Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes July - DecemberPlanning and Environmental Commission July 13, 1987 2:15 F.M. Site Inspections 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. A request for a setback variance in order to add an enclosure for a hot tub area on Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicants: John and Mary Hobart Tabled by 2. A request for an exterior alteration and Applicant a density variance of the Gastof Gramshammer at 231 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer 3. A request for a density control variance, a Tabled by height variance, a conditional use permit to Applicant remove accommodation units from the second floor, and an exterior alteration in order to add a fourth floor, additional decks and architectural projections to the Plaza Lodge. Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Tang • 4. A request for a special development district in order to add a third floor to the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership Tabled 5. A request for an amendment to housing restrict - by ions for the Cornice Building located at 362 applicant Vail Valley Drive Applicant: Walter A. Huttner 6. A request to reapply zoning on recently annexed portions of Vail commonly known as Lions Ridge Filing 42 and Filing #4, Ridge at Vail and Cliffside. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. A request to reapply zoning on recently annexed portions of Vail commonly known as Vail Intermountain Subdivision, Blocks 1 through 6, and 8 through 9, and Stephens Subdivision as well as uplatted portions. Applicant: Town of Vail go I Planning and Environmental Commission July 13, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by the chairman, Jim Viele. (The applicants for the first scheduled item had not yet arrived. Item 2, exterior alteration and a density variance for Gasthof Grammshammer and item 3, exterior alteration and variances for the Plaza Lodge were tabled by the applicants.) 4. A request for a special development district in order to add a third floor to the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership Peter Patten explained the request, indicating zoning statistics, site plans and floor plans. He then evaluated the proposal using Special Development District criteria. In discussing the possible impact of the views of surrounding properties, Peter stated that the Tivoli was the most impacted and this had been discussed with Bob Lazier, owner of the Tivoli and that he had no objections. Peter then discussed the project with respect to zoning considerations with respect to mix of uses, density, setbacks, etc. In discussion of the parking aspect, Peter pointed out that although in the total picture the project would be two parking spaces short, the staff did feel comfortable with the proposal. Staff recommendation was for approval with three conditions. Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, pointed out that many nearby complexes were higher than the proposed height (42 feet) of the Ramshorn. Jim Morter, architect, discussed the views. Barbara Fey, representing Vail Trails, stated that some owners in Vail Trails felt their views were impacted, especially from the 2nd level. Tim Garton, one of the applicants, felt that the three story Ramshorn building already blocked the view from the Vail Trails East and felt that there would only be a very minimal impact upon views from Vail Trails West. Ray Cote, manager of All Seasons, protested the addition with the concern that more cars could not be placed on the Ramshorn property. Peter demonstrated the parking plan. Cote then • mentioned the impact of views to the west for the All Seasons, particularly for unit B -6. He felt that there would be a ,y "transfer of values, with the Ramshorn units becoming more valuable and the All Seasons becoming less valuable." Dave Garton, one of the applicants, responded that the windows on the side of B -6 which faced the Ramshorn were very small bedroom windows and that usually the blinds were pulled in these windows. Barbara Fey then mentioned that she felt a concrete sidewalk as proposed would not be attractive. Jim Viele responded that in previous negotiations with the neighborhood on the Golden Peak Ski Base complex, the neighborhood had expressed the desire for a sidewalk, Pam Hopkins felt that if the staff was comfortable with the number of units,-the restrictions placed upon them, the inclusion of Lot F -1, and the parking solution, she could not find anything of substance to object to (except the appearance of the trash dumpster). Sid agreed with Pam. He added that there was no doubt that some views would be impacted, but the project was well within its height limitations. Diana would have preferred to not see the addition, but felt it was a better solution than would could have been proposed by rezoning Tract F -1 to P.A. She was strongly against any overflow parking going into the parking structure and felt all parking problems must be solved on the site. Peter explained the parking requirements for accommoda -tion units. He added that • the applicants had agreed that the meeting room would be only for in -house use, and thus would not generate additional parking. He admitted that if every key were utilized, there could be a parking problem if no parking was added. Diana suggested a restriction for valet parking rather than using the parking structure. Jay agreed that this could be another condition of approval. Dave Garton mentioned that they had done a parking study and found they had an "enormous amount of unused parking space." He agreed to the condition of valet parking rather than the use of the parking structure, however. Diana felt the proposed sidewalk could use some creative solutions. She was not certain that pedestrians would go around the corner and suggested instead that the sidewalk be linked to one across the street between the Tivoli and Hanson Ranch Road, that it might be safer. Peter replied that the Town had envisioned colored concrete for the sidewalk. He did not agree with Diana about having the walk connect to one across the street behind the Tivoli. He stated that it was difficult to get people to look across the street, and since people now walked next to the Ramshorn, the staff wanted to place the sidewalk where the pedestrians were already walking. He added that perhaps the Town could look at the additional walk through the Master Plan. 40 Jim Viele asked Jay if the conditions were agreed with, and Jay replied that they did. Viele felt sympathetic to the neighbors i but stated that on balance, he agreed with the staff about the project. Peggy Osterfoss felt the project was a positive one in terms of going along with the Master Plan. She felt landscaping was needed between parcel F -1 and the All seasons building and berming and landscaping was needed between F -1 and the roadway. J.J. Collins concurred with the other board members, adding that the photos seemed to indicate that views were not impacted greatly. He mentioned that the greenhouse added on a west ground level unit looked like an "add -on" and landscaping was badly needed on the west. Diana Donovan moved and J.J. Collins seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council per the staff memo dated July 13, 1987 with the three stated conditions as well as two others: 4. The applicant shall solve anv future narkina problems on -site by utilizing valet parkin 5. The design of the sidewalk, landscaping, and possible street lighting shall be discussed at Design Review Board level. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of the proposal. 1. A request for a setback variance in order to add an enclosure for a hot tub area on Lot 1, Block 7, Vail village lst Filing. Applicants: John and Mary Hobart Rick Pylman explained the request and showed a site plan. He reviewed criteria for variances and stated that the staff recommended approval with the stipulation that there be no encroachment over the property line. Ray Story, representing the applicant, stated that the location of the addition was dictated by the location of the existing structure. He felt that since the deck would be 20 feet above the right of way, the impact would be minimal. Peggy Osterfoss agreed with the staff recommendation as long as there was no further encroachment. Bryan Hobbs agreed with the staff. Diana did not support the staff's recommendation of approval. She stated that when a structure is nonconforming, the impact should not be increased, especially when there is another place on the lot to place the addition. She felt the criteria for a variance was not met. Sid mentioned that a week ago the Town Attorney had reviewed variance criteria with the board. He agreed with Diana. Pam Hopkins also agreed with Diana. Jim Viele agreed with the staff and felt the hardship was the siting of the existing structure. Bryan Hobbs moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the request with the stipulation that there not be any encroachment into the right -of -way. The vote was 4 -3 in favor of the motion with Pam, Sid and Diana voting against the motion. 5. A request for an amendment to housing restrictions for the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Walter A. Huttner This proposal was tabled by the applicant. 6. A request to reapply zoning on recently annexed of Vail commonly known as Lions Ridge Filing #2 Filing #4, Ridge at Vail and Cliffside 7. A request to reapply zoning on recently annexed portions of Vail commonly known as Vail Intermountain Subdivision Blocks 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 9 and Stephens Subdivision as well as unplatted portions. Rick Pylman explained that the Town was reapplying the same zoning that had been in place before these two areas had been de- annexed. J.J. asked if the board would have an opportunity to change the zoning, and Peter replied they could, but that the staff had not looked at re- examining all of the zoning. Rick added that the Land Use Plan had had a few suggested changes, and the staff decided that changes should be made on a private sector basis. Pam asked how the zoning related to the zoning the County had imposed, and was told the County had matched as closely as possible the Town zoning before the property had been de- annexed. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to approve the application of zoning to LionsRidge Filing #2 and Filing #4, Ridge at Vail and Cliffside. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to approve the application of zoning to Intermountain Subdivision, Blocks 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 9 and Stephens Subdivision as well as certain unplatted portions. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Discussion followed concerning communication with the Highway Department. It was suggested that a PEC member be named to the Parking and Transportation Task Force. Sid Schultz was named to the Task Force. • . t ;T` TO: Planning and Environmental Commission � (D FROM: Community Development Department DATE July 13, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to reapply portions of Vail Applicant: Town of zoning on recently annexed Vail The Town of Vail has recently re- annexed two areas of the Vail Valley that were involved in the de- annexation of certain areas of west Vail. The two areas that have been recently been re- annexed and are proposed to be zoned are the area commonly known as The Valley, and the area commonly known as Intermountain. THE VALLEY This request is to reapply zoning on property known as Lots 20 and 21, Section 1, a part of the north half Section 12 Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, commonly known as Lionsridge Filing 2 and Filing 4, Ridge at Vail, and Cliffside. The.Town of Vail is proposing to reapply the same zoning that was in effect prior to the deannexation with one exception. The area known as Phase III of The Valley has applied and been approved as Special Development District No. 16, entitled Elk Meadows Subdivision. To review the zoning to be applied on specific parcels, please refer to the attached zone district map. INTERMOUNTAIN A request to reapply zoning on recently reannexed portions of Vail known as a portion of the west half of Section 14, and a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, commonly known as Vail Intermountain Subdivision, blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and Stephens Subdivision as well as certain unplatted portions. The Town of Vail is proposing to reapply the zoning that was in effect previous to the West Vail de- annexation. In order to review the zoning proposed for specific parcels, please refer to the attached zoning map. N z N N % % % 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 000 000 0 -, 0 % % % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 O 0 J N O :)Ooo 0 0 0,000 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p ..... ... < 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 00 - N VA 0 0 ....... 0 z 00 00 \\ O 0 a 0 0 ...... ..... CU o 0 Oo 0 0 a 0 0 0 00 0 ID u 0, 0 No 0 0 0 tat N, ' o, 0 " 0. N 0 0 Mo \\\\\\ \ \\\\,\\\. co 0 0 - TI Z M C)m --A >X F— < m X W '01 �, - �} 11- ,L "w 'KIW IPL 0, V K fil� MOM % 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 4 400 - TI Z M C)m --A >X F— < m X W '01 �, - �} 11- ,L "w 'KIW IPL 0, V K fil� MOM MATC LINE__ SEE SHEET 2 rn cu i' �� � 6 G a _ � . "��. C -- �'�•'/ " 1. ' �.� 'JCCi� v ��--��., Ci. Day v F . � 'l :Jv C .. D,.G CJC G ,,� 'Jq+' m• O , '1 .�� -I,'' J JC� 0 aO C�CO"'vG ^ � a�:; . % /,l G"J� -• •-GC �G'�C�'CGGr'C �p - •- :.� � . ;•�.•- - pV„ a GCC,C a.-., ..G O _ C, . .'. \'�"��•�' : - C OflC Qa a •..'� ":,1' O GCO p p�C�Cp OC OCV` D G G v d C p Q 0C 0G0 ��G�OC.. lG ^ � �p O O" G n,O Q � ^ . " " 7 '0OG OQCC Q O a Z� IX k M n, io 1 m n m n O Z Y0 I CDC OO Qty �.cl \♦ fo °�, C, o M i •i U TOWN OF VAIL ZONING LEGEND ® SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ® TWO FAMILY PRIMARY/ SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT ® LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT ® MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT ® PUBLIC ACCOMODATION DISTRICT ® SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ® PUBLIC USE DISTRICT •'r' COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT 0 COMMERCIAL CORE 2 DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CORE 3 DISTRICT EM COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT ' AGRICULTURAL & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT �] GREENBELT a NATURAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT PARKING ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SKI BASE RECREATION TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 13, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract F -1, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation and Parking District respectively to a Special Development District in order to construct a third floor addition consisting of three dwelling units and 5 accommodation units for the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The request is for a Special Development District to construct a third floor addition onto the existing two story building of the Ramshorn Lodge. The applicant of__- additional GRFA divi_ded'nto - three dwelling units and five lock -off bedrooms (accommodation units) breaking down as follows: li Unit A - 940 sf Unit B - 1556 sf Unit C - 1122 sf 5 A.U.'s, 1263 sf total The applicant proposes to restrict all of the units with the exception of Unit B (1556 sf) to the owner's use restrictions as per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Ramshorn property encompasses two different lots which consist of a main parcel where the buildings stand containing 23,216 square feet (.533 ac) zoned Public Accommodation and another lot of 6 square feet adjacent to the east zoned Parking District. The following table shows the zoning analysis as existing and proposed: A.U.'s D.U.'s Total Density Total Keys 17 6,266 sf 7 5,903 sf 15.5 12,169 sf 24 PROPOSED 22 7,529 sf 10 9,521 sf 21 17,050 sf 31 TO: Town Council • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 i SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract F -1, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation and Parking District respectively to a Special Development District in order to construct a third floor addition consisting of three dwelling units and 5 accommodation units for the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership On July 14, 1987, the applicants appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with this request. The PEC voted 7 -0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The SDD shall encompass both Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village - .__5th_Ei.lin.g.._and .Tract,- :F =1.,- ....Vai Vi ,.Ilage.- :.5th:.,F- i- Linger- -- Tract. F -1 shall be restrictdd in -that all density which could be realized from a reoning to Public Accommodation on that parcel is now being utilized with the construction of this project. That is, Tract F -1 shall not be utilized in the . future to increase the density of the site, and the site contains its maximum amount of density utilizing both parcels owned by the Ramshorn partnership. 2. The part of the lot located onn Tract F -1 shall be redesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces. A new mini -car space and 4 overflow parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot north of the buildings to provide a total of 8 new parking spaces for the project. The applicants shall make every effort to provide an additional two parking spaces for overflow guest parking on the site. 3. A concrete sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width, with a concrete curb separating it from the road shoulder shall be constructed from the entrance to the parking lot on Tract F -1 along an agreed upon route along the frontage of the project to the entry on the north end of the project. This sidewalk shall be constructed and paid for by the applicant and shall be agreed upon before a building permit is issued. 4. The applicant shall solve any future parking problems on- site by utilizing valet parking. The staff recommendation is for approval. Common Lobby /Lounge Total Allowable Density Percent of Total in A.U.'s Percent of Total in D.U.'s EXISTING 1,038 sf 13 (2.5 over) 51% 49% Percent of Total GRFA `� Rental Restricted 90% (approx r PROPOSED 1,038 sf 8 over 44% 560 84% (approx) 1. Keys are defined as rentable units,s both D.U.'s and A.U.'s. 2. It was unknown at the time of the memorandum exactly how many square feet are existing that aren't restricted. 68% of the third floor square footage-would be restricted. The applicant proposes a special development district due to the fact that the requested density is over the allowable for the existing portion of the property zoned PA and because the end result will not meet the definition of a lodge which is the principal permitted use in the Public Accommodation zone district. Also, as proposed, the properties would be ten spaces below the required number as per the parking chapter of the zoning code. It is important to note with regard to this application that Tract F -1 on which one of the parking lot for the lodge is located is a separate piece of ground zoned Parking District. This small parking lot would be more suited to Public Accommodation zoning in this particular area and would allow an additional three dwelling units (or 6 A.U.'s) to be constructed on the lodge itself (considering the lot line would be abandoned). Such a proposal will result in one larger site, all of which would be zoned Public Accommodation and would allow an additional third floor. Such a third floor could have up to 49% of the square footage devoted to unrestricted dwelling units while still maintaining the definition of a lodge under the PA zone. The application in front of us proposes essentially the same thing without the rezoning and lot line vacation, but with substantially greater restricted area including an additional 7 keys over and above what exists today. 0 II. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Buffer Zone The provision of a buffer zone is not applicable with this proposal due to it being a third story addition to existing construction. B. Circulation Svstem The circulation system on the property would be unchanged. C. Functional open space in terms of : optimium preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function The open space existing on the property will remain unchanged. However, recreational facilities will be improved with the installation of a new 12 person hot tub adjacent to the existing swimming pool. With respect to views, the applicant has provided a view analysis which indicates little to no impact upon views in the surrounding area with the possible • exception of some interference of views from the lower level of the Tivoli Lodge. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space. With the exception of the westerly dwelling unit consisting of 1556 square feet, the housing type proposed is accommodation and dwelling units restricted as per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. This section of the Subdivision Regulations is currently in the final phases of an amendment process in which the regulation would be revised to restrict four weeks out of the eight week high ski season among other provisions to ensure that these condominiums are available to the general tourist market. We feel that this amount of restriction is the minimum necessary to continue the Ramshorn Lodge as a positive contributor to the Town of Vail bed base. We also feel positive that the recent revision to the proposal which adds two additional accommodation units making a total of five will increase the availability of rentable lodge rooms in the proposal. While the proposal includes a significant amount of 3 i� E. NO new square footage devoted to dwelling units and this, in turn, tips the definition of lodge "scale" away from strict compliance of this definition (lodges can have a maximum of 49% of square footage in D.U.'s), the rental of condominiums is an important variety with regard to the overall tourist bed base. That is, condominiums are an extremely popular form of rental accommodation and the addition of rental restricted condominiums to the bed base is a positive one for the community. This concept is promoted in the proposed Vail Village Master Plan. With regard to the additional density which is not allowed by underlying zoning, it is the staff's opinion that the proposal presents no significant negative impacts in the area of mass and bulk. In reviewing the proposed Vail Village Master Plan with regard to this application, a third story on the Ramshorn Lodge is called out in the Action Plan as a reasonable infill project. The staff feels it is important that in utilizing the proposed Vail Village .Mas. ter- .Plan i-n, .evaluat -ing- this-- ..pr.op.asa.l -. that ....,all. relevant aspects" or - proposed policies of that plan are utilized and not just portions thereof. Thus, the Master Plan would require 1000 of the proposed square footage to be rental restricted, whereas this is not 100% complied with by the applicant. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors. The staff sees no negative impacts upon this criteria.' Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. T The staff recommends that the applicant construct that portion of the sidewalk proposed as part of the Golden Peak redevelopment project along this property's interface with the street from the entrance to the eastern parking lot to the drive entering the project on the north. We feel that this is a reasonable requirement with regard to not only the granting of additional density, but that this sidewalk will be a positive benefit in and of itself due to the large volume of pedestrian traffic and the general unsafe pedestrian conditions in this area. There is a large number of pedestrians walking on the street along this site, and we propose the applicant construct a minimum six foot wide concrete sidewalk 4 with a concrete curb - separating it from the roadway. Final design on this improvement would be agreed upon before a building permit is issued for the project. The requirement of this improvement is in keeping with others required when additional density or special development districts have been approved throughout the Town. i III. G. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. As stated above, staff feels that the mass and bulk proposed is acceptable and has been called out as such in the proposed Vail Village Master Plan. H. Building design in terms of: orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. Since the proposal entails an addition to an existing building, the Design Review Board will review the compatibility ._of, mate.raals, .,cnlors.,...te.a�tures,..:, etc... -. With regard'to'solar° "blockage, the applicant is well within his height limitations and is not unduly shielding sun from adjacent properties. The proposal includes additional landscaping which will be presented to the Commission. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Uses The uses proposed on the third floor have been discussed. The property will not meet the strict definition of a lodge upon completion of this addition. However, with 84% of the entire project being rental restricted and available for tourist use, the intent of the Public Accommodation zone remains. The staff feels that it is important to note that 68% of the floor area of the proposed addition will be rental restricted versus a minimum of 51% under the rezoning scenario outlined on the front page of this memo. B. Density A thorough discussion of the density is presented under the SDD criteria. 4 C. Setbacks 5 � 46 Because the existing building encroaches into the 20 foot setback on the southwest corner, the addition will continue this encroachment. There would be no negative impacts allowing this small amount of encroachment to continue. D. Height The height proposed is a maximum of 42 feet, whereas the maximum allowed is 48 feet. E. Site Coverage Site coverage remains unchanged. F. Landscaping The proposal includes additional plantings around various areas of the site, and this will be reviewed in a presentation to the PEC. is i With the 1984 condominimization of this project, parking was an issue. Under that approval, the applicant created the parking lot to the east of the project which includes 11 full size parking spaces. Total parking existing for the project today is 33 spaces. The three additional dwelling units require two spaces each, while the five accommodation units require a total of 4 additional parking spaces for a grand total of 10 additional required spaces according to the parking requirements in the zoning code (43 spaces total). The applicant has submitted a parking study (enclosed) which indicates a maximum useage of 1.33 cars per day per condominium. The applicant feels strongly that additional parking is not needed for this project. The staff, while recognizing that units restricted to short term rental may require less parking overall as opposed to long term residential units, feels that the additional parking should be provided. The staff recognizes that due to the nature of the accommodation units also functioning for a portion of the year as bedrooms for the dwelling units, that the 10 additional required spaces are a maximum situation. However, if indeed the maximum number of keys are utilized (realizing maximum occupancy), additional spaces will most likely be needed. Eight additional spaces can be provided on the site with a combination of a redesign of the southerly edge of the eastern parking lot from two full size parallel spaces to five compact car spaces in combination with one new mini car space in the parking lot to the north of the buildings as well as four overflow parking spaces in the turn - around (entrance area). We feel it important that the redesign of the eastern parking lot to five compact spaces and the new mini -car space be provided as a conditional of approval and that the turn - around area be utilized for the maximum or overflow situation which could occur. While not meeting complete parking requirements, the redesign does meet 80% of the requirements, and we would feel comfortable with this parking redesign (leaving the project only 2 short). IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Significant last minute negotiations with the applicants have occurred to allow staff to support this project. Although the inability of the end product to meet the strict definition of a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will remain to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing high quality tourist accommodations. The staff deems it critical that this property remains functioning as a lodge and that the units, both A.U.'s and D.U.'s, are available to the tourist bed base as per the owner's use restrictions outlined in the Subdivision Regulations. We feel the proposal gives us a better product than one which could be developed under the rezoning and minor subdivision scenario which would add Tract F -1 into the project and allow 490 of the top floor to be unrestricted dwelling units. Although the applicants feel strongly that additional parking is not necessary, the staff simply cannot recognize the short term parking study submitted as conclusive evidence. We still feel that all developments proposed should provide adequate on -site parking until such time as the requirements are revised in a fair and equitable manner (if such a revision ever occurs). It is not prudent planning to allow this project to proceed without additional parking and risk that the overflow parking be located in the Village Parking Structure which is predominantly unavailable in the winter months. 7 6 The following conditions of approval are a strong element in the staff's recommendation for approval: 1. The SDD shall encompass both Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, and Tract F -1, Vaal Village 5th Filing. Tract F -1 shall be restricted in that all density which could be realized from a rezoning to Public Accommodation on that parcel is now being utilized with the construction of this project. That is, Tract F -1 shall not be utilized in the future to increase the density of the site and the site contains its maximum amount of density utilizing both parcels owned by the Ramshorn Partnership. 2. The part of the lot located on Tract F -1 shall be redesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces, a new mini -car space and 4 overflow parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot north of the buildings to provide a total of 8 new parking spaces for the project. The applicants shall make -..„ -- .every...ef,f art, t.o:_: prow.. de. .an,fadditional... two, ..:parking spaces for overflow guest "parking on the site. 3. A concrete sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width, with a concrete curb separating it from the road shoulder shall be constructed from the entrance to the parking lot on Tract F -1 along an agreed upon route along the frontage of the project to the entry on the north end of the project. This sidewalk shall be constructed and paid for by the applicant and shall be agreed upon before a building permit is .issued. i ' "T U-SAI TO: Jay Peterson FROM: David Garton RE: 1987 Parking Study at Rams --Horn Lodge Condominiums DATE : June 15, 198 to We undertook a panting study at The Rams -Horn Lodge Condominiums dur.na January. February and March of 1987. On a daily basis, we identified cars in the parking lot as to whether the cars were owned by Rams -Horn management, parking space sublesees or owners /renters of the three Rams -Horn Condominiums that had been sold. Regarding the cars belonging to people using the sold units, we found the following: 71 cars in 186 condominium /days 4 cars were found on one day during the study 3 cars were found on nine days during the study 2 cars were found on twelve days during the study Either one or zero cars were found on all the other days of the study These results show we had an average of .38 cars per condominium per day. The most cars we ever had were four cars for the three existing condominiums or a maximum of 1.:33 cars per day per condom nium . I` FRANK H. WYMAN 375 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, N.-Y. 10022 (212) 759.6355 Planning & Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail. Town of Vail Colorado 81657 Dear Sir: 4� June 30, 1987 " I understand that your Commissiou. is planning to hold a hearing on July 13 on an application by the Ramshorn bodge in accordance with section 18.66.060 under the municipal code requesting a special development district in order to be able to add a third floor to the existing structure. I have been a property owner in Vail since 196+ and own an apart- ment at the All Seasons Condominium. I . also President of the Condominium Association. Both in my capacity as an individual property owner and as President of the thirty -four member Association, I would like to protest the granting of any permit to increase the density or change the height restrictions of the Ramshorn property. All the property owners in the immediate vicinity either at All Seasons, Vail Trails East, Vail Trails West and elsewhere, bought their homes with reliance on the preservation of the building codes as they exist today. To change the building restrictions to gratify a developer's lust for monetary gain would violate the property rights of dozens of property owners in the immediate vicinity. It would be bad planning as well as a detriment to the environment. It would destroy views now enjoyed by neighboring property owners, aggravate parking problems and be a detriment to the area from every conceivable point of view. 16 2 I trust that your Commission will deny this application as well as any other that would be in violation of the original building restrictions promulgated in Vail's original development plan. Very truly yours, Frank H Wyman FHW:s1 I` PI L.