on these factors. Public Works Department has reviewed the request and has no problem with the encroachment. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request, as it will not be a grant of special privilege and the variance will not be detrimental to the public or adjacent properties. Our opinion is that the variance is warranted as there is an • unusual circumstance in that the garage has been constructed so that a slight portion of the structure already encroaches into the front setback. It is also true that other properties along Forest Road have built to an even greater extent into the front setback. It would be unfair to deprive these owners of privileges that are enjoyed by other owners of properties in this area. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the understanding that the owners will remove the second kitchen in the primary structure before the new space above the garage is converted into a dwelling unit. C7 Robert L. Architects, 1000 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81567 (3031476-1147 Associates Kristin Pritz Department of Communit, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristin: REQUEST The Austrians are requesting a variance to Section 18.13.060 of the zoning ordinance to allow an encroachment of approximately 2.1 feet. into the front setback of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village Sixth Filing. BACKGROUND The existing garage and covered stairway currently project approxi- mately 2.1 feet into the front setback at their western edge. This dimension declines to zero at the eastern edge, thus defining a tri- angular piece of construction within the setback. All of this encroachment is permitted by Sections 18.58.070 (Supplemental Regu- lations) and 18.69.050 L (Hazard Regulations). DISCUSSION The Austrians wish to enlarge the existing space above the garage by extending the floor out to the front building line. This would result in a triangular piece of habitable space within the front setback at the second floor level. The applicant feels that there exists a prac- tical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing structure, and feels that a variance is clearly allowable under the zoning ordi- nance. Adjacent properties are developed out to the front setback lines; and the property to the west appears to have habitable space well into the front setback. Thus, this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and would not be injurious to other properties since all construction would be within the existing building n 1_ � J l 41 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance of 10 feet for the proposed Gerwig residence, Lot 34, Vail Meadows Filing 1 APPLICANT: Mr. Ron Gerwig I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicant, Mr. Ron Gerwig, owns Lot 34, Vail Meadows Filing #1. This lot contains an existing single- family unit. Mr. Gerwig wishes to add a second unit and attached garage as allowed by zoning and also add a garage for the existing unit on the site. A similar proposal involving no variance requests was initially submitted to and approved by the Design Review Board. This decision was appealed by an adjacent property owner and was remanded to the Town Council. The Town Council overturned the Design Review Board approval. The applicant then resubmitted a proposal that was also approved by the Design Review Board and subsequently appealed by the adjacent property owner. This design was approved by . the Town Council. The applicant then, in a further redesign, submitted the current site plan to Planning Commmission for a variance review. The current proposal involves a to foot encroachment into the side setback on the southern portion of the lot, adjacent to the White River National Forest. II. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: "Although approvals for the proposed structure have been obtained from DRB and upheld by the Town Council, the applicant is desirous of minimizing what some neighbors have claimed to be an unfavorable impact on their views due to the closeness of the approved structure to an existing residence on the lot. Thus the proposed variance is in response to a "hardship" presumably being placed on neighbors to the east. As currently approved, the added unit is approximately 15 feet away from the existing residence. With approval of the variance, this distance would be more than doubled at 35 feet + (at the narrowest point). 1. The variance is in a setback adjoining Forest Service land; thus there is no impact to structures on the adjacent land. • • The increased distance between proposed and existing structures will enhance the viewing corridor from properties to the east. 2. The literal interpretation of the setback regulation restricts the applicant from developing an open space between buildings comparable to that between other structures in the vicinity (the distance between structures on Lot 32 and 33, immediately to the east, is approximately 40 feet). The increased distance between the proposed structure and the existing residence will permit a view, otherwise blocked, from the kitchen of the existing residence. As there are no windows in the proposed structure that face the open space between the two units, the occupant of this unit gains no advantage over the previously accepted location. 3. The variance will have no effect on light, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety." Is 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 setback variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existi or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The property line from which the applicant is seeking a variance borders on the White River National Forest. As there will be no development on the adjacent Forest Service property, there is no immediate negative impact to potential development in the vicinity. There are, however, significant natural features in the area which would benefit from the buffer of the 15 foot required setback. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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 Community Development Department feels that approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. While we do recognize that development of a second unit on a site with a previously existing unit presents unique and difficult site constraints, we feel that the applicant, through previous submittals through Design Review Board has proven that he can meet the design objectives of the Town of Vail without requiring a variance from the zoning regulations. We feel that there is no physical hardship driving this request and feel that the further separation and isolation of the two units on site may create the appearance of a density beyond that of the Two - Family Residential district. The effect of the requested variance on light and airy distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance does not significantly impact the above criteria. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the • same zone. • The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for denial. The applicant has proved that there are design solutions to the problems associated with this lot that do not create conflict with the zoning regulations. We feel that there is no physical hardship necessitating this particular design request and feel that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. • • 0 Planning and Environmental commission June 8, 1987 1:30 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of June 1, 1987 2. A request for an extension to the approval for Special Development Distict #14, the Doubletree Hotel, for an additional 18 months. Applicant: Vail Holdings 3. A request for a density control variance in order to enclose a balcony on the second floor of Unit 2, Capstone Townhouses on Lot 21, Buffer Creek. Applicant: Mr. Lee C. Rimel 4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I zone district and for a conditional use permit in order to enclose a deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant. Applicant: Sweet Basil Restaurant 5. A request for exterior alteration in Commercial Core I and for a conditional use permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant 6. A request for a major subdivision review and to establish a special development district for Lionsridge Filing 2, The Valley, Phase III to be known as Elk Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation 7. A request for a side setback variance and a density variance in order to enlarge an entry on Unit 6B, Vail Townhomes. Applicants: Bud and Gretta Parks 8. A request for a conditional use permit in order to have a retail shop in the Mountain Haus. Applicant: Daniel Allard 9. Revisions to Old Town Shops landscaping plan. r: L Planning and Environmental Commission 0 June 8, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Sid Schultz ABSENT Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of June 1, 1987. Betsy explained that the minutes would not be presented today. 2. A t for an extension to the approval for S ent District #14, the Doubletree Hotel, ep cial for an additional 18 months. Applicant: Vail Holdings Tom Braun showed site plans and elevations and explained the request. He pointed out that the staff had had two concerns the first time the SDD was proposed 18 months ago: that the project was 50 parking spaces short and the staff had been concerned about the additional density. However, with the Land Use Plan being completed, the staff was no longer concerned about the additional density, but was still concerned about the lack of parking spaces and recommended denial of the extension. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, stated that he firmly believed that the parking requirement was too high and added that the applicant would probably come in and ask that the parking fee be waived. Jamar felt there was a need for an independent study to be done concerning parking requirements. Pam Hopkins stated that she was in favor of the addition to the Doubletree, and was not convinced that the parking needed to be so stringent. She added that it appeared to her that the landscaping was not finished and she hesitated to approve the addition again if the Doubletree had not finished what had been approved previously. Sid Schultz did not see any change from the original application. He felt the Town should have some other recourse to get the unfinished landscaping done without tying it to this extension. J.J. Collins wondered if the staff was generating any additional factional material to see what other hotels were doing with regard to parking spaces. Tom Braun told of surveys the staff had done of condos and lodges, one for three days and one for 2 additional days. He felt it would be important to do a year -round survey with a more definitive study. J.J. agreed that the landscaping should be finished. He was also concerned about the lack of parking spaces. Jamar agreed about the need for more landscaping. He explained that the Doubletree did not want to put landscaping in until they knew when they would be finishing the addition. He added that some landscaping was being done on the north side of the Doubletree. J.J. pointed out that much of what hd been originally planned was not installed. Jamar said he would be happy to go over the plans to make certain things that were approved get done. Pam Hopkins felt that the issue was not trees, but goodwill. She had not been aware that the project was to be phased over a period of years. Diana explained that the hospital was now contemplating a • parking structure with the possibility of working with the Doubletree regarding joint parking and access between the two properties. Peter Jamar replied that the Doubletree had made an agreement to have an access through their land for the hospital's use. J.J. asked if the extension could be for a shorter period of time, and was told that because of the building season, 18 months was a reasonable amount of time. Tom added that the Council could make a decision to modify the length of the extension. J.J. Collins moved to recommend approval of the request for extension of the SDD for one year with concerns to be passed along to the Council regarding Town parking requirements and incomplete landscaping. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 3. A request for a densitv control variance in order to enclose a balcony on the second floor of Unit _2, Capstone Townhouses on Lot 21, Buffer Creek Subdivision. Rick Pylman explained the request and added that the staff recommended denial because approval had the potential to set a precedence and felt that there was no physical hardship. Kathy Warren, representing the applicant, stated that she felt that there was a practical difficulty in that because the property was down zoned by the Town at annexation, the • applicant had neither the advantage of being in the Primary/ Secondary zone which would have allowed the addition, nor the advantage of being in the Multi- family zone which would have allowed for greater density. Diana asked if there were many other units annexed in West Vail that would fit into this category, and was told there were many and that this zoning was chosen to freeze additional density. Kathy felt that this would not be precedent setting, and cited the Torrissi addition in the Riverhouse as an example. Peter reminded her that the PEC had denied Torrissi, but that the Town Council had overturned the PEC decision. J.J. Collins asked if the Treetops situation was similar and was told that it was different in that the whole condo association was involved along with many general improvements to the property. There were three reasons Treetops had been approved. One was that there remained unenclosed balconies for use, a minimum amount of GRFA was requested and great amounts of improvements were being made to the whole property. Pam noted that the project was well under its allowable GRFA. Kathy felt that a practical hardship was involved and was a reason to allow the variance. Diana stated that since this was a deck enclosure, this board did not have the leeway to deal with the variance. • Pam moved and J.J. seconded to approve the density variance listing the findings dealing with practical difficulty regarding the rezoning of the property. The vote was 3 in favor and 1 (Donovan) against. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I zone district and for a conditional use permit in order to enclose a deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant. Applicant: Sweet Basil Restaurant. Tom Braun explained the request and showed floor and site plans. He reviewed the design considerations and criteria and stated that the staff recommended approval with three conditions. Craig Snowdon represented the applicant. He explained the operable windows and stated that if they must be inside the planters there would be complications within the dining room. He felt that there would be an appearance of second floor greenery with pfisters which would in time hang from the planters. He also felt the added architectural interest of exposed beams, deck and sky light would visible from the ground level, especially with a low opening. Kevin Clair, owner of Sweet Basil, stated that if the windows were accordion, there would be difficulty with moving tables back to open or close the windows. J.J. asked how dripping onto Blu's below would be handled, and Craig said there would be a gutter over Blu's skylight. J.J. was also concerned that construction be completed as quickly as possible. Snowdon replied that that the Sweet Basil project would be quick, but that Blu's would take 4 -6 weeks. Pepi Gramshammer spoke against enclosing the Sweet Basil deck. Diana was also against enclosing decks, but stated that since this was on the second floor, she was not opposed to it. Sid Schultz moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the exterior alterations with the three conditions per the staff memo. The vote was 3 in favor, none against, with Pam Hopkins abstaining. i A request for exterior alteration in Commercial Core I zone district and for a conditional use permit in order expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant to Tom Braun explained the request and showed site plans and elevations. He stated that the staff recommended approval with three conditions. Craig Snowdon, architect on the project, reminded the board that at a work session they had asked for more relationship of . the outside space to the inside space, a stronger definition between the walk and the patio, and a larger barrier around the deck. He presented the new plans and received comments from the board. Sid had no problem with the exterior alteration, but was not in favor of enclosing the deck. Tom Braun reminded the board that the proposal had first gone to Town Council and as property owner, the Council had given the applicant permission to proceed to the PEC. Sid stated that because this was public land, he did not like to see the infill. Snowdon stated that if Blu's could not expand, they could not participate in the upgrade of the walkway. Further discussion continued regarding using Town of Vail land, and the upgrading of the walkway. Craig Snowdon asked to table this proposal until June 22. Sid moved to table with J.J. seconded the motion. Vote was 3 -0 in favor of tabling. 6. A request for a maior subdivision review and to establish a special development district for Lionsridge Filing #2, The Valley, Phase III, to be known as Elk Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation Kristan Pritz reviewed the history of The Valley and showed preliminary sketch plans. She reviewed necessary criteria and read a list of conditions. The action by the board would be a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the special development district, and the board would make the final decision regarding the major subdivision request. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, stated that there had been many changes in review processes in the proposal due to the project's being deannexed out of the Town and felt that the proposal was a considerable improvement over previous plans. Jamar discussed the conditions and suggested "or another engineer or geologist as approved by the Town" be inserted after "Pettigrove" in condition No. 1. He felt uncertain as to whether or not they would have to comply with Town of Vail hazard regulations, and suggested the individual lot owners comply. He suggested that their legal counsel meet with Larry Eskwith to discuss this point. He was in agreement with the other points except suggested changing 111987" to 111989" in condition 43. J.J. Collins felt the plan to be better than the previous submittal, but that it was inadequate with respect to design guidelines. He also felt that the EIR was inadequate with respect to complying with Pettigrove's recommendation and design criteria. Collins also mentioned that the uphill elevations had not been addressed as far as the structural design of the north elevations in respect to the rockfall hazard. His opinion was that the unit should be required to be dug into the hill for protection against the rockfall hazard. . He felt strong wording was needed in the EIR concerning the mitigation measures required. Collins stated that the Town of Vail's responsibility should not stop with acknowledging the existence of the rock hazard, but should insist that the EIR include definite measures to be taken by the developer. He added that the design guidelines said nothing about the rock hazard, and that this should be pointed out in the condo declarations. Kristan Pritz stated that if someone came in to get a building permit for this area, the staff would require that they follow the requirements of the EIR or get the opinion of another qualified geologist. She added that the staff recommended that the design guidelines not be included in the declarations, but instead in the Special Development District regulations. J.J. stated that the declarations would supercede anything said at this meeting. He was concerned as to what the present hazard report stated and what another engineer would say in the future. Larry Eskwith discussed the Town's immunity to liability and stated that the Town was protected to some extent. Sid felt that each building site should be mitigated according to an overall plan. J.J. repeated that he felt that design guidelines and structural mitigation requirements should be part of the covenants. . Peter Jamar pointed out that the Town of Vail had recommended moving the building envelopes into the hillside if adequate mitigation for rockfall was feasible. Essentially, the entire site is in a rockfall area. J.J. felt the EIR needed to be . redrafted because the project was inappropriate for what the applicant wished to construct. Peter Jamar replied that then the issue should be tabled and he would come back with design issues, but he wanted to know what level of design was needed at PEC. Sid stated that the applicant had a recommendation from an en- gineer that as each site came in for a building permit, a site specific study should be done, otherwise the building would be constructed with the present recommendations. He felt the architecture design should be looked at more closely. Pam Hopkins felt that with such small envelopes, the result would be 7 tall structures not far from the road. Jamar felt that this was another issue, and that the fact that the sites were steep was because the Town of Vail recommended building on the steep hillside away from the meadow. Peter Patten replied that the Town did encourage the developer as to where to place the structures, but did not suggest tall structures or terraced structures. Kristan added that the meadow was also important to preserve and that the staff had encouraged multi - family approach to the design of the buildings. Pam suggested that the applicant not go up three stories, but perhaps give up the space between the units so that the structures could be terraced. Mike Lauterbach stated that it appeared that only the north elevations were affected by the rockfall. J.J. replied that also some east elevations were affected. Discussion followed concerning design guidelines. Diana pointed out that anything included in the SDD was a design guideline. Peter Jamar suggested that a condition of approval could be that the Design Review Board decide the design guidelines. Diana replied that a motion of approval would have to include design standards and requirements that affect design. Kristan pointed out that if the PEC felt something specific should be included in the SDD, it could be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Discussion about mitigation followed, as to whether it would be better for each home owner to mitigate or for the developer to have to mitigate. Larry Eskwith stated that he was uncomfortable giving the responsibility for mitigation to each individual owner. J.J. felt the EIR should be revised to reflect the input given from the PEC. He felt the PEC would be malfeasant not to require the developer to do the mitigation to meet the hazard. Diana felt there should have been a work session on the SDD. She was concerned about the treatment of the mitigation. Larry replied that this developer should not have to be treated differently from any other developers. He did feel that the Town was passing the risk on to the individual owners. • • The PEC also expressed areas required for fire decrease the asphalt if meadow. n U great concern over the large turn - around trucks. Staff said they would try to possible to minimize the impact on the Pam Hopkins moved to approve the major subdivision of The Valley Phase III with the condition of final approval of the SDD by the Town Council with the conditions: 1. The development of each building envelope will comply with the environmental impact report, especially the design recommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in a letter concerning design mitigations for rock fall hazards. Each individual owner will be responsible for completing the rockfall mitigation measure per the Pettigrove letter. Studies will meet the standards outlined in Section 18.69.052 of the Town of Vail zoning code. An owner may choose to have another qualified engineer /geologist design appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as long as the mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts and is approved by the Town of Vail Community Development Department and Town Engineer. 