-J PENDL.ETON 8 SABIAN, PC. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 46 CHARLES H. COWPERTHWAITE SEVENTEENTH AND CRANT BUILDING SUITE 1000 303 EAST SEVENTEENTH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80203 July 8, 1987 Planning and Environmental.Commission Town of Vail Town of Vail Municipal Building 75 So. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Public Hearing - July 13, 1987 Application of Ramshorn Partnership for Special Development District TELEPHONE: (303) 830 -1204 TELECOPIER: (303) 83J -0786 TWX: 910 - 931 -0407 Ladies &-- -Gent7lemen: _.._._,..... . ..._:�.,_..__.- ..,,,n- .,. >...r_ on behalf of All Seasons Condominium Association, Vail Trails East Condominium Association and Vail Trails Chalet Condominium Association, this is to register our objection to the establishment of a Special Development District to accommodate the addition of a third floor to the Ramshorn Lodge. Due to the close proximity and relative location of our clients' buildings to the Ramshorn Lodge, the Ramshorn proposal would have greater adverse effect on them than vir- tually any other landowner or groups of landowners. We have reviewed the Plan of Morter Architects dated January 9, 1984 as last revised on June 15, 1987 and from virtually every angle, it is obvious that the height and mass of the structure as proposed would have a significant and detrimental effect on surrounding buildings which, inciden- tally were all constructed at about the same time. To approve the plan in its present form is tantamount to working a change in the historical character of the neighborhood. Members of the Commission will no doubt recall the pro- longed and intense negotiations concerning the redevelopment of the Golden Peak base area which, through the intervention of many people and organizations, including our clients, led to a negotiated settlement which, among other things, limited the height of the base area buildings. � 6 Page 2 ,duly 8, 19$7 While we believe that a similar carefully considered approach should be adopted regarding the Ramshorn proposal, we wish to emphasize the dramatic and adverse effect any increase in height of the Ramshorn Lodge would have on its neighbors. Pending an opportunity to work with the Ramshorn owners on an approach that would not significantly affect the present view plane, we urge the Commission to deny the applicant's request. Very truly yours, C —C C arles 4 H. Po * wp t e t rfwaite CHC:do cc: All seasons Condominium Association Vail Trails East Condominium Association Vaal Trails Chalet Condominium Association Community Development Department, Town of Vail 6 PENDLETON 8 SABIAN, P. C. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances for Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: John and Mary Hobart I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicants are requesting a six foot encroachment into the side setback and a 20 foot encroachment into the front setback. Approximately 3/4 of the existing unit lies within the front setback. The applicant is requesting a 12' x 14 enclosure to include a hot tub area off of the master bedroom. The proposal includes a three foot wide deck around the enclosure which further increases the encroachment into the side setback and actually overhangs the Forest Road right -of -way by three feet at one point. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS S 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 variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The request entails an addition to an existing residential unit which poses no harmful relationship to other existing or potential 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 co m atibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The existing Hobart house is located well within the front setback. In fact, the house at one point is located right on the property line. The addition as proposed is a natural extension of the architecture of the house, and because this area of the house is completely within the setback, the addition also lies completely within the setback. Staff feels that due to the hardship of the location of the . existing house within the setbacks, that the granting of this variance would not be a special privilege. While we do not object to encroachment into the setback, we do object to the deck overhanging onto public right -of -way. While the applicant does have some hardship due to existing unit location, he should be able to maintain his development on his own property. The effect of the requested variances on light and air distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. There is no impact upon light and air and distribution of population with this proposal. We do, however, take issue with the three foot deck overhanging into the right of way. We feel that this will have a somewhat negative potential effect on transportation and traffic facilities. We feel that the deck could be removed from the proposal or the entire addition could be shifted three feet to the south in order to keep the deck entirely within the applicant's property. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. 0 III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantinq 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 front and side setback variances with the stipulation that there will be no encroachment over the property line into the right -of -way. We feel the addition should either be moved three feet to the south, or the proposal should be redesigned so that there is no encroachment into the Forest Road right -of -way. Assuming this stipulation can be met, staff recommendation is for approval. • 9ASIS O - BE ARING N 00 2 W VAI L ROAD (40' N OO ° 23'W 10 .62 i 1323.30 (1 326-1" MEAS .W. 3 / m m -A T z Lim r \ N W' �q F/ u ° G iX 0 Vp vZ b 1p rl n x M z U 0 z c>n S 00 16 00 £ t 6607' S b g Z l - + c zo 2 S I m co I* an �m > r - C-) 0 0 �T lTf "q • D ro / 00 o v POD /` Z c / N / 10 m / m / /O a / m m -A T z Lim r \ N W' �q F/ u ° G iX 0 Vp vZ b 1p rl n x M z U 0 z c>n S 00 16 00 £ t 6607' S b g Z l - + c zo 2 S I m co I* an �m > r - C-) 0 0 �T lTf "q 0 Planning and Environmental Commission July 27, 1987 1 :45 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 6/8, 6/22 and 7/13/87. 2. A request for an exterior alteration and a density variance of the Gastof Gramshammer. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer 3. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence located on Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 11th. Applicant: James Morter 4. A request for a setback variance to enclose two existing decks on Lot 27, Vail Village Filing #2. Applicant: Albert D. Weiss 5. A work session to review revised Primary /Secondary and Duplex separation language 6. A work session on a special development district and major subdivision of The Victorians. u L� • c .+ Planning and Environmental Commission July 27, 1987 PRESENT J.J.Collins Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Rick Pylman Kristan Pritz 1. Approval of minutes of 6/8, 6/22 and 7/13 Amendments and corrections were made to the June 8th minutes. With these changes, Diana Donovan moved to approve the minutes and J.J. seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0 to approve the minutes with the changes. The minutes of June 22 and July 13 were approved unanimously with a motion by Diana and a second by Bryan Hobbs. 2. A request for an exterior alteration and a density variance of the Gastof Gramshammer. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer Kristan Pritz explained recent changes proposed by the applicant. The new enclosure is 36 square feet for ski storage, 210 square feet of storage and 60 square feet for a service bar. Also on the third floor, a new accommodation unit will be created by adding 190 square feet and a dormer. The staff recommendation for the exterior alteration was for approval. Kristan also explained that a density variance was required for the new dwelling unit. Square footage was available through Ordinance #4. Staff recommended denial of the density request for the dwelling unit. At the meeting, Pepi requested to change the remodel from a d.u. to an a.u. It became confusing as to exactly what the request involved. Initially, staff felt the a.u. could be approved with the standard use restrictions as a condition of approval. However, it quickly became evident that further information was needed from the applicant before the staff could make a recommendation on the request. Sid Schultz stepped down from the table for this item and gave a presentation for the applicant. Pepi Gramshammer also made a short statement. Peter Patten made a staff comment regarding the recent change in the proposal and the staff lack of time to review the changed proposal. Pam Hopkins felt the proposal met the Town policies. Diana Donovan questioned if the proposal met the use restrictions. Pam wondered if Pepi's daughter could return and live in the unit full time and Kristan explained that this would not be allowed under the use restrictions. Diana asked if the Town could gain some improvements through the density variance, and Peter answered that standard "remonstrate" language would be sufficient. Bryan and Peggy felt the proposal met Town policies. J.J. Collins discussed the use restrictions with the staff. Peter explained the mechanics of the restrictions. Peggy asked if the parking fee had been calculated, and Kristan stated that the fee had not been figured due to the revision to the request made at the meeting. Pepi stated that he had no intention of paying a parking fee as he had "paid my dues." The building was built in 1964 and both of the rooms in Pepi's unit have been rented out for 6- 7years -- 1964 - 1970. Diana moved to table the density variance request until all the facts were known. Pam seconded the motion and the vote to table the variance request was passed with a vote of 6 -0 -1. • Diana moved and Pam seconded to approve the exterior alteration request. The vote was 6 -0 -1 to approve the request. Diana moved and Pam seconded to approve the density variance to enclose the ski storage area. The vote was 6 -0 -1 to approve. 3. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence located on Lot 4 Block 2, Vail Village 11th. Applicant: James Morter The staff presentation was by Tom Braun. Tom explained the background of the request. Although there were no negative aspects of this request, the staff was unable to support due to lack of physical hardship. Jim Morter gave a presentation on background of design and construction of the existing house. The requested addition was designed into the original house and complied with existing 10 foot setbacks. Morter felt the hardship was in the change in the setbacks. Peggy asked if this design was included in the original design of the house. Morter, with Tom Braun confirming, stated it was. Jim Viele felt the hardship was adequately presented. . Diana asked about approval of the original design to try to determine if a change in setback requirements was a legitimate hardship. Sid felt that 113 feet separation and the stream location mitigated any impact. Collins moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request due to the peculiar situation regarding the change in setback requirements and the original design approval of the structure within 10 foot setbacks. The vote was 6 -1 with the dissenting opinion disagreeing with the reasons in the motion. 4. A request for a setback variance to enclose two existing decks on Lot 27, Vail Village Filing #2 Applicant: Albert D. Weiss Tom Braun made the staff presentation. The enclosures meet the 250 square foot allowance. The staff recommendation was for approval. John Perkins gave a brief presentation for the applicant. Pam Hopkins moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated July 27, 1987. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Items 5 and 6 were work session items. No minutes were taken. • • TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 27, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence located on Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicant: James Morter I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has proposed a small addition to an existing residence. The proposal complies with all applicable development standards with the exception of a five foot encroachment into the required 15 foot side setback. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: . Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existin or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Parcels located adjacent to the proposed development include the I -70 right -of -way and the Booth Creek stream tract. The proposed addition is within the 15 foot setback requirement on the west side of the parcel adjacent to the stream tract. The proposed improvements, while located ten feet from the property line, are well outside the required 30 foot setback from Booth Creek. There are no appreciable impacts on existing or potential uses in these areas. 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 the feeling of the staff that the addition proposed could be redesigned within the required setbacks while not affecting the existing layout and floor plan of the residence. While it is felt that there are no impacts • resulting from the proposal, staff is unable to identify any physical hardships that would preclude the redesign of this addition. It is felt, however, that the approval of the variance would 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 direct impacts on any of the above considerations. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. FINDINGS 0 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 difficulty 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. U ! TV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is unable to support this request as proposed. It should be recognized that the applicant has presented a variety of information to support his request. The attached letter dated July 16, 1987 outlines these comments. While the staff is sympathetic to the comments presented by the applicant, it is unable to support the proposal as submitted because it appears an addition could be constructed within the property's required setbacks with no burden or impact on the applicant or adjacent properties. LJ A f'rr-'r•t n -crl ( :, ; i , ) i;;iiur June 29, 1987 Application For A Variance Morter Residence 2985 Booth Creek Drive The Morter /Rose Duplex was constructed in 1976, when the side setback requirement was only 10 feet. Since that time, the side setback requirement was increased to 15 feet. It was always intended by the applicant to construct the addition which is being proposed. At the time that the home and the addition were designed, the setback require- ment was 10 feet. The home was originally placed on the site to maintain two substantial aspen trees (see attached site plan), thus pla- cing it in its proximity to the west property line. Because the stream tract creates additional distance be- tween the Morter site and the Swetish /Friedman site, the proposed addition has no adverse impact on the Swetish/ Friedman duplex, and if anything slightly helps the Framp- ton residence by screening a small portion of 1 -70. The proposed variance grants no special privilege. It sim- ply allows the applicant to use the site as originally in- tended, with no adverse affect on anyone, while attempting to save the only significant trees on the ,site. In addi- tion, the applicant's plans for landscaping will help re- store a beautiful creekside which was destroyed by the Town of Vail in 1977. The proposed variance has no negative impact on light, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facili- ties, utilities, and /or public safety. July 21, 1987 Mr. Tom Braun Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Tom: I enthusiastically support Jim Morter's landscaping and home addition plans, after having reviewed them carefully with him on site. Sincerely, • Harry Frampton HHF /kc cc: Jim Morter 1000 South Frontage Road West, Suite 100 9 Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303)476 -7660 COLORADO • NORTH CAROLINA • VIRGINIA • WASHINGTON r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department 0 DATE: July 27, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to enclose two existing decks on Lot 27, Vail Village West Filing #2 Applicant: Albert D. Weiss I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has proposed enclosing two existing decks with a greenhouse enclosure. The existing structure, as well as the decks, are encroaching into the required 15 foot setback. These improvements are located 10 feet from the property line, which was the required setback when the structure was built under Eagle County regulations. The conversion of the outdoor decks to enclose space requires setback approval from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission previously reviewed this proposal on June 22nd. At that time a GRFA variance was also needed. In response to the staff and Planning Commission direction, the applicant has designed these enclosures to fall within the provisions of Ordinance 4. As a result, only a setback variance is needed for this project to proceed. 1 8 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 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. Many structures in this area were built prior to their incor- poration into the Town of Vail. This has resulted in numerous non - conforming situations. The degree of encroachment proposed does not adversely affect existing or proposed uses 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. As stated, there are numerous nonconforming developments in this neighborhood. Because of the existing location of the structure, and a lack of physical impacts on adjacent properties, it is felt that there is legitimate cause to grant a setback variance. The encroachment is not greater than the existing encroachment of the deck itself. The fact that this encroachment is not being increased is also a consideration in our recommendation on this item. 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 direct impacts on any of the above considerations. III. FINDINGS The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina 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 difficulty 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. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems • applicable to the proposed variance. III. FINDINGS The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina 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 difficulty 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 applicant is faced with a hardship in that the house and deck are encroaching into the required setback at this time. The deck enclosures proposed are reasonable from the standpoint of the existing position of the house as well as the relationship of the existing floor plan of the residence. Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. n U TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: July 27, 1587 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance in order to create a new dwelling unit at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicants: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting to add a total of 230 square feet to an existing dwelling unit and also to create a new dwelling unit. An existing attic space will be converted into 190 square feet of GRFA. Presently, the space is used as part of a bedroom area, but the low ceiling height makes the area difficult to use. The new dormer will open up the attic and increase the ceiling height so that the space must be considered to be GRFA. An existing bedroom in the owner's unit will be expanded by 35 square feet. The applicants have proposed to restrict the new unit so that it cannot be sold to a new owner as a separate condominium. The owner would like the option to convert the new dwelling unit to an accommodation unit if the new dwelling unit is no longer necessary. • Due to the fact that the project is also over on allowable common area, the addition of the enclosed ski room (36 feet) requires a common area density variance. Any common area above the allowed amount is added to the total GRFA for the project. Presently, the Gasthof Gramshammer has 21 accommodation units and 6 dwelling units for a total unit density of 16.5 d.u.'s (2 a.u.'s are equal to 1 d.u.). The Commercial Core I zoning allows 9 dwelling units, which means that the project is already 7.5 dwelling units over the allowable. It is considered to be a legal grandfathered nonconforming situation. The allowed GRFA is 12,834. The lodge has an existing GRFA of 13,115 which means that the project is 281 square feet over the allowable GRFA. The proposal requires a density variance for the additional dwelling unit. Staff is considering the 230 square foot addition as an expansion which would fall under Ordinance 4. For this reason, a GRFA density variance is not required for the unit expansion. The 36 square feet of common area above the allowed GRFA does require a GRFA variance. II. ZONING STATISTICS Zone Commercial Core I Site Area: 16,042 sf A. DENSITY GRFA Allowed: 12,834 sf Existing: 13,115 sf Amt over allowed: 281 sf Proposed: 230 sf Number of Units Allowed: 9 D.U.'s Existing: 21 A.U., 6 D.U. Total, 16.5 units Existing amount over allowed: 7.5 D.U.'s Proposed: 1 • Common Area Allowed: 3,208 sf Existing: 7,565 sf Proposed: 36 sf ski room addition B. SITE COVERAGE Allowed: 12,834 sf Existing: 10,290 sf building 1,650 sf dining deck 11,940 sf approx. Proposed: 0, areas added are already included as site coverage C. PARKING The additional unit will require one parking space. The owner will be required to pay into the CCI parking fund for one residential space ($5,000). 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinitv. The staff feels that the expansion will not have negative impacts on adjacent uses or structures in the area. The additional unit does not increase the mass and bulk of the building (please see the attached east elevation), and has no negative impacts on views from adjacent structures. 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 true that the Vail Village Master Plan and Land Use • Plan tend to encourage the development of accommodation units in core areas. However, this proposal involves a request for a dwelling unit. Even though the Vail Village Master Plan is not officially approved, it does reflect Planning Commission, Town Council and general public comment which has occurred over the past two years. These opinions have shaped the document up to this point. For this reason, staff feels comfortable in citing some of the policies from the Village 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 in the Action Plan for CC1. 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 is 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). These policy statements encourage accommodation units but do not give direct encouragement to additional dwelling units above and beyond allowed densities for a property. At this time, the proposal does not call for any restriction per Section 17.26.075. In addition, the property does not have any additional GRFA. Staff believes that these are significant factors which make this density request different from the Sitzmark and Christiania proposals which also involved density variances. The Sitzmark and Christiania projects both had available GRFA and were asking for density variances to add new accommodation units. Staff's opinion is that these two density variances are clearly different from the Gramshammer request to add an additional dwelling unit. Staff finds that the request would be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have no negative impacts on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the density request. The request for the additional unit is not supported by the policies found in the Land Use Plan or draft Vail Village Master Plan. In addition, the staff finds that the request is a grant of special privilege. In respect to the common area GRFA variance, staff recommends approval of this request. In the past, reasonable amounts of common area have been approved through the variance process, as adequate common areas are necessary to provide guest services. The additional 36 square feet for the ski storage is a legitimate amount of common area above what is allowed and will be used for a needed guest service such as ski storage. * If the PEC determines it is appropriate to approve the request, staff recommends that the use restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations be applied to the use of the new dwelling unit. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Develoment Department • DATE: July 27, 1987 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration request to enclose a ski room, deck bar, and kitchen storage room and to create a dwelling unit at the Gasthof Gramshammer Applicants: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer I. THE PROPOSAL The owners of the Gashof Gramshammer are requesting an exterior alteration and density variance for the following construction: 1. A ski room addition: enclosure of 36 square feet of existing unenclosed space 2. Deck bar: enclosure of 60 square feet of existing unenclosed space adjacent to the outdoor dining deck 3. Kitchen storage room: addition of 210 square feet adjacent to the existing kitchen for the restaurant 4. * Residence addition: addition of 230 square feet to . the Gramshammer's residence that will create a separate apartment on the third floor and expand an existing bedroom * A density variance is required for the new apartment and will be reviewed in the attached memo. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to insure 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 Purpose section of the Commercial I zone district. The character of the Vail Village commercial area is maintained. Adequate light, air, and open space are preserved. The additions do not adversely change the building's scale or architectural qualities. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESI GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following Guide Plan Sub -Area Concept relates to the west side of the Gashof Gramshammer and states: "Commercial expansion potential- -one story (from plaza level) would improve enclosure proportions and complete third side of plaza. Sun pocket terrace potential at first or second level. Large existing evergreen to be preserved." This proposal does not directly relate to this sub -area concept. However, it does not prevent this retail expansion from occurring in the future if such an addition is desired. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL 11TT,T.Ar -P . The staff agrees with the applicant that, "Since the additions and enclosures in this - proposal do not extend beyond the existing' building, many of the Urban Design Considerations are not applicable." The Considerations are listed below: A. Pedestrianization Not applicable. B. Vehicle Penetration Not applicable. C. Streetscape Framework Not applicable. D. Street Enclosure. Not applicable. E. Street Edge. Not applicable. F. Building Height. The existing dormer on the east side of the building is expanded in order to provide headroom within the new apartment. The impacts of this new dormer are minimal. This portion of the roof would still fall under the 34 foot height area, and therefore does not change the existing height proportions for the building. G. Views and Focal Points No impact. H. Sun /Shade No impact. I. Service and Delivery. No impact. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for the exterior alteration. The proposal complies with all the Design Considerations for the Village and the exterior alteration criteria. Planning and Environmental Commission August 10, 1987 2:00 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing (.14 A request for a Special Development District and a review of a major subdivision for the Victorians located on Lot 2, Block 3, Bighorn Third Filing Applicant: WSN Partnership 2. A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at Torino's Restaurant located in the Raintree Inn. Applicant: Ila Buckley 0 3. A request for final plat review and a variance to To be the subdivision regulations Section 17.78.330 A.9 tabled "street width" for Elk Meadows Subdivision. to 8/24 Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation mtg. 4. Work Session on the Christiania Lodge (Previous approvals) Withdrawn by Applicant 5. Work Session on the Uptown Grill Deck Enclosure Vail 21 Building. Applicant: Joel & Susan Fritz 6. Consideration of revisions to Design Guidelines of the municipal code for primary /secondary and duplex connections. �� ��,�/�� �►aty i n Planning and Environmental Commission August 10, 1987 Present J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele Staff ArP_Apnt Peter Patten Tom Braun Rick Pylman Kristan Pritz Absent Pam Hopkins The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request f of a major Block 3, Bi Rick Pylman presented the staff memo. Staff recommended approval per the memo with three conditions. Rick requested that the setbacks be changed. Required setbacks within envelopes will be five feet. Roof overhangs and decks may encroach halfway into the required setback. • John Wolfe, architect, made a presentation for the applicant. Peggy felt the overall plan was designed well. She questioned where the bike path will go in the future. Rick explained that the bike path was an interior path and not intended to be a requirement to apply for the area outside of the development. Peggy would like to see a public path added to the Frontage Road area for safety reasons. Rick stated that a condition required that the owner not remonstrate against being required to participate in an improvement district for the path. Peggy asked if there would be a homeowners' association for the project. John Nielson stated that the owners would have an association for the design and maintenance of the project. The association will be primarily concerned with the common areas. The concept was to keep the ownership as independent as possible. Peggy also had concern about the impacts of snowplowing on adjacent property in the area where the access drive abuts the property line (east). Bryan asked about GRFA for the project. John Nielson explained that the project is proposed to be approximately 2000 square feet below the allowable GRFA. Diana asked if the central common area would be restricted as open space. John Nielson stated that there is no intention to build on this common open space. Rick mentioned that the final plat will restrict this area to open space. Diana would like to see the remaining GRFA equally divided amoung the owners. This avoids the first come first serve approach to GRFA. Diana recommended strongly that the Town look at the bike path plan for this area. It is an important, highly used area for bicyclists. Kristan responded that a bike path plan was proposed for this fall. Sid asked about the development potential of the property to the east. John Nielson responded that the property had the right to four units. John Nielson requested that a temporary certificate of occupancy be allowed for all the units except for bldg. 1 which is affected by the power line. Peggy and Diana suggested that the road buffer should be addressed. It was recommended that perhaps landscaping could be located on the adjacent property owner's land if she would approve the planting. • Diana moved for approval with amended conditions and Bryan seconded. The vote was 5 -0 -1 with Viele abstaining. The three conditions in addition to those in the memo were as follows: 1. The applicant will not remonstrate against a special improvement district, if one is formed in that area for the purpose of the creation and financing of a bicycle path that would serve Bighorn Road. 2. That condo declarations be filed with the property that address additional GRFA and common maintenance provisions. 3. The change be made from wording of the setbacks as described in the staff memorandum dated August 10, 1987 to the wording that is listed in the ordinance to go to Town Council. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at Torino's Restaurant located in the Raintree Inn, Applicant: Ila Buckley. Kristan Pritz presented the request per the staff memo. Peggy . Osterfoss questioned if pedestrian traffic would be impeded by the railings around the dining area. Diana would like to see planter boxes on the railings and colorful umbrellas for the tables to accent the area. Diana moved and Bryan seconded. The vote was 6 -0. 