2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design review guidelines will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for their approval before final plat submittal. 3. The applicant agrees to revegetate the access road if the general subdivision improvements are not completed by September 1, 1989. General subdivision improvements are defined in Section 17.16.150 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. 4. The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk Meadow Subdivision states that design guidelines may be adopted. The staff would require that the wording be changed to state that design guidelines shall be adopted. The full paragraph would read: "Guidelines for the development of the building envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by the Committee, which shall, among other things, interpret and /or implement the provisions of these protective covenants. Guidelines may be amended from time to time with the majority vote of approval from the Committee and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The guidelines will be available from the chair of the Design Committee and Town of Vail Community Development Department." 0 5. The following engineering information will be submitted to staff by June 15, 1987. a. The revised master drainage plan. b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the new turn--around dimension on the west end of the property . C. The road plan will have an engineer's stamp. The preliminary plan will be adjusted for square footage totals due tot he removal of the four guest parking spaces on the west end of the project. d. A letter from Nick Lampiris will be submitted to address the rock fall design requirements. A graphic shall be submitted. e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on the utility plan in the appropriate areas. * For information purposes, the staff would like to note that the major subdivision regulations require the completion of general improvements for the subdivision as completion of general improvements for the subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be installed within for years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid. All right to improve or develop the property on the • part of the owner or subdivider shall thereby be relinquished. This requirements is stated in Section 17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations. It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals, the applicant must begin construction of the special development district within 18 months from the time of the project's final approval according to Section 18.40.100 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Sid seconded the motion and the vote was 3 -1 with J.J. Collins voting against. Sid moved and Pam seconded to recommend approval of the Special Development District to the Town Council per the staff memo dated June 8 with the five 5 conditions as amended in the motion for approval of the major subdivision. The vote was 3 -1 with J.J. voting against the motion. 7. A request for a side setback variance in order to enlarge an entry on Unit 6B of the Vail Townhomes. Applicants: Bud and Gretta Parks Betsy Rosolack explained the request and explained that the staff was recommending approval of the request. J.J. Collins moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 8. A request for a conditional use permit in order to have a retail shop in the Mountain Haus. Applicant: Daniel Allard Betsy Rosolack gave the staff presentation and told the PEC that the retail shop would be a jewelry store. The staff recommendation was for approval. Peter emphasized that there would be little demand on loading and delivery. Betsy pointed out that this space had previously been used for retail. J.J. Collins moved to approve the request per the staff memo, but was concerned that this site be looked at per future demands on loading and delivery. Pam seconded the motion and the vote was 4 -0 in favor. Peter led a discussion about landscaping at the and asked that landscaping be postponed because the right -of -way of the new highway exit ramp. to. Peter also stated that there would be a jo the Town council on June 30 to discuss the Vail Plan and density variances. • Old Town Shops it would be in This was agreed int meeting with Village Master TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and rezoning of The Valley Phase III from Residential Cluster to Special Development District with underlying Residential Cluster. Applicants: Lamar Capital Corporation I. THE REQUESTS The requests involve two Planning Commission reviews: 1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major subdivision request 2. The review of the Special Development District zoning request. The applicant's request is summarized below: "The current proposal being made by Lamar Capital Corporation, the owners of Phase III, is the subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into seven building sites or 'envelopes.' Five of these envelopes would allow construction of single family dwellings and two (envelopes 5 and 6) would allow construction of duplex residences. Therefore, a total number of nine dwelling units would be constructed on the site.... The total Gross Residential Floor area (GRFA) designated for Phase III in The Valley PUD agreement is 16,000 square feet. This will allow each dwelling unit within the project to be a maximum of 1,777 square feet. Access to the site is off of Lionsridge Loop via a 22 foot wide common access drive. This road is currently under construction and was given building permit approval previously by Eagle County. The owner of the property has chosen to create the building envelopes rather than construct one single 10 unit development for various reasons: ... The creation of the building sites allows the development of the parcel to be phased and at the same time provides an overall plan to guide the placement of dwelling units, access, and common open space within the parcel over time. The development of 9 individual free standing dwelling units and duplex units will be more compatible with the adjacent developments than would one single structure containing 10 dwelling units. The creation of the building envelopes allows for a variation in residential product type in Vail. A purchaser will be able to enjoy amenities such as common open space, guest parking, and a common access drive which are typically found in a multiple family development and also enjoy the opportunity to construct his /her own home much like the owner of a single family or duplex lot." 11. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL The Valley project was originally designed as a planned development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973, the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan with a Planned Development zone designation. The approval of the preliminary plan was valid for three years. In July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval expired. However, the Planned Development zone designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the planning files, it appears that several requests to extend the approvals from the preliminary plan were granted by the Commissioners. In March of 1980, the PUD plan and protective covenants were filed with the County. Once again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet exists for Phase III. In 1980, the West Vail area was annexed to the Town of Vail. The Town accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as the allowed development for Phase III of The Valley in March of 1981. Subsequentlly, The Valley was de- annexed from the Town of Vail and re- annexed in May of 1987. (Please see the enclosed summary of events relating to The Valley Phase III attached to this memo.) The following information indicates that it is very clear that Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet. Any sketch plan and preliminary plan approvals have lapsed since the time of their review by the County. The most recent sketch plan review for this project occurred in April of 1980. Even after this review of the sketch plan by the County, the developer still needed to return with a preliminary plan for Phase III. A preliminary plan for this project was never finalized through the County and considered to be a part of the approval when the project was accepted into the Town of Vail in 1980. In 1981, the Town of Vail merely accepted the zoning of 10 units and 16,000 square feet as the development standard for the property. Ordinance 13 of 1981 acknowledges the land use restrictions of 10 units and 16,000 square feet of GRFA but states that, "for any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements, or actions, the developments of parcels of properties specified in this subsection (E) shall be zoned Residential Cluster." For this reason, the Special Development District is compared to the underlying zone district of Residential Cluster which serves as a guide for the development standards of this phase. III. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.16.110 of the regulations and are as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the 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, density proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses. A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews: The following comments were made by each agency: 1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District: We have no problems with this project. Water and sewer are available in the area. We recommend approval. 2. Public Service Company: The original preliminary plan did not show gas as a utility being provided by the developer. The developer has agreed to include gas as a utility for the project. 3. Holy Cross Electric: No problem. 4. Mountain Bell: No problem. Mountain Bell requested that the developer fill out one of their land development agreements as soon as possible. 5. Heritage Cable: No problem. 6. National Forest Service: At this time, the adequacy of water and fire protection service is questioned. The need for adequate response to fire emergency suppression and availability of adequate fire hydrants should be considered in the review for approval. Evaluations should include concerns of the Vail Fire Department about water pressure, emergency fire call response time, location of hydrants, etc. in terms of both structural and wild land fire protection, suppression and control. These issues have been addressed by the Vail Fire Department and Upper Eagle Valley Water and sanitation District. 7. Western Slope Gas: No problem B. Relation of Proposal to Town of Vail Policies: Staff believes that the design of the subdivision and recommendations made in the environmental impact report will create a project that meets the intent of Vail's subdivision controls. The density is actually less than what was originally approved for the site by one unit. The EIR states that the potential negative impacts of the proposal include the "visual impacts and impacts associated with the location of the site within a rockfall hazard area." Staff's opinion is that the developer has designed a plan that protects the meadow area as much as possible, given the high severity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on the northern portion of the lot. In addition, design guidelines are incorpoarated into the SDD zoning which will "ensure architectural and visual continuity with regard to building design and materials." (EIR p.4) The Public Works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the request and the proposal meets their standards as far as road design, drainage, fire protection service and adequate fire turn - around areas. The staff finds that the proposal does meet the major subdivision criteria and actually is a significant improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase III that was reviewed under the County in April of 1980 and the preliminary plan proposal that was reviewed by the County Last summer. The main area of improvement is the preservation of the primary natural feature of the site- -the meadow. This has been accomplished by proposing the building sites on the north side of the access road. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW A. Design Standards Section 18.40.080 lists a set of standards that a proposed SDD development plan must comply with. The purpose of the review is to show how the development meets the standards or to demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The design standards, along with the applicant's and staff's responses are listed below: 1. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district that is adjacent to a low density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. Applicant's Statement: The "buffering" provided by the project is appropriate for the type of project proposed and the nature of the existing and proposed surrounding land uses. Landscaped areas will serve to strengthen this buffer. Staff's Statement: Phase III is adjacent to Lionsridge Loop on the northern side of the project, The Valley Condominiums (Phase I) on the east, and The Valley Phase VI on the south and west. The northern property line of Phase III is approximately 25 feet from the edge of the pavement of Lionsridge Loop. Most of the trees in this area will remain. Staff's opinion is that this area provides an adquate buffer on the northern portion of the project. Phase I to the east provides access to units directly off of Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers maintaining the public right -of -way in its natural state, as opposed to having paved access and parking areas adjacent to Lionsridge Loop. It should also be noted that the special development district will require that no structure be located less than 3 feet from the northern perimeter line of the building envelopes. On the east side of Phase III, the nearest building from The Valley Condominiums is 190 feet from the easternmost building envelope. In addition, an open area ranging from approximately 15 feet at the very narrowest point to 60 feet from the property line is maintained as open space adjacent to the eastern building envelope. The rest of the site on the eastern portion of the project is designated as open space. On the west property lines for Phase III, approximately 25 feet of open space is maintained between the building envelope and the western property line. On the south side of the project, the road and fire turn - arounds are within several feet of the property line. However, no buildings are proposed for this area. Staff would recommend that the four western parking spaces in this area be removed from the plan. Phase VI proposes to maintain as open space the portion of their project that meets the southern property line of Phase III. Therefore, the slight impacts of the pavement should be minimized. In general, the staff finds that the proposal maintains adequate buffer spaces on all sides of the project. We would recommend that additional landscaping be located by the west fire turn around and the 4 guest parking spaces be removed. 2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separa- tion from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes., Applicant's Statement: The access drive has been designed so as to adequately serve the traffic needs of the development. Due to the size of the project, the need for a separate bicycle path does not exist. Staff's Statement: The project has been designed to meet Fire Department and Public Works' design standards. Staff agrees with the applicant that a project of this size does not require a separate bicycle path. There is a possibility that the road could be continued west into Phase VI at a future date if desirable. 3. Functional Open Space in Terms of Optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function. Applicant's Statement: Approximately 70% of the site is devoted to open space use in order to preserve significant features of the site. Staff's Statement: The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve the meadow area and wooded hillside as open space. Staff believes that the road is necessary in order to provide safe access into the project. It is true that the access could have been directly off of Lionsridge Loop to the structures built into the hillside. However, staff did not prefer this site planning approach, as it would have required very high retaining walls which would have negative visual impacts on adjacent properties. Secondly, direct access to the units off of Lionsridge Loop encourages parking problems along the Lionsridge Loop right -of- way as well as snow plowing problems. The staff prefers to see parking and access removed from the Lionsridge Loop areas. Once again, the staff would also recommend that the western four parking spaces on the access road be removed from the proposal to free up more open space. Our opinion is that the 10 guest spaces on the eastern portion of the site provide adequate overflow parking for the 9 units. Even with the removal of the four spaces, each unit would have one enclosed space, one space in front of the garage, and one guest parking space. Staff believes that three spaces are adequate for each unit. 4. Variety: Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space: licant's Statement: Design guidelines will be adopted to govern the character of the buildings. While these guidelines will result in a certain uniformity among building design, a certain amount of flexibility in building design will exist. Staff's Statement: Staff supports the idea of using design guidelines to provide some compatibility among the nine units that will be constructed within this phase. If anything, staff would like to ensure through the guidelines that the units are developed in a compatible manner so that there does not become too much variety in terms of design. 5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors: Applicant's Statement: Building envelopes are adequately separated in order to provide spaces between residences and provide privacy. Staff's Statement: The building envelopes are separated from each other from a distance varying from approximately 18 feet to 27 feet. This separation provides a reasonable amount of privacy between the residences. 6. Pedestrian Traffic in Terms of: Safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness: Applicant's Statement: Due to the small size of the proposed project, separated pedestrian ways are not needed. 6 Staff's Statement: Staff agrees with the applicant. 7. Building Type in Terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. Applicant's Statement: The building bulk requirements as established are appropriate for the scale of the site and its surroundings. Staff's Statement: Staff agrees with the applicant. 8. Building Design in Terms of: orientation spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage,,__ Applicant's Statement: The buildings will be oriented to take advantage of views into the open space and southern exposures. The spacing between buildings is indicated upon the site plan and provides areas for landscaping, light, and air. Materials have been specified within the design guidelines for the project. Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design Review Board. Landscape provisions have been included in the proposed covenants and are as follows: The concerns of the Committee shall be to improve the appearance of the subdivision and the maintenance of such appearance. Owners and their representatives or builders will be required to: a. Minimize disruption from grading. b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion and appearance reasons. C. Use indigenous species of plant materials as established by the Committee. d. Select the man -made elements that blend and are compatible with the land. e. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever possible. f. 9. Conserve and protect top soil, rock formations and unique landscape features. Sod such areas as determined by the Committee. V. SDD ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The applicant has requested SDD zoning in order to allow for greater design creativity and flexibility in certain areas that would not be permissible under straight Residential Cluster zoning or Single Family, Primary /Secondary zoning. Below is a summary of the special development district standards which have been written to correspond to the Residential Cluster zone district. Following the narrative for the special development district is a comparison of the SDD standards to straight Residential Cluster zoning. A. Proposed Special Development District: Purpose: The purpose of the establishment of the Elk Meadows Special Development District is to allow greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of the site, building envelopes will be established which dodesignate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed according to each individual owner's ability to construct a residence. Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are proposed to be: 1. Single family residential dwellings 2. Two - family residential dwellings 3. Open space 4. Public and private roads Conditional Uses: 1. Public utility and public service uses 2. Public buildings, grounds and facilities 3. Public or private schools 4. Public park and recreation facilities 5. Ski lifts and tows 6. Private clubs 7. Dog kennel Accessory Uses: • 1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family or two - family residential uses. 2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190; 3. other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; 4. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58. Development Standards: Proposed development standards are as follows: 1. Lot Area - Not applicable; building envelopes govern. Building Envelopes 1. .07 acres 2. .07 acres 3. .06 acres 4. .05 acres 5. .10 acres 6. .08 acres 7. .05 acres Tract 1: 2.53 Tract 2: .61 acres open space acres roadaway and parking * Tracts 1 and 2 acreages should be adjusted if the west guest parking is removed. 2. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of structures with relations to building envelope perimeter lines shall be as follows: a. No structure shall be located on the utility easement as so designated on the final plat of the subdivision. b. No structure shall be located less than two feet from either the east or the west perimeter line. C. No structure shall be located less than three feet from the north perimeter line. d. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove to the contrary, roof overhangs and decks may encroach into the setback areas described in b and c so long as such roof overhangs and decks are totally within the perimeter lines of the building envelope. 3. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA): A building situated on a single unit residential building envelope shall not contain more than 1,777 square feet of GRFA; a building situated on a two unit residential building envelope shall not contain more than 3,554 square feet of GRFA. 4. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof. 5. Parking: Two parking spaces shall be provided per unit with one of the two spaces being enclosed. 6. Landscaping: The entire portion of the building envelope not covered by pavement or buildings shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside the building envelope disturbed during construction. 7. Design Guidelines: Design Guidelines to be adopted for the site are as follows: a. Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in 12 feet. b. Roof material shall be metal and be either charcoal grey or marina blue in color. C. Siding material shall be either cedar or redwood and shall be applied horizontally as indicated on the prototypical building elevations. only light colored stain shall be applied to siding. d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed concrete foundation walls. If stucco is utilized, it shall be light in color. e. All windows shall be white metal clad windows. f. All decks and balconies shall be constructed utilizing 2 x 12 railings and posts that are at least 4" x 411. g. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot in order to protect walls and wall openings from rain and snow and to contribute to the building's character. 8. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is .30 per square foot. B. PROPOSED 5DD IN COMPARISON WITH RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ZONE DISTRICT: LOT SIZE: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. PROPOSED SDD .07 .07 .06 .05 .10 .08 .05 .48 20, ac ac ac ac ac ac ac to 909 single single single single duplex duplex single tal bld, sf. unit unit unit unit units units unit 3 envelopes or SETBACKS: Sides, 2 ft from bldg envelope line Rear, 3 ft from bldg envelope line 18' -27' between bldg envelopes exists HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof 30' for flat roof does not apply as design guidelines requires sloping roof 40 SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes GRFA: 16,000 DENSITY: 9 units RES CLUSTER 15,000 sf, containing no less than 8,000 sf of buildable area front 20' side, 15' rear, 15' 33' slope 30' flat roof 25% of site 16,000 per annexation agree. 10 units per annexation agree. LANDSCAPING: Tract 1: 2.53 acres 60% of site open Space or 70% of the shall be site is open space landscaped PARKING: Requires 1 enclosed space, also Requires 1 will have 1 open space within enclosed spc, bldg envelope + 1 guest space 2 spaces The proposed SDD varies only slightly from the underlying Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that building envelopes are being used, it is difficult to compare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning in respect to lot size. The density is actually one unit less than would be allowed without the SDD approach. Site coverage is also difficult to compare in that the building envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to what degree the coverage will occur is impossible to determine until the units are constructed. However, staff believes that Is there is adequate open space around the building envelopes to maintain an aesthetically pleasing amount of open space and separation among the units. Setbacks also vary from those that are required in a Residential Cluster zone district. The separation among the building envelopes varies from 18 feet to 27 feet. Staff believes that this separation provides adequate space among the units. All other development standards meet the underlying zone district requirements for the Residential Cluster zone district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this proposal. Staff believes that the request meets the intent of the major subdivision regulations and special development district's zoning. The proposal basically follows the underlying Residential Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning originally approved under Eagle County. It departs from these guidelines in areas that are appropriate to revise due to the need to preserve the meadow area and the site constraints of the rockfall hazards and steep slopes. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: ELK MEADOWS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development of each building envelope will comply with the environmental impact report, especially the design . recommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in a letter concerning design mitigations for rock fall hazards. Each individual owner will be responsible for completing the rockfall mitigation measure per the Pettigrove letter. Studies will meet the standards outlined in Section 18.69.052 of the Town of Vail zoning code. An owner may choose to have another qualified engineer /geologist design appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as long as the mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts and is approved by the Town of Vail Community Development Department and Town Engineer. 2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design review guidelines will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for their approval before final plat submittal. 3. The applicant agrees to revegetate the access road if the general subdivision improvements are not completed by September 1, 1989. General subdivision improvements are defined in Section 17.16.150 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. 4. The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk Meadow Subdivision states that design guidelines may be adopted. The staff would require that the wording be changed to state that design guidelines shall be adopted. The full paragraph would read: • "Guidelines for the development of the building envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by the Committee, which shall, among other things, interpret and /or implement the provisions of these protective covenants. Guidelines may be amended from time to time with the majority vote of approval from the Committee and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The guidelines will be available from the chair of the Design Committee and Town of Vail Community Development Department." 5. The following engineering information will be submitted to staff by June 15, 1987. a. The revised master drainage plan. b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the new turn- around dimension on the west end of the property. C. The road plan will have an engineer's stamp. The preliminary plan will be adjusted for square footage totals due to the removal of the four guest parking spaces on the west end of the project. d. A letter from Nick Lampiris will be submitted to address the rock fall design requirements. A graphic is suggested. e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on the utility plan in the appropriate areas. * For information purposes, the staff would like to note that the major subdivision requlations require the completion of general improvements for the subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be installed within four years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid. All right to improve or develop the property on the part of the owner or subdivider shall thereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated in Section 17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations. It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals, the applicant must begin construction of the special development district within 18 months from the time of the project's final approval according to section 18.40.100 of the Town of Vail zoning Code. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley Planned Development (PD) July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is good for three years. The approval includes 150 units on 61.2 acres. July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting to confirm Valley approval. July 26, 1976: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of the units are under construction. The 120 units that have not been built will require a new submittal starting with a sketch plan and preliminary plan review (letter from Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977). May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the Eagle County Commissioners in favor of extending the Valley's approval as long as is development is carried out according to the preliminary plan and recreation amenities are provided. May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an extension of the Valley preliminary plan approval. This approval would expire on June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it would be required that sketch plan and preliminary plan review information be submitted. Also, if any change is made to the present plan, it would have to be reviewed by the County Commissioners. November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch plan and have several concerns. March 26, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu- ment is filed with the County which indi- cates that Phase 111 is subject to the land use restrictions of 10 units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80 -20 allowed the phases of The Valley to be sold separately without any further compliance with the subdivision regulations. April 16, 1950: The Eagle County Planning Commission reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The Planning Commission suggests that the units be tucked into the hillside on the northeast side of the project and that the developer use berming and landscaping to buffer the project. Staff recommends approval of the sketch plan. April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the Eagle County Planning Commission which recommends more tighter, clustered layout of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail staff also recognizes the steep hillside and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan. April 30, 1980: The Eagle County Commissioners reviews the sketch plan that the Planning Commission saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan shows 10 townhomes on Phase III. May 5, 1980: A resolution is passed by the County allowing three years for the developers to file preliminary plans from the March 26, 1980 PUD plan approval date. December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexes the West Vail area including Phase III of The Valley. March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applies zoning to The Valley which was recently annexed. The ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981. March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series of 1983, the Town Council approves rezoning of The Valley. Sept. 11, 1985: The Valley is de- annexed from the Town. Summer 1986 A development proposal is submitted to Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation. The proposal begins with a sketch plan /preliminary plan review. Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase III proposal is withdrawn from the County due to complications with the time lines for review and how they will relate to the property being re- annexed to the Town of Vail. • May 16, 1986 A grading permit is released by the County for an access road into Phase III. The applicant is Lamar Capital Corporation. May 6, 1987 The road work on Phase III is red - tagged by Eagle County. May 7, 1987: Red tag is removed by Eagle County. May 11, 1987 The Valley is re- annexed into the Town. May 11, 1987; The Road is red - tagged by the Town of Vail May 11, 1987: The Road is red- tagged by Eagle County. May 11, 1987: Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major subdivision and special development district zoning request for Phase III. TO: Planning and Environmental commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to permit a retail shop in the Mountain Haus located on part of Tract B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Daniel Allard 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Mountain Haus is in a Public Accommodation zone district and requires the granting of a conditional use permit for retail uses. The applicant proposes to locate a jewelry store in the lower level of the Mountain Haus. The location previously held a brass rubbing shop and contains approxi- mately 550 square feet. The space has been vacant for at least the last three years. 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 factor: consideration of Factors. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. One of the purposes of this zone district is "...to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and ...related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district." Section 18.22.030 Conditional Uses, M. lists "Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than ten percent of the total gross residential floor area.." This proposal meets the purpose of the zone district. The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. No effects on these factors are foreseen. • The effect upon traffic with particular reference to con estion automotive and pedestrian safety and conveniencel. traffic flow and control access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. This use will require minimal deliveries. Deliveries that do occur will use the short term loading located in front of the Mountain Haus. The space is well suited for pedestrian access via the Village parking structure and the bus route. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This space is designated by the Mountain Haus Condomnium Declarations for commercial use. Commercial use has occurred here in the past with no problems noted. While the location does not have direct exposure to pedestrian traffic, it is located adjacent to the Village's busiest pedestrianway. The location is also near the Village Core. This goes to support the appropriateness of the proposed use. • 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. 0 • • • IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff's recommendation is to approve the request as submitted. The proximity of this location relative to the Village Core, coupled with it being adjacent to Slifer Squ and Bridge Street support this use in this location. In addition, the nature of this use (jewelry store) mitigates the need for more convenient loading facilities than presently exist. While the exposure of the space is not great, the use willl serve to reinforce the established pedestrian network in the Village. are TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to enlarge an entry on Unit 6B, Vail Townhouses, on Lot 6 Block 5, Vail Village lst Filing Applicants: Bud and Greta Parks I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicants wish to change the south entry to their townhome for the purpose of handicapped access. This change involves redesigning the entries to both the Parks unit on the first floor and the unit above the Parks. The change will not increase the total GRFA of either unit. The Vail Townhomes are zoned High Density Multi - Family and require 20 foot setbacks on all sides. However, each Townhome is 26 feet wide, with zero lot lines, making them nonconforming with regard to side setbacks. Hence, the changed entry requires a side setback variance. . II. ZONING STATISTICS Zone: HDMF Lot Size: 2,853.27 square feet Setbacks: 20 feet on all sides Requested: 0 setback on east side Existing: 0 setbacks on sides, 30 ft front, 25 ft rear III, APPLICANT'S STATEMENT "The parks would like to reconfigure their entry for the purpose of handicapped access on the south side of their home. This involves a 6' -5" projection south of the existing structure, along the east property line. No GRFA will be added to the Parks' or Welles' units. Due to the existing zero lot line condition of the condominiums and the fact that the property is only 26'- 0" wide in the east /west direction, it would be impossible to have any structure on the property that is not within the 20' -0" required side setbacks. "This is a pre - existing condition, and the granting of the variance would have no effect on existing utilities, traffic, public safety, transportation, or light and air, but it would provide a covered access to the Parks' and Welles' units. Your consideration of this issue is appreciated." IV. 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 side setback variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the req or potential uses and struc sted variance to other exist res in the vicinity. Zero side setbacks already exist on all 13 townhomes of the Vail Townhomes. The east side setback of zero clearance will be continued for 6.5 feet. This addition is on the lot line adjacent to Unit 7. This neighbor was notified of the addition and has not objected to this construction. The degree to which relief from the strict and 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 ab'ectives of this title without grant of s ecial privilege. Staff feels that it would not be a grant of special privilege to allow the setback variance since zero setbacks exist on all of the other townhomes in this complex and we have granted many setbacks variances in this complex previously. The effect of the requested _variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. - —._... Staff feels that there are no significant impacts with respect to these concerns. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. F V. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, as there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances on the site due to lot layout which do not generally apply to other properties in this same zone. It is also felt that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In the past, staff has approved side setback variances for properties within this development. For these reasons, staff believes that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the side setback variance. If this variance is granted, staff would call attention to the Design Review Board with respect to trying to relocate the large evergreen tree which will be displaced. • T.- T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of Special Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel). Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership The approval of a special development district expires after 18 months if construction of the project is not initiated. Approval of SDD No. 14, which allows for a major expansion of the existing Doubletree Hotel, expires in July of 1987. The applicant has requested an extension of this approval for another 18 month period. The Planning Commission's action on this application is advisory. Any final approval of extending this zoning requires the review and approval of a resolution by the Town Council. ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL The two main issues relative to this redevelopment centered around parking and additional density (see enclosed memo to Planning Commission dated February 24, 1986.) Specifically, the staff was uncomfortable with the significant amount of additional density with the absence of an overall land use plan, and the proposed parking that was 50 spaces short of what is required. The applicant has requested approval for the identical project as was approved in 1986. The recently adopted Land Use Plan has enabled some re- evaluation of our previous position relative to density. Given the outcome of the Land Use Plan, the staff would not present such strong concerns for the additional density as was stated in 1986. This is due to the fact that there was a preference in the community for concentrating density in the existing core areas, and more specifically, near the Frontage Road. Goals from the Land Use Plan include: 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. The shortfall of parking spaces proposed with this development is still a major concern to the staff. We continue to hold the position that private developments should build the required parking to avoid the significant problems in the longer term. As Vail Mountain becomes more and more developed and skier numbers increase, there will not be available overflow parking in public structures to make up the short fall. For this reason, we cannot support the extension of this special development district. 0 T ' t4 TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of meeting rooms /conference space at the Doubletree Hotel. Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL A request has been made to the Town of Vail to rezone the Doubletree Hotel site from High Density Multiple Family zoning to a Special Development District. This proposal is requested in order to allow for additional development on the site. The rezoning is required because the present level of development is over that allowed under existing zoning. The development proposed with this application includes 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of additional meeting room space. The following table illustrates how this proposal relates to the existing development on the site as well as that allowed under the existing zoning: ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT HDMF ZONING Units: 65 du's 83 du's 51 du's 134 du's (19 condos (5 condos (24 condos 128 lodge rooms) 92 lodge rooms) 220 lodge rooms) 25 units /ac 31.5 units /ac 19 units /ac 50.95/ac GRFA: 68,732 sq ft 73,577 sq ft 42,576 sq ft 116,153 sq ft Parking Req'd 52 enclosed 200 enclosed 200 enclosed 198 spaces 115 surface 11 surface 11 surface Req'd 261 spaces Meeting room space: 4040 sq ft 3350 sq ft 7350 sq ft V � 2 While this table illustrates some of the more significant elements related to this proposal, there are other zoning considerations to be made when evaluating this application. These and other aspects of this development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum. II. BACKGROUND ON REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE Following the acquisition of this property by Vail Holdings, Inc., a major renovation of the existing facility was completed during the summer and fall of 1985. It was at this time that the staff first began a dialogue with the developers and their designers concerning the feasibility of additional development of this site. To date, the staff has spent a considerable amount of time with the designers of this project resulting in a number of additions and modifications to the originally proposed development plans. To assist in this process, the developers agreed '60 Pay Lire U1 r L, o ui'111y Jeff i Winston in as a design consultant for the Town. This is similar to the role Jeff played in the review of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn proposal last year. In addition to this review, a work session was held for the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission in November to brief them on the concepts being proposed in this plan. As is the case with any rezoning request, final decisions concerning this application are made by the Town Council. The Planning Commission review is advisory to the Council and any approval of this plan would involve the adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoning request. III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development districts is to . ._.._� 18.40.010 Purpose The purpose of the special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vail to allow for the development of sites that would be unable to do so under conventional zoning. Examples of these projects would include Valli Hi where density increases were allowed in exchange for restrictions on the property to ensure their use as employee housing, or the Vail Village Inn whose mixed use character required the SDD zoning. More often than not, however, SDD zone districts have been requested to allow for increases in densities over what existing zoning on the site would allow. This is the case with this application. There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. Foremost among these are the nine design standards that 3 are listed in the zoning code. As stated in the code, "The development plan for the Special Development Districts shall meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that either one or More of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it is important to consider the underlying zoning as a point of reference in evaluating this request. These zoning considerations as well as other issues that have been raised during the course of this review will be addressed in this memo. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code. A. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district that is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The buffer zone referred to in this design standard is specifically for SDD's proposed adjacent to low density residential uses. Zone districts adjacent to this property include high density multi - family and the public use districts. Consequently, this standard is not directly applicable. However, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within the existing zone district's required 20 foot setback. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic may be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. The proposed site plan involves a number of changes to the existing vehicular access.to the property. Among these are the addition of a new access point to service the loading and trash facilities, the removal of an existing road cut to the hotel entrance, and the development of a newly aligned entry to the hotel. As a part of the environmental impact report for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated trip generation anticipated from both the existing and proposed development on the site. One conclusion of this study is that both left and right turn lanes be provided as an element of this development proposal. In addition to satisfying the recommendations of the traffic report, if approved, slight grading changes would be necessary to the main entry to the facility as per Town of Vail engineer's request. It should be noted that any changes to the road cuts requiring State Highway approval would have to be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit for this development. 4 C. Functional open space in terms of: Optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function. One change proposed in this plan relative to functional open space is with respect to the Middle Creek area. At the present time this area is overgrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the existing facility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the site, as well as on the Town of Vail stream tract, in order to open the access to this stream. While a limited amount of landscape materials would be removed to allow for this development, a preliminary landscape plan has been submitted indicating a substantial increase in plant materials on the site. The views /spacial analysis provided in the environmental impact report indicates that there are no real significant view impacts with respect to vantage points along the Frontage Road and Interstate. The scale of the buildings, coupled with the grade change from the Frontage road to the site, has mitigated the potential view blockage from this addition. Short range views from some units in the Vail International Condominiums would be affected by the expansion proposed to the north of the existing building. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space. With the exception of the five condominium units, the residential development proposed with this SDD is short term lodging. Other facilities on site in addition to the meeting room space include indoor Jacuzzis, an outdoor pool, a restaurant, a nightclub, and limited commercial. Also, see Section VI on Lodge Rooms and Condominium Restrictions. E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: Individuals, families and neighbors. Given the nature of the uses on this site, as well as the uses on- adjacent sites, staff can see no factors with respect to privacy. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: Safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. At the present time, guests of the Doubletree are provided with a pedestrian linkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of Vail bus system. With this proposed addition, an extension of this walkway is included linking the existing walkway with the Post Office /Municipal Building area. This walkway runs along the south side of the property. 5 G. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. It is felt that the designers of this project have done a commendable job in relating this addition to the existing structure. Specifically, the additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existing tower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage Road to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add considerable bulk to the site and works to enhance the overall visual quality as compared to the existing building. H. Building design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. As is the case with the massing of this proposal, the siting of the proposed additions work well with the existing tower. The extensions of the existing building help "step" the building off the Frontage Road. Considerations such as materials, color /texture, signs, and lighting would all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project were approved. A sun /shade analysis in the environmental impact report demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect on the Frontage Road. I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. The proposed landscape plan shows 37% of the site being landscaped. This does not include portions of adjacent property between the Doubletree site and the State Highway Department right -of -way that would also be landscaped. It should be noted, however, that this area is required to be landscaped. Particular attention has been paid to the loading /trash area as well as the surface parking that is on the site. A considerable amount of material is proposed in this area in order to screen this portion of the site. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL With the approval of an SDD, the development plan submitted establishes the development standards for the property. These would address the standard.zoning considerations that are outlined in other zone districts. In evaluating this development plan, it is important to consider the standards established in the underlying, or existing zoning. The following is an analysis of these considerations: Uses There are no changes to existing uses that would not be allowed under HDMF zoning. r M Density Aside from the important site planning issues which must be discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request for significant additional density. While the Town deals with requests for additional density quite frequently, seldom are requests made of this magnitude. Historically, the staff has not supported requests for densities above that allowed under existing zoning. While there have been notable exceptions, the Planning Commission and Town Council have also been quite critical of requests for density increases. The growth management report of 1977 and a general concern of allowing additional development in what is perceived by many to be an overdeveloped Valley, are often cited as reasons for denying additional density requests. Prompted in large part by the Sonnenalp request in 1984, the Town has been working on the Vail Village Study for over a year. One of the goals of the study is to evaluate the potential for additional density in the Village area. This potential is evaluated based more on design considerations than on what is necessarily allowed under existing zoning regulations. In conjunction with this evaluation, goals and objectives are being established to outline improvements that should be done to the Village in conjunction with this development. A trade off, or bonus system, is to be developed that would allow for additional densities in exchange for substantial return to the community in the form of public improvements or other exactions. It is important to note that this system i.s .being proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of the entire study area that has identified both the improvements to be made as well as where additional density could be accommodated in a sensitive manner. It is also important that during the public process that has taken place for the Village Study, there was not a uniform response in favor of considering additional density in the Village. However, there has been support for a system that would allow density increases in conjunction with the comprehensive study of this type combined with a substantial return by the developer in the form of public improvements. Given the submittal before us, it is unfortunate that the Doubletree Inn is not located within the Vail Village Study Area. It is equally unfortunate that a Town -wide land use plan is only in its early stages of development and not near completion as is the case with the.Village Study. The land use plan would provide the staff a better understanding of the implications that this project may have relative to other development potentials in the Valley. r 7 Arm While specific analysis of the Doubletree site would indicate that some degree of additional density could be accommodated, the concern of the staff is how this request relates to Town -wide development issues. For example, the traffic report for the Doubletree suggests that trip generations to the site can be accommodated off of the Frontage Road. But what would a cumulative impact have on the Frontage Road if similar requests for density increases were to be granted in this area? Likewise, it has been stated that the design impacts on the Doubletree site are positive from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower. However, without a comprehensive analysis, the staff is uncomfortable of what implications this proposal may have on other properties located along the frontage road. Another important consideration is a system of trade -offs that would be established for increased density in the Village. While there has been a formal discussion with the developers on what public improvements could be provided in conjunction with this development, without a Town -wide analysis, the staff is unable to provide recommendations as to appropriate trade -offs for this grant of additional density. 4 Setbacks The proposed addition encroaches into the required 20 foot setback in four areas. While three of these areas are along the Frontage Road and involve only a few feet, there is a considerable encroachment along the west end of the property adjacent to Middle Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to accommodate a pre - function area for the meeting rooms is proposed to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requested this area to be re- evaluated in an effort to reduce this encroachment on Middle Creek. It is important to maintain some amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area. Height The proposed additions do not exceed the 48 foot height limitation in the HDMF zone district. The existing tower is 72 feet in height. Site Coverage Site coverage allowed under the HDMF zone district is 55 %. This plan includes 47% of the site being covered by buildings. Landscaping As has been mentioned, 37% of the site is landscaped. This exceeds a 30% requirement for the HDMF zone district. f Z Parking There are a number of approaches that can be taken in evaluating what the required parking is for this development. Regardless of how the numbers are calculated, the proposed development does not meet the parking that would be required for this level of development. There are 167 parking spaces on the site that can be considered a grandfathered situation (current requirements for the existing development on the site would be 198 spaces). The new development proposed for the site would require 94 spaces (this includes a 5% multi -use reduction as well as a 50% reduction for the required parking for the meeting room space). Considering the 167 grandfathered spaces, an additional 44 spaces are being added to the site to accommodate the new development proposed. This results in a net deficit of 50 parking spaces on the site. In evaluating the parking required, the staff is comfortable with a total of 261 spaces to be provided on site. It should be noted that this figure of 261 spaces gives the applicant consideration for a 50% reduction of spaces for a meeting room facility as well as an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space shortfall that is present at this time. Without these considerations, the required parking on the site could be as high as 316 spaces. It is felt that the 261 figure is both realistic from a planning standpoint as well as reasonable in terms of the interpretations that have been made. VI. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL Fire Department Issues At the present time, the Fire Department has not signed off on this design because of inadequate access and operational widths for the additional development proposed for the site. Final determinations regarding code requirements will be made at the building permit review if this project is approved. Any significant changes to the site plan that may result from this review would require Planning Commission approval if made. Easements As - proposed, the underground parking structure and portions of the lodge addition would encroach on existing utility easements. If approved, the design of the underground parking structure would allow access to these utility lines. Construction on these easements would require approvals of all utility companies prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project. i 4 Restrictions on Lodge Rooms and Condominiums The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the accommodation units proposed in this plan would be developed as lodge rooms. This would mean that if a proposal to convert these units to condominiums were to be made, they would be reviewed with respect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance (i.e. if approved for conversion to condos, they would be restricted to short -term rentals). In addition, the applicant has agreed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time share form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested that the use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictions outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This would assure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool 48 weeks of the year. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As demonstrated in this memo, the proposed development plan satisfactorily addresses a number of design standards outlined in the SDD zone district. The plan presented provides a number of significant improvements to the existing site conditions on the property. However, the plan is significantly short of what the staff feels to be the required parking for this level of development. In addition to the shortfall of 50 parking spaces, staff also questions the high percentage of valet spaces within the structured parking area. As proposed, 76 of the 200 spaces would require valet service for utilization. Staff is also disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site. While the location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it would be much preferred to have the parking entirely enclosed. It is the feeling of the staff that this project's inability to meet the parking requirements is an indication that the development proposed is in excess of what the site is capable of handling. The development proposed includes 134 dwelling units. This number is over twice that allowed under existing zoning. To even consider supporting a project that is requesting this dramatic increase in density while not meeting its parking requirement is inconceivable to the staff. It is the feeling of the staff that it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how it is satisfying the development standards of the Town. With an SDD rezoning request to allow for this increase in density, it is the feeling of the staff that.this application should meet and exceed the respective minimum or maximum development standards of the Town to show the highest quality development possible. This project has not demonstrated that it is meeting this objective. The staff feels the parking requirements as described in the zoning code for those types of uses on this site are valid. Here again, it should be emphasized that the required parking acknowledges a 50% reduction in meeting room space, the multi -use credits, as well as acceptance of the grandfathering of the existing situation. The Town simply cannot afford to make concessions with regard to parking. We cannot risk the creation of a parking problem with respect to private developments as this will aggravate the problem of providing skier parking. This becomes particularly true when considering a request for such a significant increase in density. I 10 Without the information afforded us through the completion of a land use plan and policies applicable to these types of density increase proposals, the staff is not in a position to support density increases of this magnitude. Approval of this proposal would establish a significant precedent with respect to a Town policy on density increases within the Town. A land use plan is an important tool in evaluating proposals of this nature or other issues such as the potential land trade at the Lodge and 5praddle Creek sites. The planning Commission is strongly urged to consider these implications when evaluating this request. To: Planning and Environmental commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and rezoning of The Valley Phase III from Residential Cluster to Special Development District with underlying Residential Cluster. Applicants: Lamar Capital Corporation I. THE REQUESTS The requests involve two Planning Commission reviews: 1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major subdivision request 2. The review of the Special Development District zoning request. The applicant's request is summarized below: "The current proposal being made by Lamar Capital Corporation, the owners of Phase III, is the subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into seven building sites or 'envelopes.' Five of these envelopes would allow construction of single family dwellings and two (envelopes 5 and 6) would allow construction of duplex residences. Therefore, a total number of nine dwelling units would be constructed on the site.... The total Gross Residential Floor area (GRFA) designated for Phase III in The Valley PUD agreement is 16,000 square feet. This will allow each dwelling unit within the project to be a maximum of 1,777 square feet. Access to the site is off of Lionsridge Loop via a 22 foot wide common access drive. This road is currently under construction and was given building permit approval previously by Eagle County. The owner of the property has chosen to create the building envelopes rather than construct one single 10 unit development for various reasons: ... The creation of the building sites allows the development of the parcel to be phased and at the same time provides an overall plan to guide the placement of 40 dwelling units, access, and common open space within the parcel over time. • The development of 9 individual free standing dwelling units and duplex units will be more compatible with the adjacent developments than would one single structure containing 10 dwelling units. The creation of the building envelopes allows for a variation in residential product type in Vail. A purchaser will be able to enjoy amenities such as common open space, guest parking, and a common access drive which are typically found in a multiple family development and also enjoy the opportunity to construct his /her own home much like the owner of a single family or duplex lot." TT. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL The Valley project was originally designed as a planned development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973, the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan with a Planned Development zone designation. The approval of the preliminary plan was valid for three years. In July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval expired. However, the Planned Development zone designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the planning files, it appears that several requests to extend the approvals from the preliminary plan were granted by the Commissioners. In March of 1980, the PUD plan and protective covenants were filed with the County. Once again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet exists for Phase III. In 1980, the West Vail area was annexed to the Town of Vail. The Town accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as the allowed development for Phase III of The Valley in March of 1981. Subsequentlly, The Valley was de- annexed from the Town of Vail and re- annexed in May of 1987. (Please see the enclosed summary of events relating to The Valley Phase III attached to this memo.) The following information indicates that it is very clear that Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet. Any sketch plan and preliminary plan approvals have lapsed since the time of their review by the County. The most recent sketch plan review for this project occurred in April of 1980. Even after this review of the sketch plan by the County, the developer still • needed to return with a preliminary plan for Phase III. A preliminary plan for this project was never finalized through the County and considered to be a part of the approval when the project was accepted into the Town of Vail in 1980. In 1981, the Town of Vail merely accepted the zoning of 10 units and 16,000 square feet as the development standard for the property. Ordinance 13 of 1981 acknowledges the land use restrictions of 10 units and 16,000 square feet of GRFA but states that, "for any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements, or actions, the developments of parcels of properties specified in this subsection (E) shall be zoned Residential Cluster. For this reason, the Special Development District is compared to the underlying zone district of Residential Cluster which serves as a guide for the development standards of this phase. III. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.16.110 of the regulations and are as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its approriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, density proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses. A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews: The following comments were made by each agency: 1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District: We have no problems with this project. Water and sewer are available in the area. We recommend approval. 2. Public Service Company: The original preliminary plan did not show gas as a utility being provided by the developer. The developer has agreed to include gas as a utility for the project. 3. Holy Cross Electric: No problem. 4. Mountain Bell: No problem. Mountain Bell requested that the developer fill out one of their land development agreements as soon as possible. 5. Heritage Cable: No problem. 6. National Forest Service: At this time, the adequacy of water and fire protection service is questioned. The need for adequate response to fire emergency suppression and availability of adequate fire hydrants should be considered in the review for approval. Evaluations should include concerns of the Vail Fire Department about water pressure, emergency fire call response time, location of hydrants, etc. in terms of both structural and wild land fire protection, suppression and control. These issues have been addressed by the Vail Fire Department and Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District. 7. Western Slope Gas: No problem B. Relation of Proposal to Town of Vail Policies: Staff believes that the design of the subdivision and recommendations made in the environmental impact report will create a project that meets the intent of Vail's subdivision controls. The density is actually less than what was originally approved for the site by one unit. The EIR states that the potential negative impacts of the proposal include the "visual impacts and impacts associated with the location of the site within a rockfall hazard area." Staff's opinion is that the developer has designed a plan that protects the meadow area as much as possible, given the high severity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on the northern portion of the lot. In addition, design guidelines are incorpoarated into the SDD zoning which will "ensure architectural and visual continuity with regard to building design and materials." (EIR p.4) The Public Works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the request and the proposal meets their standards as far as road design, drainage, fire protection service and adequate fire turn - around areas. The staff finds that the proposal does meet the major subdivision criteria and actually is a significant improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase III that was reviewed under the County in April of 1980 and the preliminary plan proposal that was reviewed by the County last summer. The main area of improvement is the preservation of the primary natural feature of the sate- -the meadow. This has been accomplished by proposing the building sites on the north side of the access road. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW A. Design Standards Section 18.40.080 lists a set of standards that a proposed SDD development plan must comply with. The purpose of the review is to show how the development meets the standards or to demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The design standards, along with the applicant's and staff's responses are listed below: 1. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district that is adjacent to a low density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. Applicant's Statement: The "buffering" provided by the project is appropriate for the type of project proposed and the nature of the existing and proposed surrounding land uses. Landscaped areas will serve to strengthen this buffer. Staff's Statement: Phase III is adjacent to Lionsridge Loop on the . northern side of the project, The Valley Condominiums (Phase I) on the east, and The Valley Phase VI on the south and west. The northern property line of Phase III is approximately 25 feet from the edge of the pavement of Lionsridge Loop. Most of the trees in this area will remain. Staff's opinion is that this area provides an adquate buffer on the northern portion of the project. Phase I to the east provides access to units directly off of Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers maintaining the public right -of -way in its natural state, as opposed to having paved access and parking areas adjacent to Lionsridge Loop. It should also be noted that the special development district will require that no structure be located less than 3 feet from the northern perimeter line of the building envelopes. On the east side of Phase III, the nearest building from The Valley Condominiums is 190 feet from the easternmost building envelope. In addition, an open area ranging from approximately 15 feet at the very narrowest point to 60 feet from the property line is maintained as open space adjacent to the eastern building envelope. The rest of the site on the eastern portion of the project is designated as open space. On the west property lines for Phase III, approximately 25 feet of open space is maintained between the building envelope and the western property line. On the south side of the project, the road and fire turn- arounds are within several feet of the property line. However, no buildings are proposed for this area. Staff would recommend that the four western parking spaces in this area be removed from the plan. Phase VI proposes to maintain as open space the portion of their project that meets the southern property line of Phase III. Therefore, the slight impacts of the pavement should be minimized. In general, the staff finds that the proposal maintains adequate buffer spaces on all sides of the project. We would recommend that additional landscaping be located by the west fire turn around and the 4 guest parking spaces be removed. 2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separa- tion from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency, __purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. • 0 Applicant's Statement: The access drive has been designed so as to adequately serve the traffic needs of the development. Due to the size of the project, the need for a separate bicycle path does not exist. Staff's Statement: The project has been designed to meet Fire Department and Public Works' design standards. Staff agrees with the applicant that a project of this size does not require a separate bicycle path. There is a possibility that the road could be continued west into Phase VI at a future date if desirable. 3. Functional Open Space in Terms of: Optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function. Applicant's Statement: Approximately 700 of the site is devoted to open space use in order to preserve significant features of the site. Staff's Statement: The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve the meadow area and wooded hillside as open space. Staff believes that the road is necessary in order to provide safe access into the project. It is true that the access could have been directly off of Lionsridge Loop to the structures built into the hillside. However, staff did not prefer this site planning approach, as it would have required very high retaining walls which would have negative visual impacts on adjacent properties. Secondly, direct access to the units off of Lionsridge Loop encourages parking problems along the Lionsridge Loop right -of- way as well as snow plowing problems. The staff prefers to see parking and access removed from the Lionsridge Loop areas. Once again, the staff would also recommend that the western four parking spaces on the access road be removed from the proposal to free up more open space. Our opinion is that the 10 guest spaces on the eastern portion of the site provide adequate overflow parking for the 9 units. Even with the removal of the four spaces, each unit would have one enclosed . space, one space I front of the garage, and one guest parking space. Staff believes that three spaces are adequate for each unit. 4. variety: variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space: Applicant's Statement: Design guidelines will be adopted to govern the character of the buildings. While these guidelines will result in a certain uniformity among building design, a certain amount of flexibility in building design will exist. Staff's Statement: Staff supports the idea of using design guidelines to provide some compatibility among the nine units that will be constructed within this phase. If anything, staff would like to ensure through the guidelines that the units are developed in a compatible manner so that there does not become too much variety in terms of design. 5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors: Applicant's Statement: Building envelopes are adequately separated in order to provide spaces between residences and provide privacy. Staff's Statement: The building envelopes are separated from each other from a distance varying from approximately 18 feet to 26 feet. This separation provides a reasonable amount of privacy between the residences. 6. Pedestrian Traffic in Terms of: Safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness: Applicant's Statement: Due to the small size of the proposed project, separated pedestrian ways are not needed. . Staff's Statement: Staff agrees with the applicant. 7. Building Type in Terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. Applicant's Statement: The building bulk requirements as established are appropriate for the scale of the site and its surroundings. Staff's Statement: Staff agrees with the applicant. 8. Building Design in Terms of: orientation, spacing, materials color and texture stora e si ns, lighting, and solar blockage. Applicant's Statement: The buildings will be oriented to take advantage of views into the open space and southern exposures. The spacing between buildings is indicated upon the site plan and provides areas for landscaping, light, and air. Materials have been specified within the design guidelines for the project. Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design Review Board. Landscape provisions have been included in the proposed covenants and are as follows: The concerns of the Committee shall be to improve the appearance of the subdivision and the maintenance of such appearance. Owners and their representatives or builders will be required to: a. Minimize disruption from grading. b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion and appearance reasons. C. Use indigenous species of plant materials as established by the Committee. d. Select the man -made elements that blend and are compatible with the land. e. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever possible. f. Conserve and protect top soil, and unique landscape features. g. Sod such areas as determined by V. SDD ZONING CONSIDERATIONS rock formations the Committee. The applicant has requested SDD zoning in order to allow for greater design creativity and flexibility in certain areas that would not be permissible under straight Residential Cluster zoning or Single Family, Primary /Secondary zoning. Below is a summary of the special development district standards which have been written to correspond to the Residential Cluster zone district. Following the narrative for the special development district is a comparison of the SDD standards to straight Residential Cluster zoning. A. Proposed Special Development District: Purpose: The purpose of the establishment of the Elk Meadows Special Development District is to allow greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of the site, building envelopes will be established which ifdesignate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed according to each individual owner's ability to construct a residence. Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are proposed to be: 1. Single family residential dwellings 2. Two-family residential dwellings 3. Open space 4. Public and private roads Conditional Uses: 1. Public utility and public service uses 2. Public buildings, grounds and facilities 3. Public or private schools 4. Public park and recreation facilities 5. Ski lifts and tows 6. Private clubs 7. Dog kennel Accessory Uses: 1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single - family or two - family residential uses. r� • 2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190; 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; 4. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58. Development Standards: Proposed development standards are as follows: 1. Lot Area - Not applicable; building envelopes govern. Building Envelopes 1. .07 acres 2. .07 acres 3. .06 acres 4. .05 acres 5. .10 acres 6. .08 acres 7. .05 acres Tract 1: 2.53 Tract 2: .61 acres open space acres roadaway and parking * Tracts 1 and 2 acreages should be adjusted if the west guest parking is removed. 2. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of structures with relations to building envelope perimeter lines shall be as follows: a. No structure shall be located on the utility easement as so designated on the final plat of the subdivision. b. No structure shall be located less than two feet from either the east or the west perimeter line. C. No structure shall be located less than three feet from the north perimeter line. d. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove to the contrary, roof overhangs and decks may encroach into the setback areas described in b and c so long as such roof overhangs and decks are totally within the perimeter lines of the building envelope. 3. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA): A building situated on a single unit residential building envelope shall not contain more than 1,777 square feet of GRFA; a building stivated on a two unit residential building envelope shall not contain more than 3,554 square feet of GRFA. 4. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof. 5. Parking: Two parking spaces shall be provided per unit with one of the two spaces being enclosed. 6. Landscaping: The entire portion of the building envelope not covered by pavement or buildings shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside the building envelope disturbed during construction. 7. Design Guidelines: Design Guidelines to be adopted for the site are as follows: a. Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in 12 feet. b. Roof material shall be metal and be either charcoal grey or marina blue in color. C. Siding material shall be either cedar or redwood and shall be applied horizontally as indicated on the prototypical building elevations. Only light colored stain shall be applied to siding. d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed concrete foundation walls. If stucco is utilized, it shall be light in color. e. All windows shall be white metal clad windows. f. All decks and balconies shall be constructed utilizing 2 x 12 railings and posts that are at least 4" x 411. g. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot in order to protect walls and wall openings from rain and snow and to contribute to the building's character. 8. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is .30 per square foot. • B. PROPOSED SDD IN COMPARISON WITH RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER TONE DISTRICT: LOT SIZE: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. PROPOSED SDD .07 .07 .06 .05 .10 .08 .05 .48 20, ac ac ac ac ac ac ac to 909 single single single single duplex duplex single tal bld, sf. unit unit unit unit units units unit 3 envelopes or SETBACKS: Sides, 2 ft from bldg envelope line Rear, 3 ft from bldg envelope line between bldg envelopes exists HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof 30' for flat roof does not apply as design guidelines requires sloping roof RES CLUSTER 15,000 sf, containing no less than 8,000 sf of buildable area front 20' side, 15' rear, 15, 33' slope 30' flat roof SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes 25% of site GRFA: 16,000 16,000 per annexation agree. DENSITY: 9 units 10 units per annexation agree. LANDSCAPING: Tract 1: 2.53 acres 600 of site Open Space or 70% of the shall be site is open space landscaped PARKING: Requires 1 enclosed space, also Requires 1 will have 1 open space within enclosed spc, bldg envelope + 1 guest space 2 spaces The proposed SDD varies only slightly from the underlying Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that building envelopes are being used as opposed to lots, it is difficult to compare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning in respect to lot size. The density is actualy one less than would be allowed without the SDD approach. Site coverage is also difficult to compare in that the building envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to what degree the coverage will occur is impossible to determine until the lots are constructed. However, staff believes that there is adequate open space around the building envelopes to maintain an aesthetically pleasing amount of open space and separation among the units. Setbacks also vary from those that are required in a Residential Cluster zone district. The separation among the building envelopes varies from 18 feet to 27 feet. Staff believes that this separation provides adequate space among the units. All other development standards meet the underlying zone district requirements for the Residential Cluster zone district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this proposal. Staff believes that the request meets the intent of the major subdivision regulations and special development district's zoning. The proposal basically follows the underlying Residential Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning originally approved under Eagle County. It departs from these guidelines in areas that are appropriate to revise :7 • • due to the need to preserve the meadow area and site constraints due to the rockfall hazards and slopes. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The development of each building envelope will comply with the environmental impact report, especially the design recommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in a letter concerning design mitigations for rock fall hazards. Each individual owner will be responsible for completing the rockfall mitigation measure per the Pettigrove letter. 2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design review guidelines will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for their approval before final plat submittal. * For information purposes, the staff would like to note that the major subdivision regulations require the completion of general improvements for the subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be installed within four years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid. All right to improve or develop the property on the part of the owner or subdivider shall thereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated in Section 17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations. It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals, the applicant must begin construction of the special development district within 18 months from the time of the project's final approval according to Setion 18.40.100 of the Town of Vaal zoning code. 3. The applicant agrees to revegetage the access road if a building permit is not received and acted upon to complete the general subdivision improvements by September 1, 1987. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley Planned Development (PD) July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is good for three years. The approval included 150 units on 61.2 acres. July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting to confirm Valley approval. July 26, 1976: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of the units are under construction. The 120 units that have not been built will require a new submittal starting with a sketch plan and preliminary plan review (letter from Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977). May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the Eagle County Commissioners in favor of . extending the Valley's approval as long as development is carried out according to the preliminary plan and recreation amenities are provided. May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an extension of the Valley preliminary plan approval. This approval would expire on June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it would be required that sketch plan and preliminary plan review informtion be submitted. Also, if any change in the present plan, it would have to be reviewed by the County Commissioners. November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch plan and have several concerns. March 26, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu- ment is filed with the County which indi- cated that Phase III was subject to the land use restrictions of 10 units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80 -20 allowed the phases of The Valley to be sold separately without any further compliance with the subdivision 10 regulations. April 16, 1980: The Eagle County Planning Commission reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The Planning Commission suggested that the units be tucked into the hillside on the northeast side of the project and that the developer use berming and landscaping to buffer the project. Staff recommended approval of the sketch plan. April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the Eagle County Planning Commission which recommends more tighter, clustered layout of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail staff also recognizes the steep hillside and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan. April 30, 1980: The Eagle County Commissioners reviewed the sketch plan that the Planning Commission saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan showed 10 townhomes on Phase III. May 5, 1980: A resolution was passed by the County allowing three years for the developers to file preliminary plans from the March 26, . 1980 PUD plan approval date. December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexed the West Vail area including Phase III of The Valley. March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applied zoning to The Valley which was recently annexed. The ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981. March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series of 1987, the Town Council approved rezoning of The Valley. Sept. 11, 1985: The Valley is de- annexed from the Town. Summer 1986 A development proposal is submitted to Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation. The proposal begins with a sketch plan /preliminary plan review. Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase III proposal is withdrawn from the County due to complications with the time lines for review and how they will relate to the property being re- annexed to the Town of Vail. • • :7 • May 16, 1986 May 6, 1987 May 7, 1987: May 11, 1987 May 11, 1987; May 11, 1987: May 11, 1987: A grading permit is released by the County for an access road into Phase III. The applicant was Lamar Capital Corporation. The road work on Phase III is red - tagged by Eagle County. Red tag removed by Eagle County. The Valley is re- annexed into the Town. The Road is red - tagged by the Town of Vail The Road is red - tagged by Eagle County. Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major subdivision and special development district zoning request for Phase III. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to enclose an existing dining deck at the Sweet Basil Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Kevin Clair I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL This request is for the enclosure of the second floor creek side (north facing) dining patio of the Sweet Basil Restaurant. The existing deck is utilized exclusively in the summer months and at the present time is covered with an awning. The proposal would enclose the entire dining patio, but would include totally operable windows /walls on the north and east sides. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST . As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria for requests of this nature are established by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this review is on the project's compatibility with both the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations. Detailed architectural and landscape considerations become the perview of the Design Review Board if this project is approved. The Planning Commission is also charged with addressing standard zoning issues not addressed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN CRITERIA Expressed as Sub -Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide Plan identify physical improvements to improve the overall fabric of the Village. There are no specific proposals identified in this element of the plan relative to this project. IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These Urban Design Considerations address large scale land planning issues, as well as form- giving considerations that go beyond the property lines of a project proposal. These considerations include the following: • Pedestrianization: There is no direct impact on Pedestrianization from this project. Vehicular Penetration: Given the nature of this project, there are no direct or indirect implications relative to vehicular penetration. Streetscape Framework: Located on the second floor of the Gore Creek Promenade, the implications of this project relative to streetscape framework are subtle. The enclosure of the dining patio does allow for activity in this location throughout the year. In addition, the totally operable windows will provide for essentially the same effect as presently takes place in the summer months. A small planter area is proposed on the north elevation in conjunction with this infill. Minor changes may be required to maximize the impact of this planter area. These changes can best be expressed during the staff presentation. In addition, it would be a positive step to incorporate planter boxes along the entire north exterior wall of this enclosure. This treatment will provide a colorful framework along the Gore Creek Promenade. . Street Enclosure: The proposed infill will provide a "cleaned up" appearance to the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Because of the open space adjacent to this development, there is no consideration to be given to the sense of space typically associated with this criteria. Street Edge: As was stated with the Street Enclosure criteria, the infill of this deck, in conjunction with the recommended landscape treatment creates a more unified street edge. The impact of this improvement is obviously relative to its second floor location. Building Height: Building height is not affected by this proposal. Views: Views are not impacted by this building expansion. Service and Delivery: Existing service and delivery is provided in the loading zones along Gore Creek Drive. While the increase in the seating capacity will require greater volumes of products, it is not anticipated that this expansion would require any greater number of trucks than presently service this restaurant. • • Sun /Shade: As indicated in graphic form, the infill is within the existing planes of the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The expansion has been designed in a manner directly responsive to the Urban Design Guide Plan, thereby eliminating any increase in shade along the Gore Creek Promenade. V. OTHER ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The expansion will require payment into the Town parking fund for the square footage being enclosed. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The reasons for the support of this project are based on the northern exposure and lack of utilization of this site during the majority of the year. The enclosure, incorpor- ating the operable windows, will allow for a very similar situation to what presently exists. The staff feels that when weather permits, the restauranteur will open the windows, creating the feeling of an outdoor dining experience. While on second floor, the applicant has been involved in discussions concerning the completion of the Gore Creek Promenade. Because there are no direct impacts from this expansion on the walkway, staff is unable to impose a condition requiring the applicant's participation in the funding of the walkway's completion. However, the owner has agreed to participate in the cost of completing the walkway. Based on this, we will include this as a condition of approval. However, his participation is voluntary, and we will not attempt to establish any minimum level of participation through this approval. The staff commends the applicant for his willingness to assist in this public improvement. The conditions of approval for this propoal include the following: 1. That the windows on the east and north elevation of the proposed deck enclosure be totally operable. 2. That planter boxes running the entire length of the north elevation be provided, as well as the planter area identified on the submitted plans. In addition, a redesign of the portion of the operable windows shall be made to allow for plantings to be located in this planter that are visible from the walkway. 3. That the owner /applicant final improvements to the area immediately adjacent property) . 11 agree to participate in the Gore Creek Promenade (that to the Gore Creek Plaza • TO: Planning and Environmental commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to enclose an existing dining deck at Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The two elements involved in this proposal are the enclosure of a portion of the existing dining patio adjacent to Blu's and the expansion of the existing outdoor dining area. The design of the patio enclosure incorporates a glassed roof with totally operable walls on the south elevation of the restaurant. Another aspect of the enclosure includes an airlock entry vestibule in the location of the existing restaurant. The dining patio expansion is located predominantly on Town property. Earlier this year, the Town Council granted Blu's the opportunity to proceed through the review process with this basic design. The potential expansion of this dining patio was planned for and incorporated into the overall design of the Gore Creek Promenade. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria for requests of this nature are established by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this review is on the project's compatibility with both the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations. Detailed architectural and landscape considerations become the purview of the Design Review Board if this project is approved. The Planning Commission is also charged with addressing standard zoning issues not covered in the Urban Design Guide Plan. III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Expressed as Sub -Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide Plan identify physical improvements to improve the overall fabric of the Village. There are no specific proposals identified in this element of the plan relative to this project. 0 IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These Urban Design Considerations address large scale land planning issues, as well as form giving considerations that go beyond the property lines of the project proposal. These considerations contain the following: Pedestrianization: This consideration is intended to reinforce and expand the quality of the pedestrian's walking experience throughout the Village. The proposed patio expansion encroaches into the existing walkway, now referred to as the Gore Creek Promenade. This linkage is a key element to the success of the pedestrian system in the Village. If approved in conjunction with improvements to the promenade, a 10 foot width will remain during those times when the patio is in place. This 10 foot width is over a span of 32 feet. Remaining portions of the promenade are generally 15 feet in width. It is felt that over such a short distance that this reduction in width is not a detriment to the walkway. To the contrary, staff feels that the activity provided by the dining deck works well with the narrowing of the sidewalk's width. It should be noted that the railing enclosure of the patio is removable and during winter months the walkway will maintain its 15 foot width. Vehicular Penetration: There are no impacts related to vehicular penetration from this proposal. Streetscape Framework: While there may be slight modifications to the landscaping of this deck, 4 street trees have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the existing wooden planter. Coupled with a new planter immediately west of the patio and dining enclosure, this treatment will provide a colorful framework along this portion of the promenade. The high degree of transparency inherent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible activity for the pedestrian on the promenade. In addition, the operable front walls and dining deck will provide outdoor activity when feasible. overall, the proposal will improve the street - scape framework for this area of the promenade. Street Enclosure: Because of the open space directly adjacent to this property, the street enclosure considerations are not directly applicable. However, there is a nice stepping effect created by this expansion in conjunction with the Sweet Basil proposal. Street Edge: While the overall appearance of the walkway • is linear, there is a fair amount of variety found in the buildings along the promenade. To a slight degree, the patio enclosure eliminates a slight "jog" in the building forms along the walkway. Nonetheless, the irregular facade lines of this streetscape are maintained and reinforced by this patio expansion as well as the Lancelot patio. Building Height: There are no considerations applicable to building height as a result of this proposal. Views: Views are not impacted by this proposal. Service and Deliver : While the seating capacity for the restaurant will be increased, it is not anticipated that n increased number of delivery trucks will be needed to service this expansion. Sun /Shade: As was the case with Sweet Basil, this enclosure is designed in complete compliance with recommendations made in the Guide Plan. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Additional parking demands created by will be met by payment into the Town's exact amount will be calculated at the permit. • VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION the enclosed space parking fund. The time of building Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. While this recommendation, along with the Sweet Basil recommendation, are contrary to other actions by the Town concerning deck enclosures, staff feels this proposal is warranted. Our position is based primarily on the northern exposure of the deck. In addition, the walls on the north elevation are totally operable. Blu's has demonstrated their desire to open their existing operable walls when weather permits. This creates a very pleasing experience and, in fact, allows for more people to enjoy the feel of outdoor dining. This increases the sense of activity along the street on a year around basis. Another consideration relative to our support of this enclosure is the patio expansion. While located predominantly on Town land, the outdoor dining area is being maintained. However, there is a direct impact on the patio expansion with respect to the existing walkway. Without improvements to the walkway, the width of the sidewalk would be reduced at its narrowest point to 5 feet. This is unacceptable, and improvements to the walkway are required to facilitate this project proposal. Given the level of improvements on both sides of this is property, it is reasonable to expect a similar treatment along this frontage. Another consideration not directly applicable to the Planning Commission's review is the railing treatment proposed to define the deck. The staff has a significant concern over the wooden railing treatment and question its appropriateness. With a few exceptions, wrought iron has been used to define many of the recent dining deck expansions in the Village. Another design consideration for the applicant is that the railing defining the deck must be removable. While supporting the enclosure and the basic footprint of the expansion, staff cannot support the design of the railing as proposed. The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to adopt the following conditions of approval: 1. The walls on the north elevation be totally operable. 2. The applicant consider design alternatives for the railing treatment to be submitted at DRB review.. 3. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek Promenade design be made in conjunction with this proposal. Consistent improvements shall mean identical materials and design. The upgrading of the walkway shall be made over the entire length of the Gore Creek Plaza building frontage and shall be done in conjunction with construction and expansion of the existing patio. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant I. CRITERIA TO BE ADDRESSED While all significant issues relative to this project have been addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the zoning code requires a separate conditional use approval for the expansion of the dining patio. The following criteria are to be used in this review. A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District: There are no effects upon vehicular traffic relative to this proposal. 0 B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District: This proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicular traffic into the core. C. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking. There is no effect on this consideration. D. Control of delivery, pickup and service vehicles. There is no anticipated increase in the frequency of deliveries to this establishment. E. Development of public spaces for use by edestrians. As indicated in the exterior alteration memorandum, a significant improvement to the existing walkway will be done in conjunction with this proposal. If approved and constructed, the applicant is to be commended for his participation in this public improvement. While necessary to facilitate the patio expansion, the level of improvement is of high quality and consistent with the improvements on adjacent properties. 0 F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to G. maintain the existing character of the area. As expressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the staff feels strongly that this proposal will increase the level of activity along the promenade. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core T so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The sidewalk improvements are of the highest quality found in the Village, the landscape improvements maintain or improve the existing landscaping of the patio, and the design of the enclosure is an improvement over existing conditions of this property. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval as per the conditions outlined the exterior alteration memorandum. is iTO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to enlarge an entry on Unit 6B, Vail Townhouses, on Lot 6 Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing Applicants: Bud and Greta Parks I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicants wish to change the south entry to their townhome for the purpose of handicapped access. This change involves redesigning the entries to both the Parks unit on the first floor and the unit above the Parks. The change will not increase the total GRFA of either unit. The Vail Townhomes are zoned High Density Multi - Family and require 20 foot setbacks on all sides. However, each Townhome is 26 feet wide, with zero lot lines, making them nonconforming with regard to side setbacks. Hence, the changed entry requires a side setback variance. • II. ZONING STATISTICS Zone: HDMF Lot Size: 2,853.27 square feet Setbacks: 20 feet on all sides Requested: 0 setback on east side Existing: 0 setbacks on sides, 30 ft front, 25 ft rear III, APPLICANT'S STATEMENT "The parks would like to reconfigure their entry for the purpose of handicapped access on the south side of their home. This involves a 6' -5" projection south of the existing structure, along the east property line. No GRFA will be added to the Parks' or Welles' units. Due to the existing zero lot line condition of the condominiums and the fact that the property is only 26'- 0" wide in the east /west direction, it would be impossible to have any structure on the property that is not within the 20' -0" required side setbacks. n U • "This is a pre - existing condition, and the granting of the variance would have no effect on existing utilities, traffic, public safety, transportation, or light and air, but it would provide a covered access to the Parks' and Welles' units. Your consideration of this issue is appreciated." IV. 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 side setback 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. Zero side setbacks already exist on all 13 townhomes of the Vail Townhomes. The east side setback of zero clearance will be continued for 6.5 feet. This addition is on the lot line adjacent to Unit 7. This neighbor was notified of the addition and has not objected to this construction. The deg interpr necessa to which relief from the strict and literal ion and enforcement of a specified regulation is o achieve compatibility and uniformity of Staff feels that it would not be a grant of special privilege to allow the setback variance since zero setbacks exist on all of the other townhomes in this complex and we have granted many setbacks variances in this complex previously. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. ^ Staff feels that there are no significant impacts with respect to these concerns. 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 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, as there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances on the site due to lot layout which do not generally apply to other properties in this same zone. It is also felt that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In the past, staff has approved side setback variances for properties within this development. For these reasons, staff believes that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the side setback variance. If this variance is granted, staff would call attention to the Design Review Board with respect to trying to relocate the large evergreen tree which will be displaced. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 4201 East Arkansas Ave. Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757 -9011 STATE of COL IZADo May 29, 1987 COORDINATION /SCOPING LETTER PROJECT CC 44- 0070 -20 MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE f� r cy4 " q vN yT �. /O 9rB OF C�t'�PP This letter is intended to provide public coordination and scoping information on an interchange improvement project being proposed by the Colorado Department of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration. The project would close the existing eastbound off-ramp at the Main Vail 170 interchange and construct new eastbound on- and off -ramps approximately one mile to the west (see Attachment 1). This project will require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the impacts of this proposed project. Vail's primary transportation problem occurs at the Main Vail interchange, which provides access to two large public parking garages and the town's commercial center. The Main I 70 interchange with Vail Road is a diamond configuration with ramps closely spaced to the 170 mainline traffic lanes. In addition, the east- bound on- and off -ramps of the interchange are close to the intersection of Vail Road and South Frontage Road. . The deficiencies of this roadway configuration in handling competing turning and weaving movements during peak traffic periods have resulted in traffic congestion that has been a publicly voiced concern of the Vail community for over five years. As a separate project, the Town of Vail plans to signalize the intersection of Vail Road and South Frontage Road, which is currently a four -way stop. Construction of the proposed ramps would require extension of an existing culvert that carries Red Sandstone Creek beneath 170 and the two frontage roads, and addition of some fill material to the existing creekbed. The proposed ramp site includes approximately one acre of mature trees near the banks of the creek. Some of these trees would be removed to construct the proposed off - ramp. This project will also require a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit and S.B. 40 certification from the Colorado Division of Wildlife for the modifications affecting fled Sandstone Creek. If you have any issues, concerns, or comments that you wish to be considered during the preparation of the EA, please send them to Ms. Robin Geddy, Project Environmental Manager, Colorado Department of Highways, Room 218, 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. If you do not wish to comment but would like to be kept informed about the project, please send your name and mailing address to the above address. Your name will be placed on the project mailing list and you will receive notices and information regarding this project. The scoping comment period will end on June 19, 1987, and preparation of the EA will begin. The EA will be made available for public review in late summer of 1987. R. P. MOSTON DISTRICT ENGINEER L� u • PROJECT LOCATION MAr CC 44- 0070-20 MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 22, 1987 2:00 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of June 1. 2. Request for exterior alteration and a conditional use permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive Applicant: Blu's Restaurant 3. A request for a density variance and a side setback variance to enclose a deck on Lot 27, Vail Village Filing #2. Applicant: Albert D. Weiss 4. A request for a setback variance in order to relocate a pool building at the Ramshorn Condominiums on Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership 5. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core 11 for expansion of common office space at the Antlers Condominiums. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association 6. A request to amend Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations related to owner restriction for the conversion of lodges to condominiums. Applicants: Mr. Dave Garton and Mr. Tim Garton 7. A request to amend Section 18.54.050 C.13 concerning the physical connection in the design of primary /secondary and duplex residential units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 16 June 22, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT J.J. Collins Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Hobbs 1. Approval of minutes of June 1. The minutes were approved with corrections with a motion from Diana Donovan and a second from J.J. Collins. 2. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at Btu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant {This item had been tabled from June 8. Pam Hopkins left the table to absent herself from this proposal due to conflict of interest. Tom Braun presented the proposal and explained that Blu's wished to enclose part of their deck and expand the rest of the deck. The enclosed portion would have a greenhouse effect. The staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The walls on the north elevation must be totally operable. 2. The applicant consider design alternatives for the railing treatment to be submitted at DRB review. 3. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek Promenade design shall be made in conjunction with this proposal. Consistent improvements shall mean identical materials and design. The upgrading of the walkway shall be made over the entire length of the Gore Creek Plaza building frontage and shall be done in conjunction with construction and expansion of the existing patio. Craig Snowdon, representing the applicant, showed dimensions and described indoor and outdoor dining. Craig explained that • the planter elements would be in place only in the summertime. Sid Schultz felt the deck interrupted the flow along the sidewalk. He also did not feel comfortable with the fact that the applicant was enclosing deck space and then asking for more • deck space on Town land. Craig said that he met with the staff, owners, and consultant to try to come up with a solution that would be acceptable to all and Jeff Winston, the consultant suggested having the patio come out into the sidewalk area and interrupt the pedestrian area. Diana agreed with Sid and felt that the project also blocked the view from the west. Peggy Osterfoss liked the greenhouse and planters, but felt that there should be more continuity in design between the building and the sidewalk. She felt the third circle should be part of the design and that it was important to work out the details in advance. She wanted assurance that the work on the pedestrian way would be completed. J.J. Collins felt that the cart came before the horse in this project, but that he had no choice but to approve the proposal. He agreed with Peggy and felt that this was not a final design. J.J. felt that the Town should budget to finish the pedestrian way. J.J. also mentioned that the rental should be a fair market value. Jim Viele agreed with J.J. Peter appreciated J.J.'s viewpoint that this was not a final design. He explained that this was a master plan and that he tried to accelerate the review process, but could not, and felt that it was wise to get the best solution now until the Town could get the third circle financed. • J.J. moved to approve the exterior alteration per the staff memo which included the three conditions listed above along with the comments that the PEC's concerns be directed by the staff to the Town Council and that the staff propose to Town Council that there be a budget to help to complete the promenade and the landscaping. The motion was seconded by Jim Viele. More discussion followed, with Peggy being concerned that the Town Council might not go along with the idea of helping to finance the project. Tom explained the process of capital improvement projects. Diana felt that the need was immediate, not next year. The vote was 3 in favor with 2 (Sid and Diana) against the motion. J.J. moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the request for a conditional use permit to expand the dining deck. The vote was 3 -2 in favor, the vote following that of the exterior alteration. 3. A request for a density variance and a side setback_ variance to enclose a deck on Lot 27, Vail Village West . Filing #2. Applicant: Albert D. Weiss Tom Braun explained that the proposed deck enclosures required two variance requests. He stated that the staff could not support the requests as presented because they were strongly opposed to the additional GRFA requested beyond the 250 square feet allowed under Ordinance 4. John Perkins, architect for the applicant, felt that there was a legitimate hardship. Mr. Weiss mentioned that only 168 square feet was for living space. J.J. Collins suggested that the applicant consider scaling back the request too 250 square feet. Peggy Osterfoss stated that perhaps if snow removal was the only problem, a roof could be in place without enclosing all the space beneath it. She could not see a reason to go beyond the 250 square feet. Diana and Sid agreed. Jim Viele felt the hardship was self imposed. Weiss pointed out that he was not enclosing beyond the perimeter of the house. He felt the hardship was dampness to the house. Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to deny the request per the staff memo dated 6/22/87. The vote was 6 -0 for denial. 4. A request for a setback variance in order to relocate a pool building at the Ramshorn Condominiums on Lot A Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership Peter Patten presented the proposal. He stated that this was an amendment to a previous approval and showed the old proposal and the new proposal on a site plan. He said the staff felt the proposal to be an improvement with respect to adjacent uses. Jim Morter, architect for the project, answered questions. Diana Donovan moved to approve the request for the front and side setback variances per the staff memo dated 6/22/87 with the condition that the trash dumpster be enclosed. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor. 5. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I1 for expansion of common office space at the Antlers Condominiums. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association Rick Pylman explained that the applicant were requesting an addition 14' x 21' to create additional office space. He reviewed the Design Considerations for Lionshead and noted that the staff recommended approval, as any impacts were negligible. J.J. Collins moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated June 22, 1987. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of the request. 6. A request to amend Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations related to owner restrictions for the conversion of lodges to condominiums. Applicants: Dave and Tim Garton Peter Patten explained the request. He stated that the applicants had been meeting with the staff and the Town Council for several weeks and this was a compromise that had been reached. Although the staff still had concerns about the ordinance change, they felt the compromise still met the purpose of this section of the Subdivision Regulations. Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that he felt the amendment was a good one. J.J. Collins asked about useage of unsold condominiums and was told unsold condominiums would have to be furnished and placed on the rental market. Peter suggested that there be definition of how long "unsold" was. other compromises were discussed. Dave suggested that this be a "sunset" amendment, that is, that it be reviewed periodically to see how it was working. Peter recommended a two year review. Discussion followed concerning when to assume the units were unsold. Jim Viele felt the amendment was a step in the right direction. Peggy Osterfoss and Diana Donovan agreed. Pam stated that she felt it was long overdue, but that she had concerns about unsold condominiums having to be furnished. Peter pointed out that the "flip side" was that lodge rooms could be converted to condominiums and not be sold. J.J. moved to recommend approval to the Town Council of the proposal to amend the condominium conversion section per the staff memo dated 6/22/87 with the following additions: 1. 17.26.075 A.4 Add "or more" to the second sentence. 2. 17.26.075 C. Change "unsold" to "if unsold 30 days after the date of the recording of the condominium map." Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor. 7. A request to amend Section 18.54.050 C 13 concerning the physical connection in the design of primaryLsecondary and duplex residential units. Applicant: Town of Vail Rick Pylman explained that this amendment has been discussed a lot between the Design Review Board and the Town Council. Peter suggested that the language be tried for a year and then reviewed to see if changes should be made. J.J. was concerned that all lots would become two dwelling lots. Pam spoke in favor of the amendment, suggesting it be a sunset amendment. Diana felt the wording should be more restrictive, perhaps something that would address visual impact. Peter suggested, "Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to be designed in such a manner that units are strongly connected. However, in the event of separate structures,....." Rick agreed with J.J. that the first sentence should perhaps be strongly in favor of one structure. J.J. felt that the Town Council had perpetuated the change by allowing the Design Review Board to approve two structures. In the audience, Mike Sanner stated that the important thing to be concerned about was the relationship of mass to the site. Diana felt that there needed to be some phrase concerning size and bulk to give the DRB an out. Peter suggested "However, if the relationship of mass of the building to the size of site is within an appropriate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of structures..." J.J. moved to recommend approval to the Council to amend the code to incorporate the revised wording as proposed by Peter. Diana seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor. u I LJ • 40 tows 75 south frontage road vail, coiorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 office of community development TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE June 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Primary /Secondary Connection The following paragraph is a transcript of the final legisla- tive wording as devised during our 6/22 meeting. This wording will replace the existing Section 18.54.050.0.13 of the Municipal Code. Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass of the building to the size of the site is within appro- priate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary /secondary lot. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common elements of linkage such as courtyards, common entries and walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The design of units as a single structure and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged. If there are concerns regarding this language, please contact Rick Pylman at your earliest convenience. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 18.54.050 C.13, Section 18.12.090 and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code (Primary /Secondary Connection) Earlier this year, the Town Council, the Design Review Board and the Town staff met in a work session to discuss the existing wording of Section 18.54.050 C. 13 of the Vail Municipal Code, which concerns the requirement for physical connection in the design of primary /secondary and duplex units. That existing wording concerning the primary /secondary and duplex connection in the Design Review Guidelines currently reads as follows: Section 18.54.050 C. 13. Duplex and Primary /Secondary Residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics necessitate a site . design which includes a physical separation of the two dwelling units and /or garages into separate structures, the DRB may approve the design. Such a design may be approved only when the separate structures are visually attached by means of the use of similar and compatible architectural design, colors, and materials and /or physically connected with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural features. At the first work session in December, the staff presented several possible options for rewriting and amending this section of the Design Review Guidelines. After much discussion of the pros and cons of both options and discussion relating to what specifically the guidelines were trying to accomplish, the Council gave direction to the staff to refine and re- present the basic concept that was presented under the Option A. That Option A as presented at the work session read as follows: Option A. Rewrite Section 18.54.050 C.1 to eliminate the requirement for a physical connection of the units, and at the same time strengthen and clarify the design criteria which would be required in order to create a visual connection. This criteria could include a unified landscape plan for the entire lot, utilization of one road cut, compatible STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The intent of the Council, Design Review Board and the staff is to create this guideline in such a manner that it will enable more freedom of design and siting of structures in development of primary /secondary and duplex residences. The concern of the parties involved is to maintain the ability to ensure that development is occuring in the spirit of the primary /secondary and duplex nature and is not an abuse of the zoning and subdivision regulations by creating separate and unrelated single family structures on duplex lots. The staff feels that this proposed amendment satisfies our intent while recognizing the concerns. We recommend approval of this request as written. The Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed wording and is in substantial agreement. They did request the staff to investigate the possibility of addressing the issue of adding a unit to existing development. Our attempts at addressing this issue have created awkward wording. The staff feels this issue is best addressed by applying the design criteria proposed in the amendment. i i �1 �J • 10WH of MO/ 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 office of community development TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE June 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Primary /Secondary Connection The following paragraph is a transcript of the final legisla- tive wording as devised during our 6/22 meeting. This wording will replace the existing Section 18.54.050.0.13 of the Municipal Code. Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass of the building to the size of the site is within appro- priate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary /secondary lot. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common elements of linkage such as courtyards, common entries and walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The design of units as a single structure and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged. If there are concerns regarding this language, please contact Rick Pylman at your earliest convenience. . TO: Planning and Environmental commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for front and side setback variances in order to relocate an existing swimming pool equipment room at the Ramshorn Condominiums. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests to amend the variance granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 14, 1985. This approval allowed for a setback variance of 13 feet for a sun room on Unit 3 and to relocate an existing pool equipment room. The previous variance placed the new pool equipment room under an existing deck adjacent to the pool. The present request would move the existing pool equipment room to the south side of the pool. The new pool equipment building would be built into the hillside below Vail Valley Drive. The existing pool fence would also remain to screen views of the pool equipment room from the road. The sunroom is no longer a part of the proposal. The Ramshorn is located in the Public Accommodation zone district which requires 20 foot setbacks around the entire perimeter of the property. The existing pool room encroaches into the setback up to the property line. The new location decreases the encroachment by 3 feet. A side (east) setback encroachment of 14 feet is also created by the proposed location of the pool equipment room. 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 setback variances 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 staff agrees with the applicant that the proposal replaces an "aging, utilitarian structure with a new, less • visible structure." The applicant has chosen to relocate the . pool room on the southeast corner of the property instead of under the deck, as the equipment room had negative impacts on the units adjacent to the deck. The new location on the southeast corner of the property has minimal impacts on the Ramshorn project, general public, and All Seasons lodge to the east. The structure will be built into the hillside which will minimize the visibility of the building. Directly to the east of the Ramshorn property is a parking lot that is also owned by the Ramshorn. The All Seasons manager has also reviewed the request and had no problems with the new location. • • Public Works has reviewed the request and has no concerns. The Ramshorn property line varies from 12 feet to 11 feet from the edge of pavement in the area of the new pool equipment room. Public Works did not feel that this would create any problems for the new sidewalk. More importantly, the encroachment is decreased by 3 feet which adds space for the walkway. In addition, the existing pool utility room encroaches onto a utility easement. The new location will move the equipment room off of this easement. Staff considers the new location to be a positive improvement in respect to adjacent uses, as the visibility of the pool equipment room is decreased and the appearance of the equipment room is improved. The dearee to which relief from the strict and 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 existing Ramshorn building already encroaches 10 feet to 13 feet into the 20 foot setback in certain areas. The relocated pool room actually decreases the front setback encroachment and does not increase the side setback encroachment to a degree that negative impacts result. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of o ulation transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, - Staff finds that there are no impacts on these factors. r� U • Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in The staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the new pool equipment room. The granting of the variances is not a special privilege, as other encroachments already exist on the property. The front setback encroachment is decreased which is an improvement over the existing situation. The east (side) setback encroaches 14 feet, but will have no impact on the Ramshorn's adjacent parking lot to the east. The variances also do not have any negative impacts on safety and welfare. In general, the staff feels that the new design of the pool room and location is an improvement over what presently exists on the property. May 26, 1987 Application For A Variance Rams -Horn Lodge 416 Vaal Valley Drive Precise Nature Of The Variance Requested The applicant requests to amend a variance granted October 14, 1985 (see accompanying drawings in regards to the vari- ance granted). The granted variance places the new pool equipment room under an existing deck (see drawings). The applicant re- quests that the new pool equipment room be relocated to the southeast end of the existing pool. As shown on the draw- ings, the new pool equipment building would be approximate- ly 30% smaller than the existing pool equipment building and would be well below street level and screened by the existing pool fence. The regulations involved are Section 18.22.060, Public Ac- commodations District - Setbacks, and Section 18.58.02.0, paragraph A, Supplemental Regulations - Recreational Ameni- ties, of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinances. Relationship To Other Uses & Structures In The Vicinity This proposal could only be welcomed by the users of this area. The changes will: 1. Replace an aging, utilitarian structure with a new, less visible structure. 2. In general, greatly improve the appearance and function of this area. This area deserves the best design ef- forts, as literally every user of Gold Peak travels by here, either on foot, by bus, or car. Degree To Which Relief From The Strict Or Literal Interpre- tation & Enforcement Of A Specified Regulation Is Necessary SotAchieVe- CompatibilityOrndoUniformity Of Treatment AmoR2 • - -- The _ _ _- - - .... Attain The Objectives Of This Title Without Grant Of Special Privileae MORTER ARCH May 26, 1987 Application For A Variance Rams -Horn Lodge Page -2- No special privilege would be granted by the requested amendment to the granted variance of October 14, 1985. As stated in Section 18.58.020, paragraph A, Supplemental Re- gulations - "Recreational amenities may be exempted from setback requirements based on the review by the Design Re- view Board." The accompanying drawings show the degree of impact the new pool equipment building will have environmentally and /or aesthetically. Effect Of The Variance On Light & Air, Distribution of Pop- ulation_,_ Transportation, Traffic Facilities, Utilities, & iPublic Safety - This proposal's effect on light, air, distribution of popu- lation, utilities, transportation, traffic facilities, and public safety is nil. Summary To quote portions of Chapter 8.02, General Provisions, of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance: 18.02.020 Purpose A. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promo- ting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 5. To conserve and maintain established community qua - lities and economic values; � 0 n MORTER ' May 26, 1987 Application For A Variance Rams -Horn Lodge Page -3- 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses, consistent with muni- cipal development objectives; 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town; 10. To assure amenities adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters; 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The applicant requests to amend a previously granted vari- ance without effecting the quality of the environment of this very prominent location in our village. The result of his efforts will be the successful realization of the pur- poses of the Town of Vail's very Zoning Ordinance. Cyyyy_1:1g POOL:, .. r�'x -� "i' ��t Y .t 1 � �. i .'� •4. ..'1 52+1��u;,4 fT ��:� G dt � 3 J 1�5 A°� �' J � �P k � G i. r� u -F oe vp Ll ct a�yxaa�iaR . fifilzi lk a -41 tk IZ, tn LL Lq rx L 4 nn y0 No ct a�yxaa�iaR . fifilzi lk a -41 jill 1 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 22, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II in order to expand an existing office lobby area at the Antlers located on West Lionshead Place in Lionshead. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The existing Antlers reception and front desk area is located on the north side of the building on the top level of the existing parking deck. The Antlers is requesting a 14' x 21' extension of this front desk area to create additional office space for the administration of the Antlers Condominium building. The existing reception front desk area is located within part of the precast concrete structure which makes up the Antlers building. The 14'x 21' addition will be constructed of wood and will be finished with horizontal siding to match the siding areas of the existing Antlers Condominium building. • II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS. Applications for additions or new construction in Commercial Cores I and II involve review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plans. These consist of the Sub- area Concepts as delineated in the Guide Plans and maps, as well as the Design Considerations outlined for both the Village and Lionshead. In addition to this are standard zoning considerations. This memo will address each of the three areas proposed for expansion with respect to these three review criteria. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD The Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead identifies a number of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed when applicable in any redevelopment proposal. The area covered by the Urban Design Guide Plan is mainly the Lionshead Mall. The Antlers is not addressed in the Guide Plan and there are no applicable sub -area concepts with respect to this proposal. • 0 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD There are seven Design Considerations to be reviewed when considering development in Lionshead. Because of the location and nature of this proposal, these considerations are generally not applicable. The following outlines each of these considerations: A. Height and Massing The 21' x 14' addition, 8 feet in height, on the second floor of the Antlers Condominium building does not affect the height and massing criteria. B. Urban Design Considerations These architectural con- siderations deal primarily with development in the mall area. They are not applicable to this proposal. C. Roofs The roof pitch is one -half inch slope in one foot. This criteria is really not applicable to this minor addition. D. Facades, Walls, Structures Identical materials to that which exists on the rest of the Antlers Condo- minium Building will be used on this addition. This is generally compatible with design guidelines for Lionshead. E. Facades, Transparency This criteria is not applicable to this office expansion. F. Decks and Patios Not applicable to the proposal. G. Accent Elements Not applicable to the proposal. H. Landscape Elements This element is not directly applicable to this proposal. The addition is infill of a concrete parking deck. There is no landscaping being removed or being added through this proposal. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The expansion of this office does affect one parking space. This parking space can be relocated in front of the office area without loss of any maneuvering ability within the isle way. Therefore there is no overall impact to parking through the proposal. • 0 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. While the property does lie in Commercial. Core II and therefore requires exterior alteration review for any addition over 100 square feet, the impacts of this proposal upon these guidelines are negligible. There are no negative zoning considerations or impacts. Town staff sees absolutely no negative impacts to this proposal and recommends approval. C • • Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass of the building to the size of the site is within appropriate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary /secondary lot. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common elements of linkage such as courtyards, common entries and walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The design of units as a single structure, and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged. • • - i v TO: FROM: DATE: • Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department June.,8f, 1.987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to enclose an existing dining deck at Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The two elements involved in this proposal are the enclosure of a portion of the existing dining patio adjacent to Blu's and the expansion of the existing outdoor dining area. The design of the patio enclosure incorporates a glassed roof with totally operable walls on the south elevation of the restaurant. Another aspect of the enclosure includes an airlock entry vestibule in the location of the existing restaurant. The dining patio expansion is located predominantly on Town property. Earlier this year, the Town Council granted Blu's the opportunity to proceed through the review process with this basic design. The potential expansion of this dining patio was planned for and incorporated into the overall design of the Gore Creek Promenade. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria for requests of this nature are established by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this review is on the project's compatibility with both the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations. Detailed architectural and landscape considerations become the purview of the Design Review Board if this project is approved. The Planning Commission is also charged with addressing standard zoning issues not covered in the Urban Design Guide Plan. III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Expressed as Sub -Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide Plan identify physical improvements to improve the overall fabric of the Village. There are no specific proposals identified in this element of the plan relative to this project. r, Streetscape Framework: While there may be slight modifications to the landscaping of this deck, 4 street trees have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the existing wooden planter. Coupled . with a new planter immediately west of the patio and dining enclosure, this treatment will provide a colorful framework along this portion of the promenade. The high degree of transparency inherent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible activity for the pedestrian on the promenade. In addition, the operable front walls and dining deck will provide outdoor activity when feasible. Overall, the proposal will improve the street - scape framework for this area of the promenade. Street Enclosure: Because of the open space directly adjacent to this property, the street enclosure considerations are not directly applicable. However, there is a nice stepping effect created by this expansion in conjunction with the Sweet Basil proposal. Street Edge: While the overall appearance of the walkway is linear, there is a fair amount of variety found in the buildings along the promenade. To a slight degree, the 41 patio enclosure eliminates a slight "jog" in the building forms along the walkway. Nonetheless, the irregular IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These Urban Design Considerations address large scale land planning issues, as well as form giving considerations that go beyond the property lines of the project proposal. These considerations contain the following: Pedestrianization: This consideration is intended to reinforce and expand the quality of the pedestrian's walking experience throughout the Village. The proposed patio expansion encroaches into the existing walkway, now referred to as the Gore Creek Promenade. This linkage is a key element to the success of the pedestrian system in t the Village. If approved in conjunction with improvements �. to the promenade, a 10 foot width will remain during those times when the patio is in place. This 10 foot width is over a span of 32 feet. Remaining portions of the promenade are generally 15 feet in width. It is felt that over such a short distance that this reduction in width is not a detriment to the walkway. To the contrary, staff feels that the activity provided by the dining deck works well with the narrowing of the sidewalk's width. It shoul o It the r & ling enclosure of the patio is `'-removable and during winter months walkway w3 maintain its 15T�oot width. Vehicular Penetration: There are no impacts related .elated to vehicular penetration from this proposal. Streetscape Framework: While there may be slight modifications to the landscaping of this deck, 4 street trees have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the existing wooden planter. Coupled . with a new planter immediately west of the patio and dining enclosure, this treatment will provide a colorful framework along this portion of the promenade. The high degree of transparency inherent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible activity for the pedestrian on the promenade. In addition, the operable front walls and dining deck will provide outdoor activity when feasible. Overall, the proposal will improve the street - scape framework for this area of the promenade. Street Enclosure: Because of the open space directly adjacent to this property, the street enclosure considerations are not directly applicable. However, there is a nice stepping effect created by this expansion in conjunction with the Sweet Basil proposal. Street Edge: While the overall appearance of the walkway is linear, there is a fair amount of variety found in the buildings along the promenade. To a slight degree, the 41 patio enclosure eliminates a slight "jog" in the building forms along the walkway. Nonetheless, the irregular r facade lines of this streetscape are maintained and reinforced by this patio expansion as well as the Lancelot patio. Building Height: There are no considerations applicable to building height as a result of this proposal. Views: Views are not impacted by this proposal. Service and Delive While the seating capacity for the restaurant will be increased, it is not anticipated that n increased number of delivery trucks will be needed to service this expansion. Sun /Shade: As was the case with Sweet Basil, this enclosure is designed in complete compliance with recommendations made in the Guide Plan. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Additional parking demands created by the enclosed space will be met by payment into the Town's parking fund. The exact amount will be calculated at the time of building permit. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. While this recommendation, along with the Sweet Basil recommendation, are contrary to other actions by the Town concerning deck enclosures, staff feels this proposal is warranted. Our position is based primarily on the northern exposure of the deck. In addition, the walls on the north elevation are totally operable. Blu's has demonstrated their desire to open their existing operable walls when weather permits. This creates a very pleasing experience and, in fact, allows for more people to enjoy the feel of outdoor dining. This increases the sense of activity along the street on a year around basis. Another consideration relative to our support of this enclosure is the patio expansion. While located predominantly on Town land, the outdoor dining area is being maintained. However, there is a direct impact on the patio expansion with respect to the existing walkway. Without improvements to the walkway, the width of the sidewalk would be reduced at its narrowest point to 5 feet. This is unacceptable, and improvements to the walkway are required to facilitate this project proposal. Given the level of improvements on both sides of this property, it is reasonable to expect a similar treatment along this frontage. r Another consideration not directly applicable to the Planning Commission's review is the railing treatment proposed to define the deck. The staff has a significant concern over the wooden railing treatment and question its appropriateness. With a few exceptions, wrought iron has been used to define many of the recent dining deck expansions in the Village. Another design consideration for the applicant is that the railing defining the deck must be removable. While supporting the enclosure and the basic footprint of the expansion, staff cannot support the design of the railing as proposed. The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to adopt the following conditions of approval: 1. The walls on the north elevation be totally operable. 2. The applicant consider design alternatives for the railing treatment to be submitted at DRB review.. 3. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek Promenade design be made in conjunction with this proposal. Consistent improvements shall mean identical materials and design. The upgrading of the walkway shall be made over the entire length of the Gore Creek Plaza building frontage and shall be done . in conjunction with construction and expansion of the existing patio. c � TO: Planning and Environmental commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant 1. CRITERIA TO BE ADDRESSED While all significant issues relative to this project have been addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the zoning code requires a separate conditional use approval for the expansion of the dining patio. The following criteria are to be used in this review. A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District: There are no effects upon vehicular traffic relative to this proposal. T B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on commercial Core I District: This proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicular traffic into the core. C. Reduction of nonessential off- street parking. There is no effect on this consideration. D. Control of deliver pickup and service vehicles. There is no anticipated increase in the frequency of deliveries to this establishment. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. As indicated in the exterior alteration memorandum, a significant improvement to the existing walkway will be done in conjunction with this proposal. If approved and constructed, the applicant is to be commended for his participation in this public improvement. While necessary to facilitate the patio expansion, the level of improvement is of high quality and consistent with the improvements on adjacent properties. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and . public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. As expressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the staff feels strongly that this proposal will increase the level of activity along the promenade. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the exist_ ing character of the area. ^� The sidewalk improvements are of the highest quality found in the Village, the landscape improvements maintain or improve the existing Landscaping of the patio, and the design of the enclosure is an improvement over existing conditions of this property, II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval as per the conditions outlined the exterior alteration memorandum. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 22, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a density control variance and a side setback variance in order to enclose existing decks on Lot 27, Vail Village West Filing 2. Applicant: Albert D. Weiss I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The proposed deck enclosures entail two variance requests, one for encroachment into the required 15 foot side setback, and the other for GRFA over what is allowed under existing zoning. The enclosures proposed affect two existing decks on the north side of the property located on the first and second levels. While the existing structure is located within the side setback, a variance to the proposed enclosure is required because the degree of this encroachment is being increased by the deck enclosure. The extent of this encroachment is 4 feet, leaving 11 feet between the structure and the property's easterly boundary line. Allowable GRFA for this property is 2,616 square feet (not including allowable credits). Existing GRFA within both units is 3,476 square feet. The applicant has requested 250 . square feet under Ordinance 4, and an additional 58 square feet under the variance process. The total additional GRFA amounts to 308 square 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. Because many of the structures in this area were constructed prior to incorporation into the Town of Vail, the neighborhood abounds with nonconforming situations. These would include setback as well as density considerations. As proposed, the setback requested is consistent with the previous requirement under Eagle County (10 foot side setbacks). The degree of encroachment proposed does not adversely affect existing or proposed uses in the area. • Existing GRFA is presently ; situation may inappropriate allowed under on the property is nearly 50% greater than what allowed under Vail's zoning. While this continue due to its nonconforming status, it is to consider additional development beyond that Ordinance 4. The dearee to which relief from the strict and 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 stated, there are numerous nonconforming situations in this neighborhood. Because of the existing location of the structure and lack of physical impacts on adjacent properties, it is felt that there is legimate cause to grant a setback variance. However, the applicant has requested GRFA beyond that allowed under the provisions of Ordinance 4 and the staff feels strongly that to approve this request would be a grant of special privilege. The ultimate goal of any development controls are to limit the amount of development in a community. Ordinance 4 has gone beyond this to allow for small additions under special circumstances. To consider GRFA beyond the 250 square feet that may be permitted, particularly on a property that is dramatically • over its current allowable square footage, is unacceptable to the staff. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. �4 There are no direct impacts on any of the above considerations. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is unable to support the request as presented. While we see legitimate hardship for the requested side setback variance, we are strongly opposed to the additional GRFA requested (beyond the 250 square feet allowed under • Ordinance 4). If the proposal were within the 250 square foot allowance, the staff would feel comfortable supporting the setback variance. However, as proposed, the staff would recommend denial of this application. We recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to consider scaling back the addition to be within the provisions permitted under Ordinance 4. r� U � 0 John M. Perkins / Architect, AlA / Post Office Box 266 / Vail, Colorado 81658 / 303 - 949 -4637 18 Tune 1987 Mr. Tom Braun, Planner Town of Vail North Frontage Road West Vaal, Colorado. 81657 Re: Snow Slide Damages to the Weiss Residence Consideration of Hardship • Dear Tom; I have made a visual inspection of.Mr. Weiss' residence on Gore Creek Drive in West Vail. I have verified the following damages, potentially dangerous conditions and general concerns: Snow falling from the roof has annually seriously dam- aged the deck and stair railings. Currently, a make- shift railing is in place, providing a bare minimum of protection. Moisture is currently causing discoloration, cracking, peeling and spalling of the stucco - covered north wall.. Potential structural damage to the concrete masonry units at the sill of a sliding glass door on the grade level is evident. There is a generally dangerous condition of snow and ice build -up on both of the decks. It is my opinion that the above mentioned concerns constitute a serious hardship to Mr. Weiss' maintaining his residence in a safe • • and attractive condition. f urge you to recommend approval of Mr. Weiss' applications for variance to the density and side setback regulations on the basis of these obvious hardships. If you have any further questions regarding Mr. Weiss' applications, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you, ) A ► A 1 ! Yin M. Perkins c: Mr. Al Weiss r E r• DENSITY CONTROL DISCUSSION PEC AND TOWN COUNCIL 6/30/87 A. EXISTING APPROVED POLICIES 1. LAND USE PLAN 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (inf'ili areas) . 3.2 The core areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. * 4.2 Increased desirable each area the Urban Question: Does Poli, density in the core areas is so long as the existing character of is preserved through implementation of Design Guide Plan. this include CCI? Answer relates to -y 4.3. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved whenever possible (i.e. scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 2. PROPOSED VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN * 1.2.1 Allow increased levels of development as identified by the Action Plan or consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan. Note: No residential increases are found on the Action Plan for CCI. 2.2.1 Preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. r * 2.3 Increase the number of residential units • throughout the Village area available for short term overnight accommodations. * 2.3.1 The development of accommodation units are strongly encouraged. Any residential units that are developed above existing density levels shall be restricted per Section 17.26.075 (owner can only use unit 4 weeks in high ski season). * 3.3.2 To maintain existing outdoor dining decks and encourage the development of new outdoor dining areas through infill or redevelopment projects. B. OTHER APPROVED POLICIES 1. Ordinance 4, 1985 Allows a maximum of 250 additional square feet to single family and duplex structures if they are over five years old with an agreement to upgrade the site as necessary. Does not allow for the addition of any exterior additional square feet for multi - family structures (e.g. interior space can be utilized but . no mass or bulk additions for balcony enclosure or additional living area). 2. Approvals (or denials) over the last 10 years indicate the PEC's and Council's policy is to not allow multi - family balcony enclosures because they cannot prove physical hardship, there is no special privilege and that the request is generally . "for the convenience of the applicant." C. PROBLEM Density variance applications (or SDD's for the same purpose) are on the increase. Some recent approvals (Sitzmark, Christiania) appear consistent with adopted and proposed policy toward encouraging accommodation units if other criteria are met. However, this month the PEC has approved two multi - family deck enclosures (one has been affirmed by Council, one is pending Council action). Both of these decisions appear to set new direction toward these types of density variances. . Question: Is new policy warranted (i.e. changes to Ord.4 of 1985? If so, what are the new criteria multi- family deck enclosures must meet? . Density variance requests for dwelling units are now in various stages of the approval process for three CCI properties and one immediately outside the core. At least two of these will also require height variances (and possibly others). Only one of these requests has agreed to owner's use restrictions, and in that case, only a portion of the additional density would be restricted. Without discussing individual projects, we must determine a policy direction to fairly and intelligently deal with these and other similar proposals. • Finally, we must understand that at least one existing but unfinished townhouse project will be applying shortly for additional density. This appears to be consistent with Land Use Policy 5.1 as far as accommodating the long term growth needs of the community. However, an appropriate question concerns the timing of implementing this portion of the Plan. Due to the continued presence of available unsold, constructed and approved but unbuilt units, is it prudent to allow additional density at this time? A policy direction is necessary. STAFF POSITIONS While we haven't had ample opportunity to thoroughly discuss all of these issues and develop firm staff positions on each, we would offer the following: 1. Multi-Family Balcony Enclosures Do not approve any more until revisions to Ordinance 4 of 1985 can be made. This will allow ample time to complete any necessary revisions and to analyze their short and long term implications. 2. Density Control Variances Outside CCI Should be approached only if lodge rooms or restricted dwelling units are proposed- -bath now and after adoption of the Village Master Plan. The planning approvals should include substantial public improvements adjacent to the project (Gore Creek Promenade with the Sitzmark as an example) in return for the density. Density allowances should be made only in instances where it is clearly in keeping with the mass, bulk and general scale of the immediate area. 3. Density Control Variances in CCI We have major concerns that the design guidelines are firm and clear enough to control this most sensitive of areas. Absolute strict adherence to the guidelines and the elements of the Vail Village Master Plan may provide enough control, but we question whether this will occur or whether it is desirable. The public input in developing the Plan was very strong in the direction of not allowing much additional mass and /or bulk in this area. However, certain small additions, if lodge rooms or restricted dwelling units, could still be desirable in certain areas of the core. This will take more discussion. • • n C1 J DENSITY CONTROL DISCUSSION PEC AND TOWN COUNCIL 6/30/87 A. EXISTING APPROVED POLICIES 1. LAND USE PLAN 1.12 Vail, should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas) . 3.2 The core areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. * 4.2 Increased desirable each area the Urban Question: Does Poli, density in the core areas is so long as the existing character of is preserved through implementation of Design Guide Plan. this include CCI? Answer relates to Dy 4.3. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is identity of Vail and should be whenever possible (i.e. scale, small town feeling, mountains, intimate size, cosmopolitan fe, environmental quality). important to the preserved alpine character, natural setting, cling, 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. �2. PROPOSED VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN * 1.2.1 Allow increased levels of development as identified by the Action Plan or consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan. Note: No residential increases are found on the Action Plan for CCI. 2.2.1 Preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the cone area of Vail Village. • * 2.3 Increase the number of residential units throughout the Village area available for short term overnight accommodations. * 2.3.1 The development of accommodation units are strongly encouraged. Any residential units that are developed above existing density levels shall be restricted per Section 17.26.075 (owner can only use unit 4 weeks in high ski season). * 3.3.2 '"aintain existing outdoor dining decks and encourage the development of new outdoor dining areas through infill or redevelopment projects. B. OTHER APPROVED POLICIES 1. Ordinance 4, 1985 Allows a maximum of 250 additional square feet to single family and duplex structures if they are over five years old with an agreement to upgrade the site as necessary. Does not allow for the addition of any exterior additional square feet for multi - family structures (e.g. interior space can be utilized but no mass or bulk additions for balcony enclosure or additional living area). 2. Approvals (or denials) over the last 10 years indicate the PEC's and Council's policy is to not allow multi - family balcony enclosures because they cannot prove physical hardship, there is no special privilege and that the request is generally "for the convenience of the applicant." C. PROBLEM Density variance applications (or SDD's for the same purpose) are on the increase. some recent approvals (sitzmark, Christiania) appear consistent with adopted and proposed policy toward encouraging accommodation units if other criteria are met. However, this month the PEC has approved two multi- family deck enclosures (one has been affirmed by Council, one is pending Council action). Both of these decisions appear to set new direction toward these types of density variances. Question: Is new policy warranted (i.e. changes to Ord.4 of 1985? If so, what are the new criteria multi- family deck enclosures must meet ?) 0 Density variance requests for dwelling units are now in various stages of the approval process for three CCI properties and one immediately outside the core. At least two of these will also require height variances (and possibly others). Only one of these requests has agreed to owner's use restrictions, and in that case, only a portion of the additional density would be restricted. Without discussing individual projects, we must determine a policy direction to fairly and intelligently deal with these and other similar proposals. Finally, we must understand that at least one existing but unfinished townhouse project will be applying shortly for additional density. This appears to be consistent with Land Use Policy 5.1 as far as accommodating the long term growth needs of the community. However, an appropriate question concerns the timing of implementing this portion of the Plan. Due to the continued presence of available unsold, constructed and approved but unbuilt units, is it prudent to allow additional density at this time? A policy direction is necessary. STAFF POSITIONS While we haven't had ample opportunity to thoroughly discuss all of these issues and develop firm staff positions on each, we would offer the following: 1. Multi - Familv Balconv Enclosures Do not approve any more until revisions to Ordinance 4 of 1985 can be made. This will allow ample time to complete any necessary revisions and to analyze their short and long term implications. 2. Densitv Control Variances Outside CCI Should be approached only if lodge rooms or restricted dwelling units are proposed - -both now and after adoption of the Village Master Plan. The planning approvals should include substantial public improvements adjacent to the project (Gore Creek Promenade with the Sitzmark as an example) in return for the density. Density allowances should be made only in instances where it is clearly in keeping with the mass, bulk and general scale of the immediate area. 3. Density Control Variances in CCI We have major concerns that the design guidelines are firm and clear enough to control this most sensitive of areas. Absolute strict adherence to the guidelines and the elements of the Vail Village Master Plan may provide to enough control, but we question whether this will occur or whether it is desirable. The public input in developing the Plan was very strong in the direction of not allowing much additional mass and /or bulk in this area. However, certain small additions, if lodge rooms or restricted dwelling units, could still be desirable in certain areas of the core. This will take more discussion. to 0