3. A request for final plat review and a variance to the subdivision regulations, Section 17.78.330 A.9 "street width" for Elk Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Lamar Captial Corporation. This was tabled to 8/24/87. Moved by Hobbs, seconded by Donovan. The vote was 6 -0. 4. Work Session on the Christiania Lodge (Previous approvals) Withdrawn by Applicant. 5. Work Session on the Uptown Grill Deck Enclosure Vail 21 Building. Applicant: Joel & Susan Fritz Staff presention by Kristan Pritz. Kristan explained the previously approved development plan and the requested modifications to the approved plan. Staff recommended approval of the project with three conditions per the memorandum. Peggy asked about the function of the greenhouse. Her concern was the amount of open area created by opening the doors. Jim agreed with the staff interpretation that the project not be required to be reviewed again through the exterior alteration process. PEC consensus was that the staff position was appropriate. The PEC recommended that the project proceed to the Design Review Board. 6. Consideration of revisions to Design Guidelines of the municipal code for primary /secondary and duplex connections. This item was tabled for future staff work. • . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and rezoning of the Lot 2, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd from Residential Cluster to Special Development District with underlying Residential Cluster. Applicants: WSN Partnership T. 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. Lot 2, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd is a residential cluster zoned parcel located along the frontage road in East Vail. Size of the lot is 41,512 square feet which . minus the amount of area over 40% slope allows for development of five dwelling units approximately 9,000 square feet of GRFA. The applicant has designed a project that consists of five single family Victorian style residences clustered around a circular drive on this lot. The proposal as submitted meets all of the development standards of the residential cluster zone district. The special development district zoning is being requested to allow the applicant to create these fee simple building envelopes for the residences to be built within. Without the special development district zoning the subdivision of this development would not meet the single family minimum standards as designated in the subdivision regulations. II. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in section 17.16.110 of the regulations and are as follows: 01 . "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with 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: L� 1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District: No problems with this project. Water is available in Bighorn Road and sewer is located on the south side of Bighorn Road. 2. Public Service Company /Western Slope Gas No problem with project. 3. Holy Cross Electric No problem with project or ability to service project. The power lines crossing the front of the site should be placed underground prior to construction of the unit closest to the easement to prevent code problems. 4. Mountain Bell No problem. 5. Heritage Cable No problem. 6. National Forest Service No problem. . 0 F 1 LJ B. Relation of proposal to Town of Vail Policies Staff believes that the design of the subdivision will create a project that meets the intent of Vail's zoning and subdivision controls. Due to the fact that the proposal meets underlying zoning criteria and that the access is designed as a private drive the staff has waived the requirement for the environmental impact report. The public works and fire departments have reviewed the request and the proposal and agree that the design meets their standards with regards to road design, drainage, and fire protection service. The proposal provides a type of housing not commonly found in the area and is of a design that meets the quality and character of the neighborhood. III. 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: or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on t he 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 rivac noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable p otentially incompatible factors. 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 • • Staff's Statemen The Victorian project as a special development district meets the underlying residential cluster zone district setback standards of twenty feet in the front and fifteen on the side and rear. The access drive on the east side of the property as currently designed does come very close to the property line. We feel that this road design should be modified somewhat so that the road and related snow removal will not adversely affect the adjacent property. We feel there should be room between the edge of pavement and the property line to locate some type of landscaping to achieve this required buffer zone. 2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhausts 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 Staff's Statement The project has been designed to meet fire department and public works design standards. The staff feels that a project of this size does not require a separate bicycle path. 3. Functional Open Space in terms of: O timum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function Staff Statement The applicant has stated that the common area located within the drive will be preserved in its natural state. During construction a fence will be placed around this area and no encroachment into this area will be permitted. A small gazebo structure will be built on the site to allow common use among the owners of the five units located on the site. The site is heavily treed and the applicant has made an effort to maintain as many of the healthy mature trees on site as possible. Staff feels that with regard to functional open space the common area in front will serve to meet the demands of the five units in a manner that is more desirable than townhouse or condominium development would allow. 4. Variety: Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space Staff's Statement Staff feels that in a project of this size variety between the units should be kept to a minimum. This can be done architecturally through the Design Review Board review process. The applicant has submitted a development plan which specifies building location and specific architectural requirements and standards. We feel that this type of housing provides positive variety for the community. 5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors Staff's Statement: Building envelopes are separated from each other a minimum distance of ten feet. This separation provides a reasonable amount of privacy between the residence when comparing this to the potential of townhouse or condominium development that could take place on the site. 6. Pedestrian Traffic in terms of: Safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness: Staff's S tatement: Due to the small size of the proposed project separate pedestrian ways are not necessary. 7. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. • Staff's Statement The building bulk requirements as established by the development plan are appropriate for the scale of the site and its surroundings. 8. Building design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, si ns li htin , and solar blockage. Staff's Statement: Staff feels that orientation, design and site planning of the project are appropriate for development of this parcel of land. The Design Review Board has done a preliminary review of the site planning and development and has given that a conceptual approval. L� IV. SDD ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The applicant has requested special development district zoning in order to allow for greater flexibility in subdivision which allows the applicant to proceed with the cluster development that meets the underlying zoning for this parcel. Development of this project would be allowed under the residential cluster zoning however there would be no vehicle with which to subdivide the parcel. The special development district zoning allows the creation of building envelope type lots which can be subdivided into fee simple property along with the greater common area. The following narrative outlines the development criteria for the proposed special development district. A. P roposed Special Development District Purpose The purpose of the establishment of the Victorian 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 preserve some of the natural features of the site and to develop a cluster subdivision, building envelopes will be established to designate the areas in which development will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will permit creation of five fee simple units along with a large common area. • • Acreage The total acreage of the site is 0.953. Permitted Uses The permitted uses for the site are proposed to be: 1. Single family residential dwellings 2. Open space 3. Public and private roads Conditional Uses 1. Public utility and public service 2. uses 2. Public buildings, grounds and .080 facilities 3. Public or private schools 4. Public park and recreation .080 facilities 5. Private clubs 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 18.58.194; 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; Development Standards Proposed development standards are as follows: 1. Lot Area - Not applicable; building envelopes govern. Buildina Envelobes 1. .080 acre 2. .080 acre 3. .080 acre 4. .080 acre 5. .080 acre Common Area 6. .553 acre 2. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of structures from the exterior property lines of Lot 2, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd shall be twenty feet from the front property line 15 feet from the side and rear. Mimimum distance between buildings shall be 10 feet. 3. Density - Maximum of five single - family structures shall be allowed in accordance with the development plan. One single family structure shall be allowed within each of the designated building lots. The total gross residential floor area attributed to the project shall be 9,000 square feet. 4. Site Coverage - Not more than twenty five percent of the total sight area of the special development district shall be covered by buildings. 5. Building Height - Building height shall not exceed 33 feet. 6. Parking - Two parking spaces shall be provided per unit with one of the two spaces to be enclosed. 7. 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. 8. Design Guidelines - The architectural design of the buildings constructed on site shall be controlled by the development plan submitted as a part of the special development district. Minor changes to this architecture may be approved by the Design Review Board. 9. Recreation Amenities Tax - The recreation amenities tax shall be .30 per square foot as is consistent with the residential cluster zone district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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. Staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. The site plan and building plans submitted by the Architractor Design Group and the preliminary plans submitted by Johnson Kunkle and Associates shall serve as the development plan for this special development district. 2. The access drive be redesigned to provide the required buffered zone from the eastern property line of Lot 2, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd. 3. The existing overhead power lines shall be installed underground the length of the property before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1987 RE: Work Session on the Proposal to Enclose the Uptown Grill's Deck,Vail 21 Building, Lionshead Applicants: Susan and Joel Fritz The applicants are requesting a work session to discuss a proposal to enclose a dining deck at the Uptown Grill Restaurant that was previously approved in April of 1980 by the Planning Commission (please see the attached 1980 PEC memo and minutes). The applicants are requesting that they not be required to return to the Planning Commission for review of this request as it is substantially the same as the original approved expansion. The work session has been organized to address the question of whether or not the applicant should be required to return the Planning Commission for a formal review of the request through the Urban design Guide Plan review process. In 1980, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for three commercial expansions at the Vail 21 Building: 1. 1,025 square feet for the Colorado Insight Ski Shop, 658 square feet • for the Krismar Ltd., and 760 square feet for the Place Restaurant now the Uptown Grill. The Restaurant expansion involved the enclosure of the deck and a new outdoor dining space located on a retail expansion below the restaurant in the stairwell going down to Colorado Insight. (Please see the attached 1980 South Elevation.) The proposal was not reviewed through the Urban Design Guide Plan Process as the Urban Design Guide Plan was not officially approved by the Town Council. For this reason, the three expansions were reviewed under the variance criteria. Variances were required for setbacks, density control, coverage, and parking to permit the commercial expansions. The staff recommended approval of the request. The PEC also voted unanimously to approve the request. The owners of the Uptown Grill would like to enclose 360 square feet of the deck in order to create enclosed dining space. A green house type structure is proposed for the enclosure. Operable windows will also be used on the south elevation of the facade. The proposal does not include the retail expansion or the patio area on top of the retail addition. The applicants would also maintain an outdoor dining space in the plaza to the south of the deck enclosure. Vail 21 owns this plaza area. The applicants will be presenting a Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission on August 24th for the outdoor dining space. STAFF COMMENTS The staff opinion is that the request should not be required to go back to the Planning Commission. originally, the proposal was reviewed through the variance process. Once an approval has been given for a variance there is no time limit on that approval. In addition, the staff agrees with the memo that was written in April of 1980 that states that the courtyard to the south of the Uptown Restaurant will be improved by the enclosure of the deck. Our opinion is that the expansion of the dining area will break up the south facade of the Vail 21 Building and create a better pedestrian scale. Even though the outdoor dining deck above the retail space is not part of this proposal, an outdoor dining area will still be maintained in the plaza area. In general, the staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of our existing Urban Design Review process and also maintains outdoor dining space in the plaza which is important to creating an inviting pedestrian ambiance in Lionshead. We feel that the proposal should not be required to return to the Planning Commission for review but should be reviewed by the Design Review Board to ensure that all design details are addressed. Our approval is contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The outdoor dining area in the plaza should be continued each year. This requirement may be amended if the building owners decide to proceed with the other two areas of the commercial expansion in the original approval of April 1980. This approval allowed for a new outdoor dining deck on top of the retail space proposed in front of the southeast corner of the Uptown Grill. 2. The applicants will be required to pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund. The restaurant addition will require three parking spaces at $3,000.00 per space. This parking fee may be paid over a 5 year time frame. 3. The applicant presents the proposal to Design Review Board for their approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 4 -11 -80 RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS, DENSITY CONTROL, COVERAGE, AND PARKING TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL EXPANSION OF THE VAIL 21 BUILDING THAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN PLAN. STATISTICS: APPLICANT: Charles Rosenquist and Dick Brown ZONING: Commercial Core II. PROPOSAL: Three Commercial Expansion Areas containing 2,443 square The Applicants are proposing three areas of expansion to the Vail 21 Building that requiare several variances at this time. All the proposed expansions are in conformance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan that has been approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council. The proposed zoning ordinance changes for Commercial Core II that was in your packet last week would permit the commercial expansion proposed without going through a variance procedure. Under the Zoning Ordinance changes the applicant would be required to go through a process to show how the proposed expansions meet the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. The applicant is going before the Planning and Environmental Commission at this time so that construction can start in the spring and not be delayed to the summer or fall. The three commercial expansion areas are a 1,025 square foot expansion to the ski shop, a 658 square foot expansion to Krismar LTD., and a 760 square foot expansion in the area of the Place restaurant. All the proposed expansions would be located on private property and not extend into Town of Vail property. The expansion areas proposed by the applicant were shown on the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan for several reasons. The two areas along the east wall of the building were shown to first improve the visual entrance of the Vail Lionshead Mall and show visitors to this area that it is an active commercial and pedestrian area. Second, to extend the commercial space beyond the dominating buildings and develop a pedestrian scale for this area. There is a greater opportunity for window shopping, added life, and vitality in Vail Lionshead. The court yard by The Place restaurant is currently an uninviting place for pedestrians. There is no draw of commercial activity, landscaping, etc. to bring people into this court yard. Proposed is commercial expansion that will provide more visibility to now vacant storage space. In addition, there will be the opportunity for outdoor eating in the sun pocket in the north east corner of the court yard. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: r ,` ""PEC Memo Vail 21 - -Page Two 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of spcial privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemtns in the vicinity; 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. 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, b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, c. 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. (Ord. 8 (1973) paragraph 19.600.) RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the variances requested. The Staff considers that there is no grant of special privilege since the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and proposed ordinance changes will permit this type of commercial expansion. The staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay the fee established by the Town Council. This parking fee is currently under review by Council. Attached is the memorandum discussing the parking fee. The applicant should also be required to participate in mall improvements. The percentage of Town participation private participation and private participation in mall improvements has not been formerly established. The applicant would like to see mall improvements take place on the east side with the commercial expansions. In the court yeard on the west side is private property and should be improved by the applicant with the commercial expansion. Another condition shoudl be that the applicant agrees not to remonstrate against the special improvement district if formed for mall improvements in Vail Lionshead, and agree to join the district. ' i i Planning and Env- iyoiafertat Minutes of &6 n of 4- 14--80 g Page One Members Present • Ed Drager Jim Morgan John Perkins Sandy Mills Gerry White Town Council Person Present John Donovan Staff Present Dick Ryan Peter Patten Jim Rubin Chuck Donley Before the Public Hearing there was a Discussion of the County Proposal of the Westwood Subdivision. Dick Ryan gave the background on this item. Basically they are coming to the Town and going to the County to see what would be acceptable density there. They would like to see how many units would be allowed there by the Town. The Site is 47.7 acres. John Kidneigh made his presentation. They would like to build 45 units, a combination of Primary /Secondary Duplexes and Single Family residences. The Staff feels the density should be about the same as allowed on the Selby property. 21 Emits were allowed on 43 acres. They have applied for RSM zoning in the County but the County hasn't said how many units they would allow there. Intermountain Engineering has said there are 21 buildable acres. Dick Ryan asked the Board their feelings on this. Ed Drager said he feels it should be zoned resource because he doesn't feel it is buildable land. Jim Morgan said he thinks 19 -20 units is appropriate. It Should be comparable to the Selby land. PEC Minutes -- 4/14/80 Page Two ~ s id he doesn't think we can just pull a density f John Perkins a � p Y from 9 the air. He said there are a lot of problems with this land. He can't see where they have spent $30,000 on engineering of this road system. John Kidneigh said he has five different plans for the roads. John Perkins said he would like to see them. Sandy Mills said she thinks the Planning Commission should send a letter to the Forest Service,'BLM, or whomever to let them know how unhappy we are with these trade parcels which are not developable. She thinks the road system should not be private roads but should be built to Vail standards so they could be plowed and fire trucks can get in there. Gerry White asked if John Kidneigh feels they can build 45 units on this land. He said he feels they can build 40 units. John Perkins said he feels they would have to prove to him how 40 units fit there. Gerry White said he feels maybe they should make a site trip there. Ed Drager made a motion that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend that the zoning,on this parcel be left Resource. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. Ed Drager, Sandy Mills, and Gerry White voted for this motion. John Perkins and Jim Morgan voted against. Both John and Jim felt units should be allowed on this parcel but the developer would have to prove how many units can be built on it. PUBLIC HEARI 1.) Approval of Development Plan for Panorama Condominiums (_Phase 1) located on Lot 27, Block 1, Lionsrid e Subdivision Fil 'do. 3 and conceptual approval of the Development Plan for Phase 2 located on Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3 Peter Patten said that Jay Peterson representing the developer has asked that this item be postponed until May 12, 1980. John Perkins made a motion to postpone the above until May 12, 1980. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was Pub lic Hearing and consideration of variances for setbacks, den c ontrol, coverage, and parking to p ermit Commercial Expansion of e Vail 21 Building that is in conformance with the Vail Lionshead Ur an Design Guide Plan Dick Ryan explained thi "s item and the''Staff - r��commeridation. The Staff is recommending approval of these variances with the conditions that the owners pay the required parking fee, be required to participate in mall improvements, be required to pay in any mall improvement district that is established and improve the court yard which is on private land as per the Staff memo of 4- 11 -80. PEC Minutes -- 4/14/80 Page Three Duane Piper, the architect, made his presentation. He said the expansion will go into the setback but not on Town Right --of-Way. Duane Piper said they will pay the parking fee as required. Jim Rubin and Dick Ryan explained that if the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances were already approved, these variances would not be necessary but is necessary now." Sandy Mills made a motion to grant these variances for setbacks, density control, coverage, and parking to permit Commercial Expansion of the Vail 21 Building that is in conformance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Desing Guide Plan as per the Staff memo of 4 11 - 80. Ed Drager seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3.) Continued Public Hearing on Vail Villa e Urban Desing Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. The Board continued to discuss this plan with Jeff Winston of Gage Davis and Associates and the Staff. The Board and Staff had walked through the Village during the work session and had some suggestions for changes they would like to see incorporated. Ed Drager made a motion to continue this discussion until April 21, 1980 at 1:00 P.M. Item 4 ( the approval of the minutes) was not discussed. 0 The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 P.M. L� Project Application Date Project Name: Project Description: (L Owner Address and Phone: _ Architect Address and Phone: • Legal Description: Lot ,Block ,Filing Zone: Zoning Approved: Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: PPROVAL 6,!l 2�21 Summary: r DISAPPROVAL f' Zoning Administrator Date: Date: Chief Building Official the printeryrvail �:; `" y , � + � ,v �, ��� - �.��_ . e o�� G1 i I 9 'I FZ Vhf LIB Ak • N- - Q I 4 Aj :1 3 f7 jr 4F, --NL N- - Q I � N '— 0 | — � ----- F n 1 A L` 3 7 n -.... CY I ; I Al i - !W 7 Q fl Z „& 69 N p a I - i I• I C' J i . I'. JI CY I ; I Al i - !W 7 Q fl Z „& 69 N p a • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1987 SUBJECT: A Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish an Outdoor Dining Deck at Torino's Restaurant Located in the Raintree Inn, West Vail APPLICANT: Ila Buckley DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The owners of Torino's Restaurant would like to locate three dining tables on an outside walkway adjacent to their restaurant. The project is located in commercial core III. The zoning requires that when any permitted use is not conducted entirely within a building the proposal must be reviewed through the conditional use process. L� CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff finds that there are no negative impacts on development objectives of the Town. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities npprlp _ _ The proposal has no impact on these factors 0 • Effect upon traffic with articular reference to congestion, automotive and 2edestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas, - The proposal has no impact on vehicular traffic. Pedestrians will be able to access the other businesses through the east and west stairways along the walkway that extends the length of the building. 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 dining area will be a positive impact upon the character of the area. The dining area will add interest and activity to the building which will be a positive improvement. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The environmental is an environmental im FINDINGS act report concerning the proposed use, if act report is required by Chapter 18.56. 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 the vicinity. • That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. r1 L_J STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request. If liquor is served in the dining space, the applicant must comply with all liquor licensing laws, particularly the requirement that the dining space be enclosed by the use of some type of railing. n U 1�1 1 4 �� 1 •,\ l ` nil .... . kh vea 41 / _.. . ,� 1 � k a�IN • I • I 3 I Yom¢ x U Q Li CD OD f � Ca Qy #�da L4` 7 '1' Y Lam,+}• h4 i t4 P - h '.0f l y ' n y Ir 7 ¢LD�? ; c: In J "' •+ ✓ ` uj El .� � s 44 M1 A! I y Planning and Environmental Commission August 24, 1987 2:15 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of July 27. 2. A request for an amendment to SDD No. 16., a final plat review and a variance to the subdivision regulations, Section 17.28.330 A.9, "Street Width" for Elk Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Lamar Capital corporation 3. A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Uptown Grill located in the Vail 21 Building. Applicant: The Uptown Grill 4. A request to amend SDD #4 (Vail Village Inn) to add more retail space to Phase IV and to modify the approved circulation plan. Applicant: Joseph Staufer 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit to allow for additions to the Plaza Lodge. Applicants: Plaza Lodge Associates, Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Tang 6. Update on Cascade lift status 7. Pond volunteer 8. Steamboat conference 1�-] Planning and Environmental Commission August 24, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Hobbs 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 July 27. J.J. Collins moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. This item was discussed after item 3. 3. A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Uptoem Grill located in the Vail 21 Building. Applicant: The Uptown Grill • Kristan Pritz explained the request and reviewed the criteria and findings for a conditional use permit. The staff recommendation was for approval with three conditions. Joel Fritz, the applicant, stated that with respect to snow removal, the area would probably be used in spring, rather than in winter, but the barrier is moveable. He felt that he would rather deal with the snow removal himself. Kristan felt there should be an agreement in writing concerning snow removal. Diana felt Condition #1 was important concerning pulling the patio back to allow for a 15 foot access way. Joel mentioned that the southwest corner was often moved for special events in the area. He would try to put it back to allow for a 15 foot space. J.J. Collins moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve the request for the conditional use permit per the staff memo dated August 24, 1987 including the three conditions of approval. 1. The southwest corner of the dining patio will be pulled back to allow for a 15 foot access way from the edge of the patio to the curb of the Lionshead Arcade. 2. The applicants will make the necessary changes to the snow . removal agreement with the Town of Vail to allow for the patio in the winter time. Any changes to the snow removal agreement must be approved by the Lionshead Arcade property owner as well as the Vail 21-* owner. a 3. In the event that utility work is required in the area of the patio, the applicants agree to allow for the construction. At this time, however, staff is unaware of any utility easements in the plaza area (according to Lionshead lst Filing Subdivision and Lionshead Mall Base Map check). The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. A request for an amendment to SDD No. 16, a final plat review and a variance to the subdivision regulations, Section 17.28.330 A.9, "Street Width" for Elk Meadows Subdivision Applicant. Lamar Capital Corporation Kristan Pritz explained the request and listed changes on the memo for the final plat review. The five conditions of approval were discussed. The staff recommendation was for approval of the major subdivision. Kristan then listed changes in the requested amendment. She showed site plans regarding the variance request and reviewed the variance criteria. Staff recommended approval and felt that special circumstances warranted approval of the request. The width of the road and the road right -of -way were discussed. Peter explained that in this small site, the width needed was actually less than that provided because it was a private road. J.J. wondered about the issue of the road being extended to subsequent phases. Peter replied that if this were to become a public road, the issue could be dealt with at that time. Diana Donovan moved and Sid seconded to approve the request for a variance to the road with the staff memo with the finding of special circumstances. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Diana moved and Sid seconded to recommend to Town Council approval of the requested amendment with the change of wording shall "not exceed" in the height section. J.J. stated that he still had many of the same concerns he had before concerning mitigation, conflicting letters in the EIR, Town liability, etc. Peter said that the letters most recently received made the staff feel much more comfortable with the mitigation solution. He added that two main points were that mitigation measures are for buildings, not land, and that Nick Lampiris stated that it was highly unusual to have mitigation on 1000 of a subdivision. Larry Eskwith stated that at first it was his desire to have the whole subdivision mitigated, but that it was really a 40 balancing question. He added that in reality the geologic hazard was much less than shown on the map. More discussion with J.J. on this issue followed. Kristan read a letter from Lampiris which stated that in his opinion this was not a high severity rock fall area. J.J. stated that now each person could • find an engineer who would require less mitigation. Larry stated that to tell a developer he could not build on his land could result in a law suit. He felt the Town had looked at both sides and had come to a solution they felt comfortable with. J.J. still felt 11 51/49 on the uncomfortable side." The vote was 4 -1 in favor, with J.J. voting against because of his concern about the safety issue with respect to rock fall. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the final review of the major subdivision. The vote was 4 -1 with J.J. voting against for the same reason above. 4. A request to amend SDD #6 (Vail Village to add more retail space to Phase IV and to circulation plan. Applicant: Joseph Staufer Tom Braun explained the request and showed site plans and elevations. There were three requests, to delete a portion of the sidewalk, to add retail space and to expand a patio area which would result in a decrease of green space. The staff recommendation was for denial except for the patio area with • the condition that there be assurance of adequate space left for pedestrians. Discussion about the patio followed. Diana felt it would not be inviting to walk through tables. Peter agreed and suggested that there be some type of physical separation to denote public walkway. Saundra Smith, architect for the applicant, discussed the sidewalk situation and stated that the plan was to bury the gravel ditch and put the sidewalk in later. As for the dining patio, Saundra stated that it was not known who the tenants would be, but the owner would like to see a dining patio allowed, and a pedestrian path would still remain. Saundra pointed out that the entry to the plaza was four feet wider than originally proposed, and thus it would only be reduced three feet in width from the original plan. Diana felt the arcade added to the architectural element by its shadows and was important to the appearance of the building. • She felt the sidewalk needed the patio, Diana stated that trees would stay, but now she could not see taking any more dining patio. • • to be done now. With respect to she was specifically told that the had seen some trees removed. She landscaping from the corner for a Sid agreed that the sidewalk was important and was needed now. With regard to the arcade, he felt it was important to keep the arcade to get people back to other phases of the WI, plus it offered shelter at the bus stop. Concerning the patio, he had no problem with it if there would remain a real separation for the pedestrians. Peggy felt somewhat favorable to enclosing the arcade, as she felt people did not see retail windows that were 7 feet back from a pedestrian way. She felt the sidewalk should not be postponed. She felt the corner where the patio would be was a really important corner and it should remain a very public area so anyone could sit at the tables. Peter agreed with Diana and Peggy regarding the use of the patio. He felt it would be difficult to regulate the use on private property. Diana felt this could be a restriction of the SDD. Tom suggested a pedestrian access through the patio. Diana felt people would not use a 5' width through a private patio. Sandra stated that she would like people to walk next to the building. Peggy felt that 10' - 12' in width was necessary for the pedestrian way. J.J. felt the arcade should remain, that there should be intense landscaping at the corner and a traffic pattern should be worked out to draw people in, rather than turn them away. Saundra asked to table the arcade issue. Tom added the fact that the request included a loft addition of 315 square feet that the staff had no problem with. J.J. moved and Diana seconded to deny the request to delete the 65' of sidewalk. The vote for denial was 4 -0 -1 with Viele abstaining. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the addition of the loft area. The vote was 4-0 -1 for approval with Viele abstaining. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to table the arcade and patio issues. Peter stated that direction was needed from the PEC re size and location of the sidewalk. J.J. felt the applicant must come back with a specific design. Peggy felt it was important that there be an adequate berm and that the corner look well landscaped. 0 The vote was 4 -0 -1 in favor of tabling with Viele abstaining. 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit to allow for additions to the Plaza Lodge. A pplicants: Plaza Lodge Associates, Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Tang. Tom Braun explained the changes requested and reviewed the criteria for exterior alterations and for conditional uses and stated that the staff recommended approval of both. The conditional use was for removal of an accommodation unit on the second floor. Tom added that the applicant would restrict 7 units to the existing use restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075 (condo conversion regulations). These units are specified on plans filed with the Department of Community Development. Craig Snowdon, representing the applicant, showed elevations and a model and pointed out the exterior changes. Jay Peterson stated that the building could have been totally condominiumized, but the owner wished to renovate, but still operate as a lodge. Bill Anderson of Beck and Associates explained the construction schedule. Peggy felt the changes were positive, but had . concerns about the gas meters not being screened and the downspout needing to be moved further back. Craig responded that they would screen the meters and move the downspout. More discussion followed. Diana felt that it was a good idea to clean the windows even during the construction. Bill agreed. J.J. moved and Diana seconded to approve the exterior alteration and the conditional use request re the staff memos dated August 24 with the stipulation that the windows be cleaned by November 21 and the gas meters be screened and the downspout be moved. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: The Plaza Lodge Proposal At one time, this application involved the review of four separate Planning Commission approvals. Over the past few weeks the staff and applicant have been working on modifications to this proposal. The results of these negotiations have been the elimination of the previously requested height and density control variances. The remaining approvals required to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the Plaza Lodge include: 1. An exterior alteration 2. A conditional use permit for the removal of a dwelling unit from the second floor of the structure. The need for the density control variance was eliminated by the reduction of actual new floor area as well as the conversion of • existing common area into GRFA. The proposal no longer involves a fourth floor addition. The redesign involves a number of small expansions at various locations on the second and third floors. In addition, loft space is being added to the third floor without affecting the existing exterior of the building in this area. This GRFA (approximately 450 square feet) is being added through the provisions of Ordinance 4. The deletion of the fourth floor also eliminated the need for a height variance. The only changes to the roof include a proposed dormer on the Bridge Street side of the building. While the roof height is changed in this area of the structure, it is technically not increasing the existing non - conforming status of the Plaza Lodge roof height. The accompanying memos outline the staff position on the two requests involved in this proposal. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration in order to make additions to the Plaza Lodge. APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Tang 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Proposed modifications to the Plaza Lodge involve totally reworking the second and third floors. Exterior changes to the building include relatively minor additions at four points of the building. These include: 1. The addition of a dormer and expansion of the second and third floors by 3.5 feet over a distance of 29 feet. 2. A small addition on the Bridge Street side of the building on the second and third floors involving a total of approximately 40 square feet (adjacent to the elevator tower). 3. An addition of approximately 66 square feet on • the third floor above Vendetta's restaurant. 4. An expansion over the existing deck area on the second and third floor on the Plaza side of the building. This addition extends approximately 10 feet from the building at its greatest point. There are also a number of changes occurring within the building that are outside the purview of this review. As stated in the introductory memo, the proposal is within all zoning /development standards prescribed for Commercial Core 1. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The Urban Design Guide Plan and standard zoning considerations are used in reviewing development proposals in Commercial Core I. The design considerations in the Guide Plan were adopted to augment these traditional zoning standards. They are intended to allow for greater flexibility and creativity in designing projects in the village, while recognizing and maintaining its unique character. • 1 + 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. These improvements are referred to as sub- area concepts. There are no sub -area concepts relative to this proposal. 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 the Village would be noticeably different. It is the goal of the Design Considerations that through their applications, future design changes will be consistent with the established Village character and make positive contributions to the Village experience. These considerations include the following: Pedestrianization • Because all of the improvements proposed with this application are above street level, there is no impact on pedestrianization. Vehicular Penetration Vehicular penetration is not affected by this proposal. Streetscaoe Framework Streetscape framework remains unchanged with this proposal. Street Enclosure The proposed additions on the plaza side of the Plaza Lodge do not directly affect the street enclosure because of the presence of Founders' Plaza. While a portion of the addition will create a straight vertical face over three stories, this is over a fairly small portion of the entire building frontage. The staff has spent a great deal of time analyzing the addition to the Bridge Street side of the building and feel that the proposal will result in an overall improvement to this part of the building. The extent of the building expansion is limited to 3.5 feet. This change in the building will not significantly affect the sense of enclosure in this area (nor is it felt to affect is properties). street enclosure assuming redevelopment of adjacent properties). It is felt the addition will be positive by breaking up the existing mass of the building. Through previous additions, the south end of the building has developed a great deal of variety. The north side of the building along Bridge Street has remained fairly static on the upper levels. This proposal will serve to unify the overall architecture and appearance of the structure. Street Edge Street edge is unaffected by the proposed expansion. Building Height The building height is technically not being increased with the addition of the proposed dormer. This is because the degree of nonconformity is not increasing. The ridge of the dormer is below the height of the existing ridge of the building. As well, the overall percentage of building heights (as calculated for structures in Vail Village) is not increasing. Views The proposed dormer does have minor impacts to some view corridors. The most significant of these is the view to Vail Mountain as one walks up Bridge Street. There are no impacts on major view corridors. • Service and Deli Service and delivery will remain unchanged with this proposal. Sun /Shade The dormer on Bridge Street does have some impact on sun /shade along Bridge Street. The impact, however, is considered minor. It should be noted that the sun /shade criteria in the Guide Plan states that, "new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properties or public right -of- ways." Given that the development is being done within existing density allowances, the staff can tolerate the minimal amount of increased shade on Bridge Street as a result of this addition. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the exterior alteration is approval. As evidenced by this memorandum, the majority of the criteria are not applicable because construction is on the second and third floors. Nonetheless, any additions to the Plaza Lodge must be looked at closely a with respect to its key location in the Village as well as the existing condition of the building. It is the feeling of the staff that, taken individually, each of the proposed additions are minor in nature. More importantly, when considered collectively, the proposed additions are also minor in nature. • r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to remove a dwelling unit from the second floor of the Plaza Lodge Applicants: Plaza Lodge Associates and Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Tang The removal of any accommodation unit or dwelling unit from the second floor of any building within Commercial Core I requires approval of a conditional use permit. This provision was incorporated into the zoning code for the core area to ensure a variety of activities in this mixed use area. • I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The proposed redevelopment of the Plaza Lodge involves major renovations to the second and third floors. The proposed modifications include the elimination and realignment of existing dwelling and accommodation units. These changes do not increase the density of this property as defined by the zoning code. Proposed changes to the lodge include the following: Existing Conditions 2nd Floor: 4 a.u.'s 5 d.u.'s 3rd Floor 10 a.u.'s 1 d. u. Proposed 2nd Floor: 4 a.u.'s 4 d.u.'s 3rd Floor 3 a.u.'s 3 d.u.'s It should be emphasized to the Planning Commission that this review pertains only to the second floor. As indicated on the above table, the proposed modifications result in the elimination of one dwelling unit. While there is a net reduction of five units from the third floor, these changes are outside the purview of the Planning Commission. LJ ti • II, SPECIAL CRITERIA USE FOR ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN COMMERCIAL CORE I INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I Aici - rir There would be no significant impacts resulting from the proposed changes to the Plaza Lodge. B. Reduction of vehicular activity in Commercial Core I. While the total number of units is reduced through this proposal, there should be no significant decrease in vehicular traffic into the core. C. Reduction of non - essential off - street parking. This proposal does not affect this consideration. D. Control of deliveKy pickup and service vehicles. This criteria remains unchanged. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. This criteria is unaffected by this proposal. 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. The reason for modifications of this type being reviewed by the Planning Commission is to ensure the mixed use character of the Village core. At face value, the staff has difficulty supporting a request of this type. To offset staff concerns, the applicant has agreed to restrict seven units to the existing use restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075 (condo conversion regulations). These restrictions are similar to what applies to the Ramshorn Lodge and the Phase IV building of Vail Village Inn. G. Control quality of construction, architectural desi n, and landscape design in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The modifications to the second floor units does not significantly affect the architecture or exterior limits of this building. • J 111. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the conditional use permit is approval. While we are uncomfortable with the overall direction of this proposal, our review criteria are not adequate to prevent the proposed modifications to the Plaza Lodge. Given the applicants' commitment to restrict 7 lock - off units to an overnight rental pool, and by maintaining the front desk facilities, our concerns are being mitigated to a degree. In looking at this proposal from an overall perspective, one must consider what could be done under existing regulations relative to the potential condominium conversion of this lodge. As the condo conversion ordinance stipulates, any accommodation unit must be restricted as outlined in Section 17.26. This would result in a total of 14 existing a.u.'s being restricted in the event of a condominium conversion. However, the applicant could propose converting all of the a.u.'s on the third floor to d.u.'s. This could be done with no required Planning Commission approvals, and if converted to d.u.'s, owner's use restrictions would not apply in the event of a condominium conversion. under this worst case scenario, the Town could be left with only 4 a.u.'s on the second floor being restricted. Given the fact that the applicant has agreed to restrict 7 units (4 on the second floor and 3 on the third floor), the staff is in support of the requested conditional use permit. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Amendments to SDD #6 (Vail Village Inn) APPLICANT: Joseph Staufer I. THE REQUEST A previously approved amendment to SDD #6 allowed for the development of Phase IV (the building now under construction) and the subsequent development of Phase V. This amendment outlined the general development standards for the completion of this project. The applicant has requested three amendments to this development plan: 1. The deletion of a portion of the sidewalk to be located along Vail Road. 2. The introduction of additional retail space to the Phase IV building. This space is proposed for a loft addition as well as the enclosure of an arcade element on the east end of the Phase IV building. • 3. Expansion of a patio area with a resulting decrease in green space located at the southwest corner of the project. It has been deemed by the staff that the requested amendments to the approved development plan do not change the overall substance of the plan. For this reason, the amendments may be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Action by the Town Council will not be required unless the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed or called up to the Council. II. STAFF COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Deletion of a portion of the sidewalk The applicant has requested approval to delete ap- proximately 65 lineal feet of sidewalk located along Vail Road. The sidewalk is an element of the overall pedestrian circulation system that was approved in conjunction with SDD #6. Given the volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic along this stretch of Vail Road, the introduction of a sidewalk in this area was seen as a positive step toward improving • what is now a poor situation. One of the design criteria to be used in evaluating an SDD specifically addresses pedestrian traffic. This reads as follows: Section 18.40.080 Design Standards F. Pedes- trian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The approved sidewalk would serve to relieve pedes- trian traffic that presently must travel along the roadway. This seemingly small improvement is very significant in terms of its impact on pedestrianization in this area. B. Request for additional retail space. The introduction of a loft space at the west end of the Phase V building is of little consequence. The proposed infill of a previously approved arcade element at the east end of the building raises a number of issues. Foremost among these is how this proposed infill would affect the sense of space and the entry into the Vail Village Inn Plaza area. (Please see attached drawing.) • The arcade area is part of a trade -off situation relating to the size of the public plaza in this area. In the original negotiations, the arcade was offered as additional public plaza to allow the Phase V building to be located as close as now is to the westerly edge of Phase II. It is important that a significant public plaza (which gradually narrows to the north) be provided to allow for an adequate visual connection between the interior and exterior plaza as well as general circulation area near the bus stop and ski museum. The arcade also would provide shelter from inclement weaather for those waiting for the bus. Basically, we view this aspect of the changes as a conversion from public space to retail that provides no public benefit. We would prefer to keep the relative openness of this area as approved. C. Extension of the patio at the southwest corner of the project. A patio element was previously approved at the south and west corners of this project. This patio was an element of the pedestrian circulation system that rings the perimeter of the project. The proposed expansion of this patio replaces a landscaped area. While the staff does enlarging the patio leaves little to no this area. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION not have a problem with per se, the proposed enlargement room for landscape materials in In general, we feel that none of the proposed changes are positive. Staff recommends strongly against approving the deletion of the sidewalk along Vail Road. We need additional sidewalks in many areas of town, this certainly being one of them. At this time we are unable to support both the proposed patio expansion and the arcade deletion. Additional information regarding the impacts on the remaining landscape area has been requested. Given this additional information, it is felt that some compromise may be reached that would allow for increased patio space while at the same time providing for ample landscaped areas between the road and the patio. As far as the arcade enclosure is concerned, we feel that the arcade area serves well as a portion of the public plaza leading back to the interior plaza, and this space should not be further diminished in favor of retail. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Uptown Grill located in the Vail 21 Building. Applicants: Joel and Susan Fritz I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The owners of the Uptown Grill are requesting to locate an outdoor dining deck in the private plaza area to the south of the Uptown Grill. The dimensions of the outdoor dining area are approximately 24' x 26 The owners would like to use the patio year round weather permitting. The operating hours are 11:30 A.M. to dark, seven days per week. Their opinion is that the patio area is a positive improvement to the plaza, as "the oversized flower pots, large link chain and umbrella tables give a new life to an area that has been ignored and is in need of attention." The proposal is located in the Commercial Core II zone • district which requires that all outside dining patios are reviewed by the Planning Commission. 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. A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The staff agrees with the applicant that the proposal adds life to the plaza area. There are no specific Urban Design Guide Plan concepts that relate to the plaza. However, the proposal does support the Urban Design Considerations for decks and patios that state: E.l. 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. . E.2. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: sun, wind, views, pedestrian activity, and accessibility. B. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. These factors are not affected by the proposal. C. 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 p arking areas. -- Staff would ask that the applicants pull back the southwest corner of the patio area to create more space between the edge of the curb adjacent to the Lazier Arcade and the patio area. The existing dimension allows for only 9 feet between the curb and the corner of the dining space. The corner should be pulled back to allow for approximately 15 feet of open sidewalk • between the patio and curb. By pulling back the southwest corner by approximately 6 feet, it also becomes more evident that pedestrians can pass through the plaza around the west side of the patio. in respect to removal of with the property owners area. The owners of the approval from the Vail 2 owners to amend the snow the dining patio. snow, the Town has an agreement to remove snow from the plaza Uptown Grill will need to get L and Lionshead Arcade building removal agreement to allow for D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the p roposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. As stated previously, the staff believes that this proposal will have a very positive impact on the character of the area. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHEN PLAN 0 See comments relating to IIA. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. i V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: • 1. The southwest corner of the dining patio will be pulled back to allow for a 15 foot access way from the edge of the patio to the curb of the Lionshead Arcade. 2. The applicants will make the necessary changes to the snow removal agreement with the Town of Vail to allow for the patio in the winter time. Any changes to the snow removal agreement must be approved by the Lionshead Arcade property owner as well as the Vail 21 owner. 3. In the event that utility work is required in the area of the patio, the applicants agree to allow for the construction. At this time, however, staff is unaware of any utility easements in the plaza area (according to Lionshead lst Filing Subdivision and Lionshead Mall Base Map check). I S. Li�=_ - r . m TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Final review of the Elk Meadows Subdivision APPLICANT: Lamar Capital Corporation I. THE REQUEST The request is basically the same as the previous major subdivision review by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1987. Since the PEC's review, the following minor changes have been made to the project: 1. The number of dwelling units has been reduced from 9 to 7. 2. The mix of units has been changed from 2 duplex units and 5 single family units to 7 single family dwelling units. • 3. The GRFA per unit has changed from 1,777 square feet to 2,285 square feet. This change creates an increase in GRFA per unit, as the total number of dwelling units has been decreased. 4. The square footage for Tracts 1 and 2 and each of the 7 building envelopes has been adjusted in the following manner: Building Envelopes Original Proposed No. 1 .07 acres .0647 acres No. 2 .07 .0617 No. 3 .06 .0534 No. 4 .05 .0483 No. 5 .10 .0929 No. 6 .08 .0641 No. 7 .05 .0498 Tract 1 2.530 2.4190 open space and drainage easement Tract 2 .6927 .6927 Road and parking easement . 5. The design guidelines were amended by the Design Review Board in the following ways: Roof pitch shall be between 4:12 and 6:12. Roof materials shall be metal standing seam or a metal stamped California tile form and be either charcoal grey or dark navy blue in color. The guideline which related to decks and balconies has been omitted from the ordinance. 6. The following letters have been added to the environ- mental impact report: Letter from Mr. Don Pettigrove, P.E., 6/12/87 Letter from Mr. Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., 6/15/87 Letter from Mr. Don Pettigrove, P.E., 6/16/87 Letter from Mr. Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., 6/18/87 7. Additional landscaping has been added at the subdivision entrance, and the four guest parking spaces on the southwest portion of the site have been removed. 8. The Planning Commission's five conditions of approval have all been addressed by the applicant. 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 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. 9. The applicant has provided the Town of Vail with a cash amount of to cover the revegetation of the area around the roadway. In addition, this money may also be used to revegetate the access road if the general subdivision improvements are not • completed by September 1, 1989. 10. A variance is required for the road right -of -way (see attached memo). II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the major subdivision. We feel that the additional information and minor changes that reduce the density of the project are favorable. Our opinion is that the proposal meets the requirements set forth in the major subdivision criteria which were originally outlined in the June 8, 1987 staff memo. (Please see attached 6/8/87 PEC memo.) The applicant and staff will work out a dollar amount for #9. • 0 . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for a variance to the required 40 foot right -of- way width for a minor /private road. Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REOUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance from the required right -of -way width for a minor /private roadway which is 40 feet. A minor street or private street is defined as "those used primarily for direct access to properties abutting the right -of -way. Minor streets carry fewer vehicles than local streets. They do not carry through traffic." (Section 17.28.320) A minor street is distinguished from a driveway in that a driveway provides private access for one or two dwelling units. 0 The subdivision has been designed to provide the required paved width which is 22 feet for access into the subdivision. The 40 foot right -of -way width requirement is not met along a 70 foot length of the road in the southwest corner of the subdivision. The Phase III parcel is approximately 75 feet in width in this area. 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 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 staff finds that there will be no negative impacts from this variance on adjacent properties. An adequate buffer of approximately a minimum of 5 feet exists between the edge of the roadway easement and southern property line. It is felt that there is an adequate buffer area between the road easement and the property line and the adjacent property to the south. • 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 some relief from the 40 foot requirement is warranted due to the narrowness of the parcel and difficult site constraints related to the topography and geologically sensitive areas. A majority of the road can meet the 40 foot right -of -way width. The only area that is too constrained to allow for this right -of -way is in the southwest corner of the property. The portion of the road that does not meet the 40 foot right -of -way requirement is approximately 70 feet in length. Staff believes that some relief from the strict interpretation of the right -of -way agreement is warranted due to these constraints. 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 roadway has been designed in a manner which provides . safe access into the site. In addition, substantial turn - around areas for emergency vehicles have been designed to meet Town of Vail standards. The Town of Vail engineer has also recommended approval of the request and feels that there are no negative impacts from the variance. 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 difficulty 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 Staff recommends approval of the request based on the opinion that there are special circumstances which warrant the approval of the variance. • 40 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Amendments to Special Development District #16, Elk Meadows Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation On July 7, 1987, the ordinance approving the Special Development District for Elk Meadows was given final approval by the Town Council. The Planning Commission may approve minor changes to a special development district. The requested changes to Special Development District #16 are listed below: Oriainal SDD Units 9 Type 2 duplex, 5 single family GRFA: 1,777 per unit Proposed Amendments 7 7 single family units 2,285 per unit Essentially, the applicant is requesting to decrease the density of the subdivision. The total unit number is being decreased from 9 to 7 units. 10 units are actually allowed under the original zone designation. The project would have 7 single dwelling units instead of 2 duplex units plus 5 single family units. The GRFA for the project would change to 2,285 square feet for each single family unit instead of 1,777 GRFA per unit. The total GRFA allowed for the project is 16,000 square feet. The total GRFA proposed would be 15,995 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendments. Our opinion is that the decrease in density should be viewed as a positive improvement due to the sensitivity of this site. Attached to this memo is the revised Special Development District #16 ordinance. Please note that additions have been typed in all capital letters and underlined. A line is drawn through portions of the ordinance that will be omitted. The original ordinance creating the SDD is also attached to this memo for comparison purposes. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 14, 1987 2:00 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of August 10 and 24. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Kowloon Restaurant located at the West Vail Mall. Applicant: Kowloon Restaurant 3. A request to amend a conditional use permit for the Westin Ho lift at the Cascade Village. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd. 4. A request to amend SDD #6, Vail Village Inn, to partially enclose an arcade and to add a dining patio, modifying the approved circulation plan. Applicant: Josef Staufer • 5. A work session to review a request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary /Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose 6. A request for a decision on the amount of parking required for Buffehr Creek Park on Lot 40, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. A request to amend Section 18.04.200 of the Municipal Code, the definition of landscape. Applicant: Town of Vail PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 September 14, 1987 PRESENT Diana Donovan Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack ABSENT J.J. Collins Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins The meeting was called to order at 3:30 PM by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of August 10 and August 24. Diana Donovan moved and Sid Schultz seconded to approve the minutes with the addition of the absent members on August 24. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of approval. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Kowloon Restaurant located in • the West Vail Mall. Applicant: Kowloon Restaurant Kristan Pritz requested to table this item until 9/28. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to table. The vote was 4 -0. 3. A reauest to amend a conditional use permit for the Westin Ho lift at the Cascade Village. Applicant: Vail Ventures Ltd Kristan Pritz showed the site plan with the originally approved entrance and a site plan of the amended proposal. She reviewed the criteria and findings and stated that the staff recommended approval with three conditions. Andy Norris explained that Vail Ventures had hired Weingard Engineers to design the entry from the Frontage Road. Weingard stated that the only feasible way to design the entry would be with a speed limit on the Frontage Road of 35 mph along the length of Cascade Village. However, the Colorado Division of Highways planned this area to be 45 mph, so Vail Ventures was requesting a new design from Weingard Engineers. Due to the difference of opinion between the developer and Highway Department, the Frontage Road improvements will not be constructed this year. In the meantime, an interim plan for the transit mall and permission to postpone the Frontage Road improvements until the spring of 1988 were requested as 0 amendments to the original approval. Sid felt it was unfortunate that there were problems solving the speed limit. He added that the staff seemed to have taken care of his concerns. Peggy wondered why the Town of Vail bus drop -off would first be placed in the cul -de -sac and later moved. Andy answered that there was presently a landscaped berm in the place where the Town of Vail bus drop -off would be located permanently. Andy said he wanted to keep the berm through the winter. Stan Berryman, director of the Public Works department, stated that the Town would have to monitor the traffic in the area. Andy agreed to fund a Town of Vail employee to monitor traffic. Kristan added that one of the conditions of approval was that the applicant furnish a letter of credit to cover the costs of creating a new Town of Vail bus drop -off area per the approved final plan. Andy replied that the problem with furnishing a letter of credit was that it was not possible to know the costs for another 60 days, and it was important to begin construction soon. He suggested that the ultimate control the Town had was the use of the lift and the letter of credit could be required before opening the lift. Stan stated that the attendant TOV employee to enforce codes. better. Andy was concerned th, unless it was necessary. Stan would only be needed from 8 :30 5:00 PM. at the bus drop -off should be a He felt that this would work at there not be an attendant thought perhaps the attendant AM TO 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM to Diana moved and Sid seconded to approve the request to amend the conditional use permit per the following conditions: 1. Three street lights shall be included in the interim proposal per the original approved plans. 2. A letter of credit (the amount to be approved by the Town Engineer) will be submitted before the opening of the ski lift which shall cover costs for creating a new Town of Vail bus drop -off area per the approved final plan. The letter of credit shall be conditioned in such a way that if a building permit for the entire transit mall is not released by the Town of Vail to the applicant by July 1, 1988, the Town of Vail may use the money to construct the bus stop per the original approved plan. 3. Due to the fact that the design for the Town of Vail bus drop -off area in the interim plan was not finalized at the time of writing this memo, a condition of approval will be that the Town of Vail Public Works Department shall have final approval over the design of the bus drop -off area. At this time, the owner has verbally proposed steel bollards with appropriate signage to separate the drop -off 2 area. This design must be approved by the Public Works department before construction may begin on the interim plan. Any substantial change in aesthetics will require a return to the Planning Commission.B • r 1 LJ 4. Funds shall be set aside by the applicant to cover a Town of Vail staff person to direct traffic to make sure TOV buses have access to the drop -off. The applicant shall reimburse the Town for the costs. 5. This approval shall only be for the 1987 -88 ski season. The Frontage Road improvements and original approved transit mall are required to be constructed in the Summer /Fall of 1988. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 4. A request to amend SDD #6, Vail Village Inn, to partially enclose an arcade and to add a dining patio, modifying the approved circulation plan. Applicants Joseph Staufer Peter Patten explained that this item was a continuation of items from the previous meeting. The two issues remaining were a request to enclose the arcade adding more square footage to the retail space, and modifying the circulation plan by adding a dining patio. The staff recommendation for the enclosure of the arcade was for denial. Peter then showed the original approved plan for the southwest corner where the proposed patio was to be, with 21 feet of landscaping between the building and the roadway. He also showed the Board the revised plan with a reduction in landscaping per the request. Peter stressed that the staff, after working with the applicant, would only agree to the proposal if there would be a guarantee of at least 8 feet of landscaping from East Meadow Drive to the patio /walkway area. He added that the staff preferred a ramp to a stairway, but the applicant had informed him that there was not enough room for a ramp. The staff also required a 6 foot pedestrian easement. Joe Staufer, the applicant, stated that he could not agree with the staff decision on the arcade. He did not want more retail space, but felt the tenants under the arcade would want their windows closer to the pedestrians. He felt that retail which was separated from the pedestrian was not viable retail. Joe showed photos of other buildings in the core which had removed arcades. Staufer felt that the arcade was planned originally to widen the space between the buildings. In the meantime, the building was constructed 5 -6 feet to the west, therefore Joe felt that the arcade was no longer necessary. . Peggy asked Saundra Smith, architect for Gordon Pierce, to explain the distances. Peggy stated that being a retail shop owner herself, she felt it was difficult to attract pedestrians if windows were recessed very far. She suggested perhaps a couple feet of recess which would bring the windows closer to the pedestrians, but still give relief to the building facade. Joe said his opinion was that with so many angles on the building, the facade did not look like a straight wall. He felt that one year from now the tenants would be back with the request to eliminate the arcade. Diana had no problem with adding more commercial space elsewhere on site, but felt the arcade was created to give relief to the facade. She stated that developers of other arcades that had been enclosed had provided other architectural features to serve the purpose of what the arcade had provided in relief to facades. She added that when considering an SDD, the Board could ask more of the applicant. Sid could not support enclosing the entire arcade. He felt that a fair amount of the arcade would get sun. He added that the amount of open space between the buildings needed to relate to the rest of the building and to the future buildings. He agreed with Diana and Peggy that a portion of the arcade could be enclosed to gain relief to the facade. 1 0 Jim Viele abstained from comment and from voting. Peter said the staff feels enclosing the arcade would produce a Lionshead effect and the building would lose its human scale. Peggy asked if Staufer would like to table the item and reevaluate the request, and Joe said that he would not. Diana moved and Sid seconded to disapprove the request to enclose the arcade. The vote was 3 -0 -1 with Viele abstaining. The dining patio was then discussed. Joe stated that the ramp that was proposed by the staff was not feasible. Peter asked that the height of the stairs be reduced. He stated that on the site the area looked even more narrow than on the revised drawings. He asked Saundra if she was totally comfortable with the 8 foot width. She felt the drawings were accurate. Joe stated that the space may be tight, but the conditions would change when the intersection was changed to add more landscaping. Peter explained that the pedestrian walkway would go next to the building and would be a public easement six feet wide and the staff was requesting an easement dedication before • the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was obtained. ►I i Diana moved and Sid seconded to approve the dining patio and the changes to the circulation plan per the staff memo which would include the following conditions: 1. A minimum 8 foot landscaped area must be maintained between the deck and the street. 2. A 6 foot wide easement shall be formally dedicated to the Town before a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued, for a pedestrian throughway from the westerly sidewalk to East Meadow Drive. 3. The staff will work with the applicant concerning the stairs on the west side. The vote was 2 -1 -1 with Peggy against and Jim abstaining. 5. A work session to review a request for a minor subdivision to create two PrimaryZSecondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4 Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose Rick Pylman explained the request. He reviewed the general criteria used in evaluating an application of this type. Bill 40 Pierce, representing the applicants, felt that the proposed lots would meet the criteria. He added that there are many trees on the lot and the lower house would not be seen from the street because of the large evergreens. He compared the lot to that of Kiatipes in East Vail. Pierce stated that only three other lots in the area were large enough to be subdivided, but each had other constraints which would prevent their being subdivided. He added that 15 % -20% of the Primary /Secondary sites in the area were under 15,000. Ben Rose, the applicant, asked the board for consistency and repeated some of Pierce's points. Art Abplanalp, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Ramsberg, owners of the lot west of the subject property, stated that the Ramsbergs were in favor of the subdivision as long as the second of the two proposals were accepted and the homes were not "too close" to the lot lines. Art added that they would also like to see assurances that the existing residence which is a 4 -plex is demolished as a condition of approval. John Webb, attorney representing Dr. Ehlein who owns Lots 4 and 6 on Beaver Dam Circle, spoke in opposition to the subdivision request and felt the addition of more density was not consistent with the basic character of the neighborhood. Gary Bossow felt that the existing structure did not fit in and a new structure would be an improvement. Barb Mooney, a Forest 5 • • Road resident, spoke against the request, stating that the area did not need four dwellings on one lot and felt that there was nothing wrong with the existing building. Bob Irwin, who lives at 486 Forest Road registered strenuous objections. He felt that the area should not be compared to East Vail in appearance. Diana Williamson, an area resident, did not want to see a precedent set. She felt it would destroy the beauty that was important to Vail. She added that the DRB had her keep a pond which cost them money. Gunther Hofler of 466 Forest Road spoke against the proposal. He wondered if the 4 -plex was run as a bed and breakfast, and Ben Rose answered that it was short term rental. Maryann Mullin, a realtor, spoke in favor of the proposal and felt the property would be upgraded. She added that the other 3 lots which were large enough to subdivide had other problems which would preclude their requesting a subdivision. Bob Irwin asked for the history on how the property became a 4- plex and Rick recalled that it was originally constructed in the County with four units. Irwin gave more information and disagreed with Rick. Peter stated that the staff did a lot of leg work and asked the residents for information, but had no documents. He added that the County recorded a four -plex, and it was all the information that the staff had. Ken Robins of 154 Beaver Dam Road objected to the density change and did not feel the upgrading of the building was a valid argument for the subdivision. Bill Pierce, architect for the project, stated that it did not appear that any variances would be needed. He felt that two Primary /Secondary lots would be more conforming than the existing four -plea. He felt the uses and lots sizes were compatible with the neighborhood. Ron Byrne at 154 Beaver Dam Road was strongly opposed to the density increase. Art Abplanalp wondered if the proposal would resolve the parking issue near the road. He felt the Ramsburgs were the most affected, and they favored the request. Peggy felt she needed more information in order to feel comfortable that there would not be any variances required. She also wanted to know more about average and mean sizes of the lots in the total area, and also which other lots would be large enough to request subdivision. She wanted to know which of the two proposals would be completed, and Bill Pierce told her it would be Plan B. Diana had many concerns, and felt that Forest Road was getting crowded. She did not feel the fact that the the present building was in need of upgrading was a reason to subdivide. n • • Diana felt it was risky to keep building larger and larger buildings. She added that additional square footage meant more bodies, that 4 units were being changed to 4 large units. she added that Kiatipes was a unique situation because there was public land on two sides. Diana felt the proposal might meet the subdivision criteria, but not the intent of the zoning code and she wanted more facts. Sid asked if the access easement was counted in the 15,000 square feet of buildable area. Ben said it was. Sid's biggest concern was the staff's comment that it would not be compatible with the surroundings. Viele agreed with Sid and felt it must agree with the criteria. 6. A request for a decision on the amount of parking re_uq fired for Buffehr Creek Park on Lot 40, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz gave the background of the park and stated that the Design Review Board felt parking should be provided in the park. Kristan added that Mrs. Brandess, owner of the Brandess Building was not interested in combining the Brandess Building parking area with the parking area for the park as she did not want to grant a permanent access easement. Brian O'Reilly, representing Mrs. Brandess, read Section 18.32.140 which states that off-street parking shall be provided. He stated that Mrs. Brandess was not interested in providing an easement through her property. He felt the PEC should require 4 to 6 parking spaces with some minimal differentiation between the two parking lots. Cynthia Steitz, a resident at 1884 Buffehr Creek Road suggested that the town put the park in and wait to see if parking was needed. She would prefer to see mere open space with a sign and no picnic tables. Marka Moser, another nearby resident, stated that she only wanted the weeds cut down and nothing more. Peggy wondered if the park was only for the immediate neighborhood and Peter said it was not designed to be only for the immediate neighborhood, but would be a Town park with more of a local emphasis. Peggy pointed out that it sounded as though Cynthia and Marka wanted only open space. Cynthia added that if picnic tables required parking spaces, she would be happy to do without picnic tables. Kristan pointed out that the Town was not doing very much in the way of improvements, merely irrigation for seeding, with additional shade trees. Peggy felt that if this was a park used in the West Vail area, it would only be reasonable to have a facility that encourages others to use it, and it would be unrealistic to assume that everyone could walk or bike to the park. She felt a minimum number of parking spaces should be provided. • • Jim Viele agreed. He felt the real issue was, "Who is the park for ?" Jim felt a minimum number of parking spaces was mandatory. Arthur Kasparitis, a nearby resident, stated that to his knowledge, part of the Brandess parking lot was on Town property. He asked if the money would not be available for a later time if it was not used now, and was told that was correct. Marka was concerned that the only access would be from the Frontage Road, and the Highway Department might not allow a Department would approve a road cut. Diana suggested asking Mrs. Brandess for a temporary easement across her parking lot, and Brian O'Reilly felt she might agree to this. He added that in any case, the law states that there must be parking provided on the park site. Peggy did not see why the park work could not move forward and build the parking spaces in the spring. Brian repeated that any approvals given that did not provide parking spaces were illegal. Viele felt adequate parking was important. Peggy moved that the PEC require four parking spaces to be constructed in the spring, and the other improvements to be done this fall. Sid seconded and the vote was 4 -0 in favor. 7. A request to amend Section 18.04.200 of the Municipal Code, which deals with the definition of "landscape." Applicant: Town of Vail Rick Pylman stated that this would be a recommendation to Town Council. He pointed out that the Primary /Secondary zone district was not included in the section relating to the percentage of required landscape. Also not included was the new zone district, Hillside Residential. Diana moved and Sid seconded to approve the new wording to include P/S and Hillside zoning in Section 18.04.200. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. The meeting adjourned at 6 :00 PM. U i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 14, 1987 SUBJECT: Amendments to SDD #6, Vail Village Inn Applicant: Josef Stau£er A number of amendments were requested at the last Planning Commission meeting relating to the development plan for the Vail Village Inn. Two of these requests were tabled to this meeting. These are: 1. The development of additional retail space on the east end of the Phase V building by infilling the previously approved arcade. 2. Expansion of a patio area at the southwest corner of the site. As was discussed at the last meeting, the requested amendments do not change the overall substance of the approved development plan. For this reason, the amendments may be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Action by the Town Council will not be • required unless the decision of the Commission is appealed or called up to the Council. I. STAFF COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Request for Additional Retail Space It is recognized that, from a purely retail standpoint, a tenant in this space of the building would prefer to have the store front extended to the plane of the building. However, in reviewing this request, one must consider the relationship of this space to the overall development plan for the Vail Village Inn. The arcade developed as a result of a trade -off proposed in relating the location of this building with respect to Phases I and II. This area is seen as an entry way to the main plaza of the project. The arcade was offered as a trade -off in exchange for positioning the building as close as it is to the existing Phases I and II. It is important that a significant amount of space be maintained as an entry point to the Village Inn plaza area. The area in question amounts to only a fe square feet of additional retail space. large amount of retail space in the Vail project as a whole, it seems this should considered a relatively small issue. The w hundred Given the Village Inn be infill of . the arcade would result in trading off a public space for the benefit of increased retail square footage. It is not felt that this trade -off is in the interest of the public. B. Extension of the patio at the southwest corner This element of the plan was discussed at length at the last meeting. The main concern of the Planning Commission was that the area be accessible and usable by the public. Since that time, the staff has had discussions with the applicant and owner. At that time, the owner of the project agreed to ensure public access through the patio. This should be done as a formally recorded pedestrian easement. It is the feeling of the staff that a width of 6 to 8 feet is adequate to provide for the pedestrian flow in this area. It is irrelevant to the staff whether this walkway be adjacent to the building or on the outside perimeter of the patio area. Additional site visits have been made to this project to review the plans that have been submitted for the patio expansion. It is our finding that the drawings we have been working with do not accurately indicate what is in the field. The area between the proposed . patio expansion and the edge of the street along East Meadow Drive appears to be two to three feet narrower than indicated on plan. This discrepancy is critical given the impact the patio has in reducing the landscaped area at this corner of the site. The staff and applicant have conducted last - minute negotiations to resolve this problem. Basically, we have agreed to a minimum of 8 feet of landscaped area at the narrowest point between the rock wall of the outdoor patio and the edge of existing concrete. Also, we strongly prefer a ramp on the western connection of sidewalk up to the building. The applicant's proposal is attached. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As stated, the staff cannot support the infill of the arcade. This element was proposed as a part of a negotiated overall development plan. It is important to maintain the integrity of that plan by preserving this arcade element. With regard to the southwest corner, we're willing to allow a reduction in landscaped area so that an outdoor patio can be constructed under the following conditions. 1. A minimum 8 foot landscaped area must be maintained between the deck and the street 2. A 6 foot wide easement shall be formally dedicated to the Town for a pedestrian throughway from the westerly sidewalk to East Meadow Drive. 3. A ramp of at least 6 feet in width shall be constructed on the west wide of the building as part of the walkway. r� U -'t• To: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department September 14, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a decision on the number of parking spaces required for Buffehr Creek Park on Lot 40, Buffehr Creek Subdivision Applicant: Town of Vail I. THE REQUEST The Town staff is requesting that the PEC determine if parking is required for Buffehr Creek Park. If parking is required by the PEC, the appropriate number of spaces will also need to be determined. According to the zoning code, in Section 18.52.100, parking for recreational facilities (public or private) shall be required and the amount shall be determined by the Planning Commission. ii. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST In the spring of 1986, Buffehr Creek residents asked the Town council to improve Lot 40 by adding landscaping and picnic areas. Construction includes site grading, irrigation, 3 picnic tables, 1 bike rack and landscaping. Recently, the Town Council allocated money to complete park improvements. The parcel is .8 acres of predominantly flat, undeveloped land located east of the Brandess Building and north of the Town of Vail bike path and North Frontage Road. The staff presented this proposal to the Design Review Board at their meeting on August 19, 1987. The Design Review Board believed that parking should be required at this park. it was felt that even though the park is a neighborhood park, it will be used by people who do not necessarily live within walking distance of the site. Their suggestion was that approximately four spaces be located on the southwest corner of the site. The Board also felt that it was appropriate to proceed with construction of the park this fall and add the parking in the spring. Their concern was that the parking be constructed in time for summer use in 1988. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Town staff proposes that parking not be required for the park at this time. We are requesting to proceed with park construction and to allow for the use of the park during the summer of 1988 to determine if there is a need for any parking. Our request is based on the opinion that this park will be used predominantly by local neighborhood people and will be accessed by people walking or biking to the park. In addition, the site is quite small, and a parking area will take up a significant area of the park. If it is determined that parking is necessary, it would be constructed the following year (spring /summer of 1989). r - 1 U • 5 ���v��.- e...,� Q�� ��/Vt�f`�- 1►._0�`1 i/1�.� -.y� l �- � • CJ r1 ! 'Y��4lt/t..2 - �::t�"''" 1 OA-i 9 J a e r�- �- • A , A lly- -�. r y 3 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 14, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to revise a conditional use permit approval relating to the Cascade transit mall to allow for an interim transit mall design, 1300 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd., Montane Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST On June 9, 1986, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit for a ski lift and transit mall at Cascade Village. Presently, the lift is under construction. The applicants are requesting to amend the approved design for the transit facility due to problems in agreeing upon required Frontage Road improvements with the Colorado Division of Highways. Originally, the transit mall included: 1. A separated bus shelter and drop -off area for Town of Vail buses n u 2. Expanded vehicle turn- around 3. Cuing area for shuttle vans 4. Water feature in the turn - around area 5. Three street lights 6. 32 foot wide street that required repaving plus new curb and gutter improvements The interim proposal includes: 1. building the turn - around -area per the approved plan, 2. providing a bus stop in the turn - around area, 3. decreasing the street width (paved area) from 36' to 28' 4. constructing the curb and gutter system per the approved plan on the west side of the access road into Cascade Village 5. adding a rock traffic island. The separated Town of Vail Bus drop -off area, transportation van cuing area, street lighting and water feature have been removed temporarily from the proposal. . The owner's intent is to complete the transit mall per the original approved plan in the spring of 1988. This will require that the Colorado Highway Department negotiations proceed and that an agreement is reached on the Frontage Road improvements. 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 Town would definitely prefer to see the complete transit mall constructed at this time. It is felt that the transit mall and a left turn lane off the Frontage Road are absolutely necessary to the successful functioning of the lift and traffic circulation through the project. However, it would be difficult for the applicant to construct the transit mall without, at the same time, building the Frontage • Road improvements due to the inter - connectedness of the two project areas. It is unfortunate that negotiations with the Colorado State Highway Department have run into difficulties. As a result, the Town staff has tried to work with the developer to arrive at a temporary transit mall design that will function as well as possible for this winter 1987 -88. In general, the proposed plan will function better than what now exists on the site. For this reason, the staff feels that it is necessary to state that the development objectives of the Town are met by this proposal, but in no way are the development objectives met as fully as they could be through the final plan. 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 new ski lift will create a demand for improved traffic circulation through Cascade Village. Transit mall improvements are absolutely critical to ensuring that the lift and general traffic patterns through Cascade Village will function well. It would be short sighted to not allow for this interim plan, as the end result would be that no improvements would be made this year. . As was stated in the previous memo, the expansion of the shuttle drop -off area for Town of Vail buses and the large drop -off area for private shuttles are improvements that will facilitate public transportation access to the lift. Staff feels that it is very important that the Town of Vail have a separate bus drop -off area that would be protected from private cars and shuttles dropping skiers off to allow for easy public access on the Town of Vail bus system. The new traffic circle is of a considerable size (approx 110' in diameter) and should be able to handle the shuttle van drop -off traffic. The bus drop -off area is proposed to be separated from the remainder of the traffic by steel bollards and appropriate signage. At this time, Public Works must still approve the final design of this drop -off area, but it is felt that a solution can be reached. In addition, the rock median and reduced dimensions of the road will funnel traffic into the appropriate lanes. 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. Although this solution is not ideal, it does improve upon what exists on the site. The enlarged turn- around (designed in the original proposal) will provide an adequate area for shuttle vans to drop off skiers. The restricted Town bus drop -off area should help alleviate conflicts with private vehicles. Generally, staff's opinion is that the proposal is an improvement over what is on site. Our desire is to see the final transit mall plan as previously approved be constructed next spring. 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. There should be no major impacts on the general character of the area. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not applicable. • IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. • V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 0 1. Three street lights will be included in the proposal per the original approved plan. 2. A letter of credit (the amount to be approved by the Town Engineer) will be submitted before any construction will occur on Westhaven Drive which shall cover costs for creating a new Town of Vail bus drop -off area per the approved final plan. The letter of credit shall be conditioned in such a way that if a building permit for the entire transit mall is not released by the Town of Vail to the applicant by July 1, 1988, the Town of Vail may use the money to construct the bus stop per the original approved plan. 3. Due to the fact that the final design for the Town of Vail bus drop -off area in the interim plan was not finalized at the time of writing this memo, a condition of approval will be that the Town of Vail Public Works Department shall have final approval over the design of the bus drop -off area. At this time, the owner has verbally proposed steel bollards with appropriate signage to separate the drop -off area. This design must be approved by Public Works before construction may begin on the interim plan. • FRONTAGE ROAD Aflobvi J �[� 00 r • — —`— a m b nov m N 0 / ^ o q rn�x _m x o cr mR o �zsti ,n � rn gc 0 r A m •^ o Y X�I \ \I c �1 C�1 s. 0 0 i Pro COQ p v C) O QVo 90 ...}0 � - N9 m .y v mo z � Nm r�0 1 1 r Art n M rn f m N o � a / ^ � Lit` 65 t1' A 1 1 �zsti a� s�x�m 0 r A Art n M rn f o � a - � t I z — � U r 1 1 C rte' Fl <rq I o � ^- 1 1 3p p a � O � T . S .1 h 1 I r 1 1 O 1 5 W � `I a } O m • EXISTIN VALLEY PAN 1 VEW EDGE OF PAV EMENT EXISTING 1 5 1 HTER m� x w ai I A � a Z y a c n y m A n v= y zo m rn _x N N 0 28 I 3 ! y m m . m II r m b in O y 1 _ rn IO N r o rn t . o g o� m m \C c y J ` A n D m m 1 I W m ' a � � n r / m m O CrF o n � ` 15a p r a z 0 1 rn f r J N A " c A m q OD r w o J I i \ j 0 0 < n f*1 D \ t p \ m _o x v \ o \ o \ � m � y ^' o \ a \ K y N � C y m N rn � m A m a r m m n � r a In � = p m O x rn 2 b a m o b O m N m rn o y A N P � = a r -}SAN 0 z n m� �^ n ul y O z o \ m y � H na /yD P y� P b JJ b � N O c y � � K x � y � a � C V m O = x � x 0 m \C � r ` A m mm mN 1 l L .rom a o \ m y � H na /yD P y� P b JJ b � N O c y � � K x � y � a � C V m O = x � x 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 14, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.04.200 of the Municipal code Applicant: Town of Vail I. THE REQUEST Various zone districts as identified in the Town of Vail Municipal Code have a development requirement relating to the percentage of the site that must be landscaped. Section 18.04.200 of the Municipal Code defines the term, "landscaping." For the purposes of the definition, existing native vegetation shall be deemed landscaping only in the Single Family, Two Family Residential, Residential Cluster and Low Density Multi - Family districts. The intent of utilizing a definition such as this is to ensure that high density and commercial uses received a cultivated, urban type of landscape treatment that would be appropriate to that scale of development. The native vegetation is allowable for landscaping only in the low density districts- -the Single Family, the Two Family Residential, the Residential Cluster and the Low Density Multiple Family districts where that type of vegetation is appropriate as landscaping for that type of development. The Town of Vail recently introduced a new zone district to the Municipal Code. The Hillside Residential zone district originated through the Land Use Plan study and is a low density, environmentally sensitive hillside type of development. The staff feels strongly that the intent of this type of development was to create as little disturbance as possible to the site and to leave as much as the native vegetation as possible. During review of this definition and proposed amendment we also realized that the Primary /Secondary zone district is not included in the category that allows native vegetation to be deemed as landscaping. The proposal is to amend Section 18.04.200 to include both the Hillside Residential and Primary /Secondary Residential zone districts in the portion of the definition that allows native vegetation to be deemed landscaping in order to meet the development requirements of the zone district. The new definition would read as follows: • 0 18.04.200 Landscaping "Landscaping" means planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flower beds and ground cover, together with the core developments such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying more than 20% of a landscaped area. For the purposes of this title, natural or significant rock outcroppings, trees or native vegetation shall be deemed landscaping in a Single Family, Two Family Residential, Residential Cluster, Low Density Multi - Family, Hillside Residential, and Primary /Secondary Residential zone districts. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of this request. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 14, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary /Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose This work session has been scheduled to allow the applicants an opportunity to discuss this proposed subdivision with the Planning Commission. While a formal application has been made, other alternatives are under consideration by the applicant. It was felt that a work session would provide the applicant with information concerning the Planning Commission's reaction to this proposal. Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing is presently a Primary /Secondary zoned lot of 31,795 square feet. The proposed subdivision would create two Primary /secondary lots on this parcel. • I. REVIEW CRITERIA There are two general criteria that are used in evaluating an application of this type. The first of these involve quantitative standards that must be met in order to satisfy minimum lot size requirements. Among other things, these standards require 15,000 square feet of buildable site area, 30 feet of frontage along a right -of- way, and a proposed lot must be capable of accommodating an 80 foot square within its perimeter. The other standards relate to a provision of the subdivision regulations that is intended to evaluate whether or not it makes sense to create a new lot (from a planning, design, and environmental standpoint). The wording of this subdivision regulation is 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 related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environ- mental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Review by the Planning Commission is the final action needed for an application of this type. II. The staff has had a number of meetings with the applicant concerning this proposal. While it has been demonstrated that one of the alternatives under consideration has met the quantifiable standards, additional information is needed to confirm that the other alternative complies with the minimum site standards. Regardless, the staff has indicated a number of concerns related to this subdivision. These include the following: 1. How is vehicular access being accommodated to both lots? 2. Is this parcel capable of accommodating twice the density that is presently allowed, and is the resulting development compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? 3. Can the lot be developed as proposed while • maintaining the mature vegetation as well as the un- disturbed natural features at the north end of the lot? 4. Is it reasonable to assume that the two lots could be developed without the need for setback variances? How is the status of the existing structure on the lot affected by the proposed subdivision? III. COMPARABLE PROPOSALS There have been three other proposals that are somewhat analogous to this application. These include the following: 1. Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn 3rd Filing. This subdivision created two Single Family lots on what was one large Primary /Secondary Lot. The net result was no increase in the total number of units on the site, and with a nominal increase in total GRFA. The site was fairly unencumbered in terms of accessibility and other site planning considerations. 2. Resubdivision of Pitkin Creek Meadows resulted in two . large Primary /Secondary lots being subdivided into a total of three Primary /Secondary lots. This application was unique in that previous attempts had been made to subdivide the property in 1979. At that time the minimum lot size was 17,500 square feet. Following the reduction in the required lot size, this application was approved by the Planning Commission last year. 3. The Tennenbaum subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission this past spring. This created two Single Family lots and one Primary /Secondary lot on what were two Primary /Secondary lots. This subdivision included restrictions on GRFA and did not increase the total number of units on the property. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While the staff does not have a formal recommendation at this time, we have significant concerns with the proposed subdivision of this lot into two Primary /Secondary parcels. In question is the lot's ability to handle this additional density, its ability to provide reasonable access to both lots, and the lack of compatibility with development on surrounding parcels. Other concerns relative to this proposal will be expressed at the work session on Monday. H. L indle y Grubbs a_elo ru, ') Post Office Box Vail, Colorado e1ese (303)476 -5601 42 �J TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM Community Development Department DATE: September 14,1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Kowloon Restaurant located at the West Vail Mall. Applicant: Kowloon Restaurant I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The owners of the Kowloon Restaurant are requesting to locate three dining tables in the grass area in front of their restaurant at the West Vail Mall. The split rail fencing would be extended to enclose the dining area. (Please see site plan.) Kowloon envisions use of this area during mild and summer weather. The proposal is located in the Commercial Core III. zone district which requires that all business operations conducted outdoors be reviewed by the Planning Commission through a conditional use process. • II. CRITERIA AND FINDI 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. In general, the staff believes that outdoor dining patios are consistent with the development objectives of the Town. The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, uti.lities schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. These factors are not affected by the proposal. . 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 The sidewalk extending along the building will be blocked off in order to create the enclosure around the dining area. Sidewalk access to other shops will not be changed. There will be no other impacts on the factors listed above. Effect upon the character of the use is to be located including t in which the proposed le and hii1k of thr+ III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMEN OF THE COMPREHENSIVE i.W.R Not applicable. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems • applicable to the proposed use. V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the owners comply with all appropriate Liquor Board regulations for outside dining patios. No impacts related to these factors. N - m • I]. J Q J r � uj > a cn w h z w 2 w N a • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 14, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to revise a conditional use permit approval relating to the Cascade transit mall to allow for an interim transit mall design, 1300 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd., Montane Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST On June 9 1986, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit for a ski lift and transit mall at Cascade Village. Presently, the lift is under construction. The applicants are requesting to amend the approved design for the transit facility due to problems in agreeing upon required Frontage Road improvements with the Colorado Division of Highways. Originally, the transit mall included: 1. A separated bus shelter and drop -off area for Town of Vail buses • 2. Expanded vehicle turn - around 3. Cuing area for shuttle vans 4. Water feature in the turn - around area 5. Three street lights 6. 32 foot wide street that required repaving plus new curb and gutter improvements The interim proposal includes: I. building the turn - around -area per the approved plan, 2. providing a bus stop in the turn - around area, 3. decreasing the street width (paved area) from 36' to 28' 4. constructing the curb and gutter system per the approved plan on the west side of the access road into Cascade Village 5. adding a rock traffic island. The separated Town of Vail Bus drop -off area, transportation van cuing area, street lighting and water feature have been removed temporarily from the proposal. The owner's intent is to complete the transit mall, per the original approved plan in the spring of 1988. This will require that the Colorado Highway Department negotiations proceed and that an agreement is reached on the Frontage Road improvements. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS r 1 LJ 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 ob of the Town. The Town would definitely prefer to see the complete transit mall constructed at this time. It is felt that the transit mall and a left turn lane off the Frontage Road are absolutely necessary to the successful functioning of the lift and traffic circulation through the project. However, it would be difficult for the applicant to construct the transit mall without, at the same time, building the Frontage Road improvements due to the inter - connectedness of the two project areas. It is unfortunate that negotiations with the Colorado State Highway Department have run into difficulties. As a result, the Town staff has tried to work with the developer to arrive at a temporary transit mall design that will function as well as possible for this winter 1987 -88. In general, the proposed plan will function better than what now exists on the site. For this reason, the staff feels that it is necessary to state that the development objectives of the Town are met by this proposal, but in no way are the development objectives met as fully as they could be through the final plan. 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 new ski lift will create a demand for improved traffic circulation through Cascade Village. Transit mall improvements are absolutely critical to ensuring that the lift and general traffic patterns through Cascade Village will function well. It would be short sighted to not allow for this interim plan, as the end result would be that no improvements would be made this year. As was stated in the previous memo, the expansion of the shuttle drop -off area for Town of Vail buses and the large drop -off area for private shuttles are improvements that will facilitate public transportation access to the lift. Staff feels that it is very important that the Town of Vail have a separate bus drop -off area that would be protected from private cars and shuttles dropping skiers off to allow for easy public access on the Town of Vail bus system. The new traffic circle is of a considerable size (approx 110' in diameter) and should be able to handle the shuttle van drop -off traffic. The bus drop -off area is proposed to be separated from the remainder of the traffic by steel bollards and appropriate signage. At this time, Public Works must still approve the final design of this drop -off area, but it is felt that a solution can be reached. In addition, the rock median and reduced dimensions of the road will funnel traffic into the appropriate lanes. 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. Although this solution is not ideal, it does improve upon what exists on the site. The enlarged turn - around (designed in the original proposal) will provide an adequate area for shuttle vans to drop off skiers. The restricted Town bus drop -off area should help alleviate conflicts with private vehicles. Generally, staff's opinion is that the proposal is an improvement over what is on site. Our desire is to see the final transit mall plan as previously approved be constructed next spring. Effect upon the character of the area in which the prop 0 use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. sed There should be no major impacts on the general character of the area. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS O THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not applicable. • IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. • V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Three street lights will be included in the proposal per the original approved plan. 2. A letter of credit (the amount to be approved by the Town Engineer) will be submitted before any construction will occur on Westhaven Drive which shall cover costs for creating a new Town of Vail bus drop -off area per the approved final plan. The letter of credit shall be conditioned in such a way that if a building permit for the entire transit mall is not released by the Town of Vail to the applicant by July 1, 1988, the Town of Vail may use the money to construct the bus stop per the original approved plan. 3. Due to the fact that the final design for the Town of Vail bus drop -off area in the interim plan was not finalized at the time of writing this memo, a condition of approval will be that the Town of Vail Public Works Department shall have final approval over the design of the bus drop -off area. At this time, the owner has verbally proposed steel bollards with appropriate signage to separate the drop -off area. This design must be approved by Public Works before construction may begin on the interim plan. • • • i k ites FRONTAGE ROAD�� i Oyy cn pP � dmn � >o oA o p 9 UO3 r N�� mbd S� r S rn -a { - ii - o . • / - . cp \ z � �G i \ v \ \ VVV i ' V ° o �` Z r N m� m � oov x A c �x m. 0 z� t C � m - -- i 7/(FVTu9ET l r 1 1 L , T Y!L�fUTuRe) I 1 ' I - U m IP I - � n I i x � } u C ' a ♦ t rn \ \ _ J � 1 1 „� 5 fG�i1+D ,G— A ;n . ma n. 5' ASP11 4 z Nt WS AI r" - ♦ D n ➢c G- J3� m� 0 X � � c � � m 0 fi I ad s ' 1 I � 1 1 T` I t s ; y I w 5 ' t o� - z mn 4 • EXISTING VALLEY PAN 0 ' W EDGE OF PAVEMENT._TO EXISTING m 1 G1 N -i c n c m � S- A -i n v= A 0 2 m �r _x N ti � N O 3 f I I � o m 1 ° O I T < A r m E r w ti o � o X I '• P s � f C m � c c 3 � o ' A A _ n C� m � R n / ° X m vi IS'R p A ` z 0 r c m 0� f m� xl N� _i ZI 1 m I J \y ml O I �/ TI It b 1 cl �I n 0 D � n '^ f n � m� f N i I � A ((�f N - Ll D, W O L I W i i \ l C \ n m 6 b = \ N \ b V A O � P m a O � - m N ro ti G O ~ m m m a r 0 m a � � p O Z -pi Z P tl � m o o m N m T o n N ➢ � = A m �^ r - A l _� m A I! I m A o � r m 0 � mM� m ti A m O x I \ m \ f a 01 \ A O I m 1 Ll A ((�f N - Ll D, W O L I W i i \ l C \ n m 6 b = \ N \ b V A O � P m a O � - m N ro ti G O ~ m m m a r 0 m a � � p O Z -pi Z P tl � m o o m N m T o n N ➢ � = A m �^ r - A l _� m A I! I m A o � r m 0 � mM� m ti A m O x I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 28, 1987 1:45 P.M. Site Inspections 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing To be tabled 1. A request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Kowloon Restaurant located at the West Vail. Mall. Applicant: Kowloon Restaurant 2. A request for an exterior alteration of less than 100 square feet to locate a storage locker on the west side of the Bell Tower Building. Applicant: Bell Tower.Associates, Ltd. 3. A request to amend Ordinance 37, Series of 1983, pertaining to the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition. Applicant: James Sheahan 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to operate commercial storage in the Concert Hall Plaza building. Applicant: Vail Investment 5. A request for a minor subdivision in order to create two Primary /Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose 11 • • Planning and Environmental Commission September 28, 1987 PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A_request for a conditional use permit to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Kowloon Restaurant located at the West Vail Mall. Applicant: Kowloon Restaurant Kristan Pritz stated that this item was tabled until the next meeting. 2. A request for an exterior alteration of less than 100 • square feet to locate a storage locker on the west side of the Bell Tower Building. Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. Kristan Pritz explained the request. Pam Hopkins removed herself from the table, as she was the architect on the project. J.J. Collins moved and Diana seconded to approve the storage locker per the staff memo dated 9/28/87. The vote was 6 -0--1 in favor with Pam abstaining. 3. A request to amend Ordinance 37, Series of 1983 Subdivision, First Addition Applicant: James Sheahan of Lot 1, Block 1, Biahorn Tom Braun explained that in 1983 this property was subdivided into two single family lots with three conditions of approval, including the restriction that there be only one driveway to serve both lots. Jim Sheahan showed the site plan and stated that he felt the additional driveway with the proposed landscaping would be an improvement over the original plan. • Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to recommend approval of the project to the Town Council. The vote was 7--0 in favor of approval. 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to operate commercial storage in the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicant: Vail Investment Tom Braun showed floor plans and explained the difference between storage and commercial storage. Commercial storage .involves the leasing of space to tenants located off -site for the purposes of storing materials or goods. Jim Morter, representing the architect, mentioned that the space being used by Charlie's would be increased, which would decrease the commercial storage to approximately 1600 square feet. Diana wondered if one of the proposed three tenants could divide his space up and lease the divided spaces to several other people. Jim Sheahan, owner, replied that he had been approached by several people asking to do this and had turned them down. Tom added that the whole intent of limiting the number of tenants to 3 was to avoid having more tenants. He suggested modifying the conditions of approval to handle the restriction. Diana moved and seconded to approve the request for the conditional use on the lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza with a maximum of three tenants and with the understanding that none of the storage would be sublet to . additional tenants. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 5. A request for a minor subdivision Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Filing. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose in order to create two Block 4, Vail Village 3rd The applicant, through the staff, requested this item be tabled, as they had to be out of town. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to table this item. The vote was 7 -0 to table. The meeting adjourned at 3:30. The members were told of an upcoming public meeting on October 7 at Manor Vail to update the public on capital improvement projects in Vail. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 0 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 28, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary /Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose I. INTRODUCTION TO THE REQUEST As was discussed during the work session at the Planning Commission's last meeting, this application involves the subdivision of an existing Primary /Secondary lot into two Primary /Secondary parcels. Since that work session, the applicants have presented their formal proposal for consideration by the staff and Planning Commission. It should be noted that Planning Commission review on this application is final and will only be considered by the Town Council in the event of appeal or the application being called up. n u There are numerous criteria to be considered in an application of this type. Foremost among these are the subdivision regulations, whose general purpose is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Town of Vail. These regulations also make reference to criteria found in the zoning code, Design Review Guidelines, the Town's Land Use Plan and other factors (specific criteria to be used in the review of this application are outlined on page 3 of this memo). Many of these come into play when considering this proposal. The staff encourages the Planning Commission to consider all of these criteria collectively rather than focussing on one or two specific considerations. II. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSALS OF THIS TYPE There have been questions raised concerning similar proposals that have been made in the past, as well as the potential for additional requests of this type. There have been three comparable proposals submitted to the Planning Commission over the past four or five years. These include the following: 1. Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Filing. This subdivision approval divided one Primary/ Secondary lot into two Single Family lots. The net result was no increase in the total number of units on the site. Because GRFA was restricted on each Single Family parcel, there was only a nominal increase in floor area permitted on each new lot. Because of the size and nature of this parcel, it was fairly unemcumbered in terms of accessibility and other site planning considerations. 2. Resubdivision of Pitkin Creek Meadows. This parcel had a long history in terms of previous attempts to subdivide the property. About the time East Vail was annexed to Vail, applications were made to create three Primary /Secondary lots on this property. At the time, minimum lot standards required 17,500 square feet of buildable area per lot. Because of this requirement, only two lots were approved on the parcel. Following the reduction of the minimum lot size to 15,000 square feet, a new application was submitted to the Planning Commission last year. Approval by the Planning Commission at that time resulted in the creation of three Primary /Secondary lots. While the parcel contains significant amounts of area over 40% slope, it was the finding of the Planning . Commission that the lots were both accessible and buildable. In addition, the newly created lot was bordered by residential development on only one side with Forest Service property on two sides of the parcel and I -70 bordering on the other. 3. Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Referred to as the Tennen- baum subdivision, this approval created two Single Family lots and one Primary /Secondary lots on what were two Primary /Secondary parcels. This subdivision resulted in no increases in total number of units nor in GRFA, as restrictions were placed on these parcels so as to not increase either types of density through the subdivision. The staff has been asked to research the lot sizes within the neighborhood of this proposal. We have researched lot sizes in Block 7 of Vail Village lst and Blocks 1,2,3 and 4 of Vail Village 3rd. This encompasses what is commonly known as the Village side of the Forest Road area. The results of this research found that the average lot size in this neighborhood is 22,723 square feet, with a mean 2 lot size of 24,025 square feet. In addition, there are a total of five lots in the neighborhood greater than 30,000 square feet (this includes the applicants' parcel). These lots range in size from 30,945 square feet to 37 square feet. All of these lots are zoned Primary /Secondary. By way of comparison, 14 of the 42 Primary /Secondary lots in Potato Patch are over 30,000 square feet. Nine of the 52 Primary /Secondary lots in the Glen Lyon subdivision exceed 30,000 square feet. Because of the various factors involved in determining buildable area of a site, staff is unable to specify exactly how many of these lots could meet the quantitative standards for potential subdivision. III. STAFF RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL Planning Commission review criteria are outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations. This reads 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 by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environ- mental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses. One of the key aspects of this statement refers to "compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter." Seven specific purposes are outlined in 17.04.010 (Purpose section) of the subdivision regulations. Within these seven specific purposes, reference is made to other criteria that may be applicable to subdivision requests. The issues and concerns of the staff, many of which involve other policies and planning related tools the Town has adopted, will be identified within the parameters established by the seven specific purposes of the subdivision regulations. These purposes are the following: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be 3 evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development controls, are to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the Planning Commission, applicants, and the community know will be followed in public review processes. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict of development on adjacent land. To summarize, the proposed subdivision would create one lot adjacent to Beaver Dam Road with the second lot located on the north end of the parcel. This proposal, coupled with grade changes on the property, has created issues related to the accessibility of proposed Lot 4B (located on the northerly portion of Lot 4). Most significant among these problems are that access to proposed Lot 4B must pass over a good portion of proposed Lot 4A. As a result, this subdivision in and of itself may create conflicts with the development of the two proposed lots. In addition, the proposed driveway alignment (on a conceptual development plan for the two proposed lots submitted by the applicant) runs within three feet of neighboring Lot 3. It should be emphasized that these difficulties would not be present, or could be mitigated, if the parcel were developed as one Primary /Secondary lot. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. The value of a lot, and to a greater extent, the value of property within a neighborhood, is greatly dependent upon the level and type of development within it. In this neighborhood, development has generally occurred over the past 20 years based on existing zoning and subdivision regulations. This proposal will essentially double the level of development that was originally intended for this parcel of land. More specifically, the . proposed Lot 4B could existing development o development potential of directly impact the n Lot 2, located directly r to the east. These impacts center around potential disruption of views, privacy, and a change in the character of this portion of the lot from what is now natural open space to residential development. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. A number of factors must be considered when evaluating this proposal with respect to the Town's zoning ordinance and municipal development objectives. This specific purpose statement of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address the minimum lot size standards as outlined in the zoning code. While the proposed lots technically adhere to these standards, there is one area where the intent of the development standard is not being met. Specific requirements include providing 15 square feet of buildable area, a site must be capable of accommodating an 80 foot square within its boundaries, and a lot must . have 30 feet of frontage. While proposed Lot 4B has 30 feet of frontage, this 30 feet of frontage does not extend entirely to the obvious building envelope of the site. At it narrowest point, the access to proposed Lot 4B narrows to 9 feet. One must consider the intent behind requiring 30 feet of frontage for a lot. This is obviously designed to provide a minimal amount of access from a lot to a public street. The minimum width of a private driveway is 12 feet according to the design standards of the subdivision regulations. Thus, the newly proposed lot cannot physically accommodate a minimum -sized driveway on its own. In addition, the portion of lot that does include 30 feet of frontage from the street is located on a slope of 150. To accommodate these shortcomings, access is proposed across proposed Lot 4A in various locations. This factor has already been addressed under No. 2 above. These conditions indicate the two proposed parcels inability to stand_ on their own as independently developable lots. Section 18.54.050 Design Guidelines of the Design Review Guidelines for the Town of Vail further address accessibility and vehicle circulation. Section G, Circulation /Access, No. 1, reads as follows: "There shall be provided an on -site vehicular circulation, system which shall coordinate with adjacent streets to minimize congestion and adverse impact upon the general traffic circulation pattern in the area." The key word in this requirement is "on-site." It is clear that it has not been demonstrated how access can be provided to proposed Lot 4B entirely on site. While there are numerous examples of driveways encroaching on other properties to accommodate access, most of these developed in trying to resolve situations created with original, major subdivisions. In this case, we are dealing with a proposed new minor subdivision, and the staff feels strongly that all applicable regulations should be complied with if this subdivision is to be approved. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in . order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. This purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to the proposal under consideration. &. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. This is another inherent goal of subdivision regulations that has little specific reference to this application. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. X11 This purpose raises the question of how the present level of development on this lot can be accommodated when compared to essentially doubling that level of development on the same physical area. At the present time, the development of a duplex on what is now Lot 4 could be accommodated in the general area where the existing structure on the lot is now located. The creation of two lots on this parcel dictates that development would occur on the northerly portion of the lot. This would dramatically change the character of this area. At the present time a large stand of mature pines separates this portion of the lot with the existing structure. The contemplated building envelope for proposed Lot 4B is located directly on what is now a marshy /wetlands area that transitions down to the Gore Creek stream tract. The approval of this proposal will undoubtedly affect the natural character of this lot and of this area as a whole. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this proposal is denial as per the reasons cited in the previous section of this memorandum. while this proposal technically meets the minimum lot size requirement, staff finds that the applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof with regard to other criteria required to be evaluated. To summarize, the characteristics and layout of what is now Lot 4 does not conveniently lend itself to a subdivision to create two lots. A majority of these problems center around access. In addition, there is the issue of compatibility and inconsistency with the established character of development in this neighborhood. Other primary concerns include the potential impact on what are now natural features of this lot, as well as the ability to develop two Primary /Secondary lots on this parcel without the need for variances to the Town's development standards (i.e. setbacks). 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 28, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to operate commercial storage in the Concert Hall Plaza on Lot 1, Lionshead 4th Addition. Applicant: Vail Investment Company 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The owners of this property have initiated changes to the space previously occupied by The Studio. This has involved gutting this portion of the building and at the present time the construction of a new floor is being done. The end result of this work will be two floors of leasable space in the area that was once occupied by The Studio. These modifications could take place without action by the Planning Commission if the uses proposed for the space were permitted. The request before the Planning Commission is for conditional use approval to operate commercial storage in a portion of the newly created floor space. In addition, existing tenants within the Concert Hall Plaza building will be utilizing various areas of the lower floors of the building. The following chart summarizes these different . uses: Square Footage Breakdown of Uses in the Concert Hall Plaza 4,900 retail, restaurants 1,273 office, Public Access 3,552 on -site tenant storage* 4,732 uncommitted new space 2,549 proposed commercial storage 17,086 Total * This figure (3,552) includes 2,000 square feet used by Charlie's T- shirts. While this store is predominantly in the Montaneros Building, it has had direct access to storage space in the Concert Hall Plaza for a number of years. As a result, it is considered an "on -site user" for the purpose of this analysis. It is important for the Planning Commission to understand the difference between storage and commercial storage. It is recognized that retail operations such as stores and restaurants have requirements for storage. This type of use r� . does not require conditional use review. Commercial storage would involve the leasing of space to tenants located off - site for the purposes of storing materials or goods. For example, the Snug or Christy Sports leasing space in the Concert Hall Plaza would be defined as commercial storage and would require approval by the Planning Commission. As indicated on the table above, 2,357 square feet of space would be dedicated to commercial storage. The applicant has indicated that a maximum of three tenants will occupy this space. Uses for 4,732 square feet within the building are yet to be determined. The use of this space, and the need for any action by the Planning Commission, will be determined when uses are proposed. 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 proposed use of this space has little direct impact on the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Storage of materials is certainly a necessary use to facilitate the functions of commercial operations. On the other hand, Commercial Core II is not considered an ideal location for this type of use. Nonetheless, one must consider that the proposed use is located on the lowest level of this building. This floor of the building is well below street level and clearly removed from any public pedestrian ways. 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. J - The proposed use has no effect on any of the above considerations. 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. • i Of particular concern to the staff is the potential impact related to traffic generated by the pick up and delivery of goods to this location. This concern is compounded by the fact that the specific number and types of users are not known at this time. It should be noted that in an attempt to mitigate these staff concerns, the applicant has significantly reduced the amount of area requested for commercial storage and has established a maximum of three tenants who may use this space. The main issue relevant to this request lies in the adequacy of existing loading facilities on site. There is difficulty in determining a precise number of loading docks required by the fact that the parking section of the zoning code does not specify loading requirements for commercial storage. In evaluating the change of uses within this building, a number of factors may be taken into consideration. For example, the amount of uncommitted new space in the building (4,732 square feet) is roughly equivalent to the amount of space removed when The Studio was deleted from this building program. Assuming this space would be used for retail (the most demanding use category in determining loading needs), and calculating the proposed commercial storage space (2,357 square feet) at retail demand, the new uses in the building do not technically create additional demand for another loading dock. Nonetheless, the realities of this situation are such that commercial storage may well demand additional loading facilities at this location. In this regard, the applicant has limited the number of potential tenants in this space to a total of three. This was done to minimize the number of trips that could be generated by the use in this space. 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 proposal does not affect any of the above considerations. III. AP PLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not applicable. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 0 V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the 2,549 square feet of commercial storage space be used by a maximum of three tenants. While the staff is concerned with the potential impacts that could result from this use, an analysis of the new space in the building (assuming uses that create the greatest demand for loading) indicates that additional loading bays would not be required from a purely statistical measure. This conclusion is based on the formulas outlined in the Off - Street Parking and Loading section of the code, with consideration given to the credit for multi -use loading facilities. Our recommendation for approval is predicated on the consideration that we are dealing with a relatively small amount of space (2549 square feet) and a small number of users (3). The code allows for a certain amount of discretion in determining loading requirements for commercial storage. While justifying this proposal, the staff compared the loading demands of commercial space to retail space. It is the feeling of the staff that any significant increases in commercial storage (over what is proposed), will require additional loading facilities. 0 • TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 28, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration of less than 100 square feet to locate a storage locker on the west side of the Bell Tower Building at 201 East Gore Creek Drive Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The owners of the Bell Tower Building would like to create a storage locker for condominium owners. The locker would be located below the existing stair at the southwest corner of the property. The locker is 27 square feet. It will have a stucco board finish on the framing and door to match the existing building. II. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATION Pedestrianizati • Not applicable. Vehicular Penetration Not applicable. Streetscape Framework Not applicable. Street Enclosure Not applicable. Street Edge Not applicable. Building Height 40 Not applicable. • Views Not applicable. Service and Delivery The enclosed area will screen the storage materials from pedestrians walking by the building. The existing grease vat that is stored in this area will be removed. Sun /Shade No impact. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The allowable site coverage for the property is 4,833 square feet. The existing site coverage is 4,805 square feet. With the addition, the total site coverage becomes 4,832 square feet. • IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request. The screening of the storage area will be a positive improvement to the area. • T' SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS 201 Gore Creek Drive VAIL, COLORADO 81657 (303) 476 -2201 PNOOLL'f A1LI �Inc.. Omt- Man 01421 , SHEET NO. —_._ _ 1 � OF CALCULATED o'. DATE CHECKED 8Y-- DATE (TOWN OF VAIL) A PART OF TRACT A S 7 9 0 `7 oW PATIO AREA �- a 3A 37 w , 24 �. 790 17 100 W 1.4 18.2 0. O N o _ Q STA I R i Z �n a 3.fi N Uj C, N � FOUR STORY WOOD BUILDING 4.3 ' r n BUILDING ADDITION STAIR (ONE STORY) OUTLINE OF BUILDING AT GRADE t _ h• OUTLINE OF BUILDING —�' BEFORE ADDITION r •�d fioU ' v�ldl O_ n 3.2' D �S� 0.. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 28, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Ordinance No. 37 Series of 1983, pertaining to the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition Applicant: James Sheahan I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST In October of 1983, Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn First Addition, was subdivided and rezoned to allow for two single family lots. Previous zoning on the property was Primary /Secondary. The application was approved with conditions restricting the total amount of GRFA for each lot, that only one driveway be developed to serve both lots, and that an existing sewer line be relocated by the applicant. The Planning Commission memorandum, minutes, and the ordinance approving this application are included for your information. • II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST The applicant has requested the removal of the restriction limiting access off of Lupine Drive to one driveway. The attached letter to Tom Braun from Peter Jamar Associates outlines the applicant's rationale for this request. To summarize, the main justification for allowing two driveways lies in the fact that they can be developed without the removal of any existing vegetation on the properties. III. STAFF RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST In reviewing the history of this application, it is evident that the applicants originally proposed one driveway cut. The staff recommendation acknowledged this aspect of the proposal, but did not condition approval of the request on their being only one driveway. It is assumed that the reason for one driveway was to minimize any impact on the mature trees on the lot. Following the development of one single family structure on Lot B, it has been demonstrated that a second driveway accessing Lupine Drive can be accommodated without . affecting the lot's vegetation. The newly proposed driveway alignment also presents no appreciable impact on adjacent properties in the area. • IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the requested amendment to Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1983. While a condition of approval was originally imposed on this zoning, limiting the number of driveways to one, staff finds it difficult to argue the merits of the requested amendment. It should be noted that the Planning Commission action on this request is advisory. Action by the Council will be required to amend the ordinance originally adopting this zoning. In this regard, we would recommend the following condition be incorporated into any amendments to the existing Ordinance No. 37: 1. Access to Lots A and B shall be limited to two driveways as generally indicated on the development plan by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., dated September 4, 1987. r � U • August 29, 1983 Mr. Peter Patten Zoning Administrator Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 sir. Patten: Attached is an application for resubdivision and rezoning for Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition. I am requesting a change from two family residential (42,253 sq. ft.). to two single family lots (21,126.5 sq. ft. approximately). The reasons for the request are as follows: 1) The mass created by two single family houses will have much less impact on the site than the mass created by a duplex. 2) The height required by two houses will be less than that required by a duplex. 3) The large stand of trees can be left undisturbed by the use of jW houses. 4) Much more attention and detail can be given to landscaping while retaining the general feel of the surrounding area and its vegetation. 5) Duplex home sites across the stream have less street frontage than we are proposing. In closing, we feel as long -time Vail residents there is a shortage of single family homes; primarily due to the high cost of land. We feel that this is one of the few sites that lends itself to resubdivision. ;Sincere,y, ` 'C' J ~mes E. Sheanarf JES /RSC:dvb �e ly Rocky S. Christopher _- i I f PEC 9/26/83 -4- 6. A request for a minor subdivision to realign the lot line between lots 27 and 28, Block A, Vail Das Schone, Filing No. 1. Applicants: Bill and Patti Anderson, Russell Motta Jim Sayre explained that by rearranging the lot lines, there would be no change in the square footage of each property. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the the staff recommendation The vote w as 5- eoU est f or the subdivision per with Co rcoran abstaininq. i 1 3 P W j 7. A request for rezoning and resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn First Addition to change from one Two Famil Residential zone district to two Single Famil y zone district lots. Applicants: James Sheahan & Rocky Christopher Peter Patten presented the request. Corcoran reminded the board that they were only to recommend the zone to the Town Council. Eskwith stated that the application for the rr,inor subdivision was contingent on the rezoning. Pierce felt that he had no problem, Piper was generally inclined to prefer a single family structure, but there was more tendency for the staff to zone for duplexes. Piper felt that thou the applicants' reason stated "mass created by two single - family structures will be less than that required b a duplex", q Y p he felt-that the increase in square footage made it difficult to agree. The reason "The height required by two houses will be less than that required by a duplex." Piper responded to by stating that usually the height has little regard as to whether or not a house is single family or duplex. "The larae stand of trees can be left undisturbed by the use of two houses." Piper stated that there would be increased site coverage, increased drivetigays, and an increased footprint, therefore he disagreed with this reason for the request. Donovan agreed with Piper and added that this was spot zoning, and that the community would not gain from this change. She added that there was no quarantee that there would not be a request for a rezone in the future. She felt the present zone fit the neighborhood. Sheehan responded that he would not have to have the maximum GRFA or heights. Eskwith added that the PEC could place restrictions. Sheahan stated that he was will to accept the restriction of 3750 sq ft each. Patten explained that a single family was restricted to 3125 sq ft. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request for a minor subdivision p er the staff memo with the further restriction that the GRFA be limited to 3500 s ft on each lot and with the further restriction that r ecommendation of minor sub to Council be contingent upon the rezonin . The vote was 2 in f avor Viele and Pierce 3 aga inst with Cocoran abstaining After more discussion, Trout moved and Pierce seconded to amend the Drevious motion th th GRFA of each site not exceed 3300 square feet. The vote was 3 _ _th (] o;,ova and Piper against and Corcoran abstaninq • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Con5munity Development Department DATE: September 21, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision and rezoning to convert one lot zoned Residential to two Single Family lots on Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn 1st. Applicant: James E. Sheahan It would be difficult in this matter to discuss the two requests separately due to their reliance upon each other. Thus, the memo will treat the two requests basically as one to better understand the impacts and merits of the overall effect. The statistics of "before and after" are as follows: ZONE SQ. FT 7 7 , UNITS GRFA ALLOWED Existing Lot 1 R 42,253 2 5862 New Lot A SFR 21,126 1 3987 New Lot B SFR 21,126 .1 3987 • (Note: The proposal results in a net increase of GRFA of 2112 sq ft.) The proposal also includes designated building envelopes for each new lot which keep structures out of the "blue zone" avalanche hazard on the south side of the lot. . -One access drive off of Lupine Drive is also proposed. The applicant's reasons for this request are attached. Note that he does not proposed any special development standard restrictions other than those in the SFR district and that he would relocate the existing sewer line and associated easement that runs through the middle of proposed Lot A. CRITERIA EVALUATION The subdivision regulations state criteria which are suitable to evaluate this proposal as a whole: "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 rude by public agencies, utility corpanies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses." l 0 9/21/83 Lot 1, 81k 1, Bighorn 1st --2- 1. Den sity The number of units resulting in thisproposal are the same as the existing situation. However, potentially, there could be an increase in GRFA of 2112 square feet if both single family lot owners built to the maximum. It should be noted here that this lot could easily meet the subdivision regulations concerning minimum lot sizes for the Residential zone resulting in two duplex lots and four units. Thus, this proposal could be actually limiting density by proposing two single faimily lots rather than two duplex lots. 2. Proposed Site Plan The single access off of Lupine Drive is a good solution for the two new lots. Hoi the proposed building envelopes should be eliminated and the siting of the houses left until the DRB level when they can be more closely studied according to all constraints and opportunities. 3. Sewer Line and Easement As of this date, we have not received any written approval from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Districts concerning the relocating of the sewer line and easement. This must be obtained before the rezoning goes to Council. r� LJ 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Area The entire surrounding area is zoned Residential with very few lots having the buildable site area of Lot I. The houses in the area are generally duplexes contained in a single structure or attached structures. The proposal of tw16 single family buildings on this site of nearly an acre will not be incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of density, scale, lot size or remaining open space. -_ RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision and rezoning proposals. The benefit to the Town is a potential decrease in density if one considers that it appears this could meet the requirement for two duplex lots. The single family structures proposed will be compatible with surrounding development and will be sited according to future DRB approval. Conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The sewer line and easement vacation and relocation - must be verified in writing by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Districts before the proposal goes to Council for rezoning approval. 2. The building envelopes must be eliminated. • • PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING,, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH September 8 1987 Tom Braun, Senior planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road, West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Tom: In 1983, Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn First Subdivision was subdivided and rezoned in order to create two single family lots from one duplex lot. At the time of the subdivision and rezoning a restriction was placed upon the lots which provided that "there shall be only one driveway off of Lupine Drive accessing both lots." The purpose of this application is to remove this restriction in order to allow each home to have its own access onto Lupine Drive. One residence has been constructed upon Lot B and access currently exists for this single family dwelling in approximately the same location indicated previously for access to both lots. The new requested driveway would provide a separate access for the single family dwelling to be built upon Lot A. When Lot l was subdivided there was concern expressed regarding the retention of the large number of existing trees upon the site. Since the exact siting of the dwelling units was unknown at the time, it was felt that a single driveway access for the two separate homes would possibly serve to minimize the future possibility of tree removal. However, now that more detailed site planning has taken place and one of the two homes has been constructed it is clear that a second driveway access can be constructed without any removal of the existing trees. This driveway access would be located in the same location as the previous utility easement which was relocated (see attached site plan) . The owner believes that the provision of home will eliminate a number of potential regarding maintenance and parking as well privacy for each home. separate access for each problems in the future as providing additional The configuration of the new access would result in being located to the rear of each horse as opposed to Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7154 IS the driveways bringing C F Tom Braun, Senior Planner Town of Vail September 8, 1987 Page 2 • traffic into the side yard. It is a much more desirable solution now that the exact location of each structure and the lack of impact upon the existing trees is known. I hope this clarifies the request being made. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. Si ely, Peter Jamar, AICP PJ:ns Enclosure 0 • Planning and Environmental Commission October 12 1987 1:45 P.M. Site Visits - Work Session at site of Lionshead Centre Building 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of September 14 and 28. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a property management office in the commercial area of the Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums. Applicant: Vail East Rentals 3. Administrative appeal of a staff decision regarding Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) relating to the Tennenbaum single - family residence located on Parcel A, a Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Appellant: Gordon Pierce Architects 4. A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to Lots 16, 19, and 21, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED TO A LATER DATE. 5. A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to property commonly known as the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: George W. Gillett, Jr. THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED TO A LATER DATE. • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 12, 1987 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz STAFF PRESENT Tom Braun Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan, vice - chairperson. 1. Approval of minutes of September 14 and 28. A correction was made on page 6 of the September 14 minutes. Bryan Hobbs moved and Sid Schultz seconded to approve the minutes of both meetings with the corrections. The vote was 4- 0 in favor. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a property management office in the commercial area of the Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums. Applicant: East Vail Rentals Rick Pylman explained the consideration of factors. approval. Corky Branca of from the board. request and reviewed the The staff recommendation was for East Vail Rentals answered questions Sid felt it was a good use of the space in Pitkin Creek commercial area. Peggy felt the solution was a good one, and that having East Vail Rentals in the commercial area may also benefit the other shops located there. Bryan moved and Sid seconded to approve the conditional use permit. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 3. An administrative appeal of a staff decision regardin Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) relating to the Tennenbaum single - family residence located on Parcel A, A Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Appellant: Gordon Pierce Architects Rick Pylman explained the appeal procedure and read the definition of GRFA. He showed detail drawings of wall sections and wall plans. The dispute over how to measure and interpret GRFA of the Tennenbaum residence centered on the type of construction being used. The Tennenbaum design included window walls. Rick explained that the staff did not receive detailed drawings until the building permit stage. • Ray Story and Curt Segerberg represented the appellant, Gordon Pierce Architects. They felt that the space in question was not habitable space and should not be counted as GRFA. 140 square feet of GRFA was involved in the difference between the two methods of measuring. They showed drawings they had done of the residence without the 140 square feet. These had been requested by the staff so that construction could continue on the project. They felt that having the additional 140 square feet would not change the appearance of the home. Curt pointed out that the garage was smaller than was allowed by 130 square feet. He was reminded that garages did not count toward GRFA. Gunther Hofler, a neighbor, asked about the previous GRFA dis- crepancies concerning this project and was told that some items had been removed. Hofler asked how an architect would design a project so much over the allowable GRFA. Ray Story stated that there had been a mixup in his office, that the first person working on the home had thought the project was permitted more GRFA than it was. Tom Braun said that the concern of the staff is the consistency in the interpretation of GRFA. He added that the staff still felt that the wall started inside the window. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she felt the area in question was habitable, that one could stand on it and it appeared to be floor space. The fact that the mass or bulk would not change notwithstanding, she felt it was important to count this as GRFA. Bryan also felt the GRFA began on the inside of the glass. Sid and Diana agreed and supported the staff interpretation. Sid moved and Peggy seconded to uphold the staff interpreta- tion. The vote was 4 -0. Items 4 and 5 were asked to be tabled to an indefinite date. Bryan moved and Sid seconded to table these items. Vote was 4- 0. • F TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: October 12, 1987 SUBJECT: Tennenbaum GRFA Interpretation The Town of Vail Community Development Department and the staff of Gordon Pierce, Architects are involved in a dispute over the proper method of determining and measuring the GRFA for the Tennenbaum residence located on Forest Road. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is defined in the Municipal Code under Section 18.04.130 as "the total area within the enclosing walls of a structure including all habitable areas; excluding crawl spaces and attic areas with a ceiling height of 5 feet or less." The dispute over how to measure and interpret GRFA of the Tennenbaum residence centers on the type of construction being utilized. In a typical wood frame house, GRFA is measured from the interior of the outside walls of the structure, which is the interior face of the drywall on the exterior wall. The Tennenbaum residence is utilizing steel frame construction with a great deal of the wall space of the structure designed as a one inch thick glass window with a three inch sill. These window structures are supported at the corners of the building with 6 inch square steel columns. The staff has interpreted • the interior of the exterior wall as the interior edge of the window sill. This allows a wall thickness of 4 inches, the 1 inch thick glass and the 3 inch window sill which is located at floor level. The architect feels that the 6 inch floor space that runs parallel to the window sills that is occupied by the columns at the corner of the building should be considered wall space and that the GRFA should be measured at the interior face of the 6 inch column, thus giving a 10 inch exterior wall thickness. The staff's problem with this is that the columns occur only at the corners of the building and that the 6 inches that run parallel to the window wall is indeed floor area. The applicant feels he is being unduly penalized because of the method of construction they have chosen. It is true that if they had gone with a traditional wood frame construction, the exterior walls would undoubtedly be thicker than the 4 inches that we are recognizing with this type of construction. We feel, however, that the applicant would be receiving an undue credit were we to utilize their interpretation of the way to measure the GRFA. We recognize, obviously, that at the exact physical locations of the steel columns, that 6 inch by 6 inch space, 36 square .inches, should not contribute toward GRFA. We feel, however, • the span between the columns is legitimate floor space that is • not occupied by any wall structure. This should be counted as GRFA. Section 18.66.030 of the Municipal Code authorizes the appeal of administrative actions. The appeal of any administrative action by the zoning administrator may be filed with the Planning Commission. In event of appeal, the Commission, after receiving a report from the zoning administrator, may confirm, reverse or modify the zoning administrator's position. n 11 Got-don R. fierce ® Architect A.I.A. September 30, 1987 Mr. Rick Pylman Town of Vail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Tennenbaum Residence GRFA Interpretation Dear Rick: It has come to our attention that at your staff meeting on September 29, 1987 an intepretation of GRFA for the Tennenbaum Residence was determined. The statf feels that the GRFA should be calculated from the interior face of the window frames. Our interpretation of GRFA for this project is from the interior face of all walls and the interior face of all interior structural columns at the curtain wall. The difference between the two GRFA interpretations would be as much as 140 square feet. It • should be noted that typical residential construction will yield wall thicknesses of 9 with window units mounted flush with the outside sheathing (for example, "sto" equals 2 "; wood equals 1 We feel that our project should be given a similar interpretation. The Tennenbaum Residence is primarily a steel frame structure with curtain wall windows. In all cases, the space beyond the interior face of these columns will accommodate sills and heating systems, as well as the structure itself. In our opinion, this arrangement is like a typical house. We ask that the Planning Commission favorably consider our arguments. Sincerely, Kurt A. Segerberg, A.I.A KAS /lrt 0 1000 South frontage Road West ® V,61, Colorado 81657 ® 303/476 -4433 (;RrA I u f ET AIL JAMB - { 3 scale 1 1/2" - 1'0" E W A c.cowi roc.. To Ak - C-r CL�S � <IZI^ `To Fl T GU;�L WA LL Mnf:)" „ I X I U M._TU E�� W/1/ (�" 1 • b L L 1 1`11 L scale 1 1/2" - 1'0" om DETAIL F z TcH HITI -=r- 14 ' \a iflG ��� 2XY4 CT'k r — _ter -- - r -4N I - lC! tlai= Ex k - - ter C 7�t 1 � , '\aIT . *Hk MEM s Y �D �C�c TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 12, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a property management office in the commercial area of the Pitkin Creek Park Condominium complex Applicant: East Vail Rentals, Inc. The applicant, East Vail Rentals, Inc., wants to move an established property management and short term rental agency from a home occupation location in east Vail into existing but unfinished commercial space at Pitkin Creek Park. Ordinance No. 32 of 1978 amends Special Development District #3 and is the description and regulating ordinance for the development that is in place there today. This ordinance requires that all retail, service or restaurant uses proposed for the commercial building in Pitkin Creek Park be proposed as conditional use permits to the Town of Vail. The portion of the commercial building that East Vail Rental, Inc. plans • to utilize was originally designed as a laundramat facility. This facility, however, along with the space next to it which was designed for a restaurant, has never been finished out or occupied. The parking lot adjacent to the commercial building was designed to handle the parking requirements for the commercial building in a fully occupied state. East Vail Rentals, Inc., through their lease, has the sole use of the parking spaces located directly in front of their proposed leasehold space. The total leasehold space proposed to be used by East Vail Rentals, Inc. is 840 square feet, and the applicant has stated that he assumes there will be a maximum of 15 to 20 vehicle trips per day in and out of the space. 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 im act of the use on development objectives of the Town. East Vail Rentals, Inc. offers a service to residents and guests to the Town of Vail. The previous location of this business, as a home occupation, did create some problems to the residential character of the neighborhood in which it was located. We feel that this is a positive step in that this commercial business is moving to a planned commercial location which was designed to accommodate traffic flow, parking, and short -term visits. 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 operation of East Vail Rentals, Inc. within the Pitkin Creek Park complex will create no foreseeable impact upon 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. The Pitkin Creek Park commercial building was designed to serve the east Vail area as a small commercial building. The existing convenience food store and liquor store are both high traffic volume type of businesses which seem to be functioning adequately in this area. We feel the addition of the service type use of a property management /rental agency is appropriate for this commercial space. Effect upon the character of the area in which the prop 0 use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the p roposed use in relation to surrounding uses. sed The leasehold space being proposed by East Vail Rentals, Inc. is already existing and will have no added effect upon the character of the area or the scale and bulk of the building or surrounding area. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREH PLAN Not applicable. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit. The type of business meets the service industry type of . business that is allowed as a conditional use. The amount of traffic generated does not exceed that which one would expect to find in a commercial development of this type. The parking that is allowed both through the lease and that which is available on the site appears to be adequate for this use. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 October 26, 1987 2:15 Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of October 12. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow a ski repair shop in the old Voliter Building at 1033 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Ski Valet, Inc. 3. A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to Lots 16, 19 and 21, west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich 4. A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to property commonly known as the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: George W. Gillett, Jr. 5. Announcement of public meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 18th on the I -70 Main Vail Interchange improvements. N Planning and Environmental Commission October 26, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Tom Braun Peggy Osterfoss Rick Pylman Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Bryan Hobbs Jim Viele ABSENT J.J. Collins Pam Hopkins The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. I. Approval of minutes of October 12 Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 5 -0 for approval. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow a ski repair shop in the old Voliter Building at 1033 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Ski Valet, Inc. Betsy Rosolack made the staff presentation and stated that the . staff recommended approval. Paul Pregont and John Deverich, applicants, answered questions. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of approval. 3. A request to apply Hillside Residential to a parcel of land known as the Ulbrich property west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich Rick Pylman presented the request and stated that the staff had been assured there is legal and physical access. Rick reviewed the evaluation of the request and stated that the staff recommended approval and reminded the Board that approval of the zoning did not include recommendation for a specific density or level of development of the property at this time. Jay Peterson, representing John Ulbrich, repeated Rick's statement that this was not a development proposal, merely a request for zoning. Bob Poole of the Forest Service pointed out an existing 4 -wheel drive access road that must remain an access for Heritage Cable TV and for the public. Jay said an access would remain. Poole mentioned that if the access being constructed by Ulbrich did connect with the Forest r Service access, the older access may someday be abandoned. Jay felt the new access might be a better one. The Board asked questions about the number of possible lots, the process being used, the size of the parcel and the grade of the road. Bryan Hobbs moved and Sid Schultz seconded to recommend approval of the request to the Town Council. The vote was 5 -0. 4. A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to propert commonly known as the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: George W. Gillett, Jr. Rick Pylman explained the request and reviewed the criteria. He reminded the Board that this piece of land had been discussed a lot during the work on the Land Use Plan. once again, this was not a development scheme. The staff recommended approval and would look closely to make sure the development plan would meet the high standards of Hillside Residential zoning. Jay Peterson, representing George Gillett, stated that 6 lots were envisioned to be placed on the property. He stated that with a land exchange, access would be available. If the land exchange with the Forest Service did not happen, the Forest Service has assured Gillett that they will allow access through a use permit or a fee simple. He added that the Forest Service would grant a permit for the livery stable to the east . of the property on a fairly flat site. Jay added that Forester Dave Stark would write a letter stating these items. Bob Poole of the Forest Service stated that a basic rule of the Forest Service in any development is to look to access across the property to secure the area to the east for continuous public access regardless of changes. Sid felt he was familiar with the site from previous studies. Diana stated that she still felt this was better left as open land. Bryan abstained from discussion. Peggy felt that at this time the Hillside Residential zoning seemed to be appropriate. She expressed hope that the development would be sensitive to the hillside and visibility from the Town. She was pleased to hear that the retaining walls would be cut back. Sid moved and Peggy seconded to recommend approval of the request to the Town Council. The vote was 4 in favor, none against, with Bryan Hobbs abstaining. The Board was told of a public meeting to be held on November 18 concerning the I -70 Main Vail Interchange. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: 10/26/87 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a ski repair shop in the old Voliter Building at 1033 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Paul Pregont /Ski Valet, Inc. I. DESCRIPTIO OF PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting to operate a ski repair shop in the winter months in space used the rest of the year by Timberline Tours. The space has also been used for a car wash, for tire sales and for Louis' Casual Cabs in the time since the Voliter Nursery left the site. The applicant states: "The nature of Ski Valet, Inc. will operate as a pick- up /delivery ski repair shop ... The shop space will be used only for repairing customers' skis (i.e.) tune -ups, waxing, binding adjustments. Ski Valet will operate a van to transport the skis to and from the lodges. There • will also be some walk -in customers to drop off or pick up skis." Parking requirements for this use is six spaces. Currently there are 12 parking spaces on the site. 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: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Arterial Business Distract was created in 1982 in order to provide a transition area between the Lionshead and Cascade Village areas. The purpose section of the Arterial Business District code states the following: "The Arterial Business District is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, • service stations, and limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests." • We feel that the proposed use is compatible with those uses described as conditional uses within the zone district. The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of o ulation, trans ortation facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs There will be no impact. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion automotive and edestrian safetv and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverabilit and removal of snow from the street and p arking areas. In this zone district, there is special emphasis on traffic generation criteria when permitting conditional uses. The applicant states that this will be a pick -up /delivery service with "some walk -in customers..." The staff feels that in view of this plan of operation, traffic will not be increased beyond that of Timberline Tours. There is more than sufficient parking on the site for this use. • Effect u on the character of the area in which the p roposed use is to be located including the scale and uses. s rro ndi bulk of the ro osed use in relation to uun This proposal is similar to the previous uses and no detrimental effect upon the character of the area is anticipated. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN None. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. This use is one of the conditional uses listed in the code for the Arterial Business District. LJ LJ C� L ' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to apply a 27 acre parcel o Spraddle Creek Applicant: George Hillside Residential zoning to f land commonly referred to as W. Gillett, Jr. I. THE REQUEST On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted a comprehensive Land Use Plan. In the plan, parcels of land in and adjacent to the Town of Vail were designated for certain potential uses if they could meet certain criteria, standards and policies of the Land Use Plan and other planning documents previously adopted by the Town of Vail. The Spraddle Creek parcel is a 27 acre parcel of land that was annexed by the Town of Vail some time ago. It has never received any Town of Vail zoning designation. Through the Land Use Plan, the Spraddle Creek parcel was given a land use designation of Hillside Residential. Upon completion of the Land Use Plan, a zone district entitled Hillside Residential was written to correspond with the criteria outlined in the Land Use Plan. The maximum allowable density for the Hillside Residential zone district is 2 dwelling units per buildable acre. The Land Use Plan also states that any development proposal will require an in -depth analysis to assure sensitivity to constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the valley floor, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposal for the Spraddle Creek parcel is for zoning only and does not deal with a development proposal or subdivision plan. A review of the zoning request is limited to whether the request is compatible with surrounding land uses, meets the development objectives of the Town, and the more tangible issue of provision of legal and physical access. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Criteria #1. Suitability of Existing Zoning C7 This parcel of land has never previously had a Town of Vail zone district designation. Under the jurisdiction of Eagle County, this land was zoned Resource. The Eagle County Resource zone district allows one dwelling unit per 35 acres and is generally intended as the agriculture zone district and to preserve natural open space features. During the Land Use Plan work sessions, much discussion was centered on the land use designation that should be given to the Spraddle Creek area. It was generally agreed at that time by the Land Use committee and the participa- ting public that as a property adjacent to the Town of Vail, some level of development was warranted. At the same time, this parcel was recognized as being very en- vironmentally sensitive and valuable to the Town of Vail as open space. The land use designation was proposed as a use that should give development potential to the property, yet maintain and understand the environ - mental sensitivity of the parcel. Criteria #2. Is the amendment presenting a _convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? As an implementation of the Land Use Plan, this applica- tion is consistent with municipal objectives. However, it is recognized that this parcel of land is highly visible and environmentally sensitive. While the zoning of the property meets and is consistent with municipal objectives, any development plan and subdivision proposal will need to be reviewed very carefully to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of the Hillside Residential land use designation and of the Town of Vail. While we currently have indication that there is legal and physical access and there will continue to be legal and physical access in the future,.this issue will need to be discussed and clarified at the subdivision stage. Criteria #3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable communitv7 The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning itself does allow for the growth for an orderly and viable community. We feel that the Hillside Residential designation while allowing the developer development potential for his property, will assure envi- ronmentally sensitive development of the property. At this point, there is not enough information to comment on any development of the site at all. A very thorough review will be necessary to ensure that all proposed development does meet this criteria for orderly and viable growth. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning of Hillside . Residential for this parcel is for approval. The Community Development Department feels that this meets the intent of the Land Use Plan and the development objectives of the Town of Vail. • • r 1 L..J U TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to a 27 acre parcel of land commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek Applicant: George W. Gillett, Jr. I. THE REQUEST On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted a comprehensive Land Use Plan. In the plan, parcels of land in and adjacent to the Town of Vail were designated for certain potential uses if they could meet certain criteria, standards and policies of the Land Use Plan and other planning documents previously adopted by the Town of Vail. The Spraddle Creek parcel is a 27 acre parcel of land that was annexed by the Town of Vail some time ago. it has never received any Town of Vail zoning designation. Through the Land Use Plan, the Spraddle Creek parcel was given a land use designation of Hillside Residential. Upon completion of the Land Use Plan, a zone district entitled Hillside Residential was written to correspond with the criteria outlined in the Land Use Plan. The maximum allowable density for the Hillside Residential zone district is 2 dwelling units per buildable acre. The Land Use Plan also states that any development proposal will require an in -depth analysis to assure sensitivity to constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the valley floor, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposal for the Spraddle Creek parcel is for zoning only and does not deal with a development proposal or subdivision plan. A review of the zoning request is limited to whether the request is compatible with surrounding land uses, meets the development objectives of the Town, and the more tangible issue of provision of legal and physical access. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Criteria #1. SuitabilitZoof_Existing Zoning 0 This parcel of land has never previously had a Town of Vail zone district designation. Under the jurisdiction of Eagle County, this land was zoned Resource. The Eagle County Resource zone district allows one dwelling unit per 35 acres and is generally intended as the agriculture zone district and to preserve natural open space features. During the Land Use Plan work sessions, much discussion was centered on the land use designation that should be given to the spraddle Creek area. It was generally agreed at that time by the Land Use committee and the participa- ting public that as a property adjacent to the Town of Vail, some level of development was warranted. At the same time, this parcel was recognized as being very en- vironmentally sensitive and valuable to the Town of Vail as open space. The land use designation was proposed as a use that should give development potential to the property, yet maintain and understand the environ- mental sensitivity of the parcel. Criteria #2. Is the amendment presentil a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with munici al objectives? As an implementation of the Land Use Plan, this applica- tion is consistent with municipal objectives. However, it is recognized that this parcel of land is highly visible and environmentally sensitive. While the zoning of the property meets and is consistent with municipal objectives, any development plan and subdivision proposal will need to be reviewed very carefully to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of • the Hillside Residential land use designation and of the Town of Vail. While we currently have indication that there is legal and physical access and there will continue to be legal and physical access in the future, this issue will need to be discussed and clarified at the subdivision stage. Criteria #3. Does the rezoning proposal p growth of an orderly and viable community? -ovide for the The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning itself does allow for the growth for an orderly and viable community. We feel that the Hillside Residential designation while allowing the developer development potential for his property, will assure envi- ronmentally sensitive development of the property. At this point, there is not enough information to comment on any development of the site at all. A very thorough review will be necessary to ensure that all proposed development does meet this criteria for orderly and viable growth. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning of Hillside Residential for this parcel is for approval. The Community Development Department feels that this meets the intent of the Land Use Plan and the development objectives of the Town of Vail. • • i , 4 a . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to a 47 acre parcel of land recently annexed to the Town of Vail. Applicant: John Ulbrich I. THE REQUEST On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted a comprehensive Land Use Plan. In the Land Use Plan, parcels of land in and adjacent to the Town of Vail were designated for certain potential uses if they could be proven to meet certain criteria, standards and policies of the Land Use Plan and other planning documents previously adopted by the Town of Vail. Once such piece of land adjacent to the Town of Vail that was designated for potential development is a parcel known as the Ulbrich property. This piece of land was designated through the Land Use Plan as having development potential at a density level entitled Hillside Residential. Some time after the . adoption of the Land Use Plan, the Ulbrich property was annexed into the Town of Vail. At the time of annexation, an agreement was reached between the Town and the owner of the Ulbrich property to forego zoning of this property until the Town had the opportunity to write and adopt a zone district that reflected the criteria of the Hillside Residential Land Use designation. On July 21, 1987, the Vail Town Council officially adopted a new zone district entitled, "Hillside Residential." The purpose of this zone district was to reflect the development criteria of the Hillside Residential land use designation found in the Land Use _plan. The Hillside Residential land use designation as written in the Land Use Plan states that any development proposal will require an in depth analysis to assure sensitivity to constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the valley floor, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan goes on to state that any such development would be required to meet all other applicable Town ordinances and regulations. The applicant is applying only for the zoning of Hillside Residential at this time. There is no subdivision or development plan proposed. Therefore, information submitted for our review has been limited. We have been assured that there is legal and physical access and we . have discussed the issue of compatibility with surrounding land uses. At the time of a development or subdivision proposal, a further in -depth review of this criteria will be necessary to prove that the proposed development can meet the objectives of the Hillside Residential land use designation. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Criteria #1. Suitability of Existing Zoning This parcel of land has recently been annexed into the Town of Vail and currently has no Town of Vail zoning designation. Under the jurisdiction of Eagle County, the land was zoned Resource. The definition of the Resource zone as found in the Eagle County land use regulations is, "To protect and enhance the appropriate use of natural resources including water, minerals, fiber, and open space. The Resource zone serves to maintain the open rural character of Eagle County." Through the Land Use Plan, much discussion took place about the designation of this piece of property. It was decided that a limited amount of development would be appropriate, as this is adjacent to higher density residential areas than is commonly found in properties designated Resource through Eagle County. Criteria #2. Is the amendmen_ t_ a conven- ient, workable relationship among land uses consisting with municipal objectives? As a zoning proposal only, with no development plan or subdivision proposed, it is difficult to fully analyze the workable relationship among land uses. The proposal, however, is consistent with municipal objectives in that it does meet and implement a portion of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. During subdivision review, further studies will be necessary to prove that development on this parcel can meet the criteria of the Hillside Residential designation. Criteria #3. Does the rezonipg proposal provide for growth of an orderly and viable community? The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning proposal does provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. This land use category and zone district was developed specifically to deal with low density development on environmentally sensitive properties. U • 9 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposal of zoning this parcel Hillside Residential is for approval. we feel that this application is an implementation of the Land Use Plan and that the applicant has met the limited criteria which we can request at this time. This recommendation in no way approves or supports any specific density or level of development on this property at this time. A thorough review of any development proposal through the subdivision process will be necessary. • M YEADOW l \� J AFL C Town of Vail Planning Commission Board 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Board Members: Hasit never come to the attention of this board that West Meadow Drive perhaps has the highest traffic use of any street in the valley? Today I discovered a newly constructed paved hike and bike trail extending from Lions Square Creek Side under the gondola cables, curving around beneath the bridge and alongside the creek the length of Lions Square Lodge and on up beside Antlers. As I proceeded on my walk I began to envision once again what it was going to be like as I reached the end of the trail and continued my walk along West Meadow Drive. I live at Meadow Vail Place #44 and I have been aware of this hazardous scene the last three years, even more than when I lived in Lionshead and daily walked into the real Town of Vail. The picture is this: there is a steady stream of pedestrians, summer and winter, going to and from - in the street! Accompanying them are all the vehicles for the hospital including ambulances with sirens turned on, Town of Vail shuttle buses, visitors to the hospital, some frequently in need of fast transit if.carry- ing an ill or injured person, owners of homes on Meadow Drive, sightseers in R.V.'s who refuse to believe the Dead End sign and consequently tear up the flower beds and boulders in the circle, patrol vehicles, UPS, mail carriers, Federal Express - all large carriers, plus bicycles, skate boards and then, an occasional fire truck. The scene in summer is bad, and in the winter it is a disaster! People constantly need to jump away from the slush thrown from wheels and are always walking in danger since each person is competing for space against moving vehicles. The prevailing condition seems a very inconsiderate way to treat the visitors and property owners of Lionshead and Vail since it is the only means of traversing the way between the two. Also, consider the library as a much admired and much used Town asset in spite of the difficulties incurred to reach it, as is the Dobson Ice Arena. I sincerely hope the Board members will duly consider the urgency of this improvement and endeavor to correct same before doing another extension to the hike an.d bike trail anywhere in the valley. Respectfully yours, � Mrs. Po'11y Blanton Brooks October 15, 1987 0 A Division of 'I V Iil 44 Corlmatiori 44 West M e�idow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 303 9476 -4271 Planning and Environmental Commission • 2:00 P.M. Site Visits November 9, 1987 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. A request for a special development district for the Garden of the Gods Club. Applicant: A.G. Hill 2. A request for a height variance for a duplex located on Parcel A, resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Michael and Suzanne Tennebaum • A 0 Planning and Environmental Commission November 9, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT J.J. Collins Peggy Osterfoss Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. The minutes of the meeting of 10/26/87 were approved. Pam Hopkins stepped down from the table for this item. 1. A request for a special development district for the Garden of the Gods Club. Applicant: A.G. Hill, Sr. • Kristan Pritz showed plans and described the changes and the reasons for the changes. She showed a list of room sizes in other lodges as well. Kristan reviewed the criteria using SDD criteria of buffer zone, circulation system, functional open space, etc. She then reviewed zoning considerations and stated that the staff recommended approval with 3 conditions. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the proposal was the end result of negotiations with the staff. He discussed the changes. He felt the conditions requested were acceptable. However, Peterson said there was no one set of documents concerning the P2 parking that stated which spaces were for the Garden of the Gods. He offered to use minutes with attached surveys and have all participating people sign them. Sid felt this was a good proposal. Diana asked why smaller rooms were being built, when other proposals were asking for larger rooms. Jay answered that the overall units were large, the small bedrooms were dictated by structural parameters. Diana supported the proposal but felt it was a dangerous trend because it was easy for the owners to pull the rental units off the rental market. Jim Viele supported the proposal because of the upgrading of the building. He felt that sometimes the PEC support of upgrading of lodges could be better. Sid moved and Bryan seconded to recommend to Town Council the approval of the request of the zone change with the following three conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide written, legal, documentation of the Garden of the Gods' right to use the parking spaces on the east side of Vail Valley Drive on a parcel called P -2. The applicant has submitted documentation of the Garden of the Gods' participation as a member of the P -2 Condominium Association. However, staff must have written documentation as well as an attached map to scale showing the area of the P -2 parcel which is allocated to the Garden of the Gods. This agreement must also be approved by the other members of the P -2 Condominium Association. This document must be submitted and approved by the staff before the project proceeds to second reading of the ordinance. 2. The applicant must submit a revised employee housing agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the location, type of unit, and square footage of the employee housing units. This information must be submitted and approved by the owner and Town of Vail before second reading of the ordinance. 3. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to restrict per the Subdivision Rental Restriction, Section 17.26.075, 6 lock -off accommodation units, 10 free - standing accommodation units and 1 dwelling unit as indicated on the PFC plans. This written agreement shall be submitted and approved by staff before the second reading of the SDD ordinance. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 2. A request for a height variance for a duplex located on Parcel A, resubdivision of Lots 14 nd 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filin Applicants: Michael and Suzanne Tennenbaum Rick Pylman stated the showed the site plan. issued with the condit zoning requirements." led to this request as applicant's argument. denial. request was for a 3 foot variance. He On May 6th the building permit was ion that "building height must meet Rick explained the ensuing events that well as the staff position on the He stated that the staff recommended Kurt Segerberg, architect on the project, disagreed with Rick and explained that he felt that if he had found something wrong with the site after the fact, it should be investigated. He added that he could not say the grade was not changed for construction. Kurt asked what is meant by "prior to construction." He felt that there would be no real advantage in cutting the roof off. He added that the masses were well planned. Neighbors commented on the proposal and opposed the variance. Pam Hopkins felt this variance would be a special privilege. She reminded Kurt that the staff had brought the situation to his attention and he had assured the staff that it would be corrected. Sid felt that to grant this variance would set a precedent. Diana pointed out that the staff had told the applicant of the problem in the beginning. Jim Viele was in sympathy with everyone involved, but felt to grant this would be a grant of special privilege. Hobbs agreed. Diana moved and Pam seconded to deny the variance per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 to deny. Jim reminded the applicant that he had the right to appeal the decision to the Town council. 1�1 • TO. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: November 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Club from Public Accommodation zoning to a Special Development District and to include a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing in the SDD proposal in order to remodel 16 accommodation units and add 6 dwelling units. Applicant: A.G. Hill, Sr. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The request is for a special development district to remodel the Garden of the Gods Club by: A. Adding 6 dwelling units having a total GRFA of 9,992 square feet of which 2,628 s.f. is actually new square footage. B. Remodeling 16 existing accommodation units having a total GRFA of 4,596 square feet. C. Expanding the common area by adding two elevators, new ski storage space (270 s.f.) and a larger entry (175 • s.f.). D. Expanding mechanical space (240 s.f.). E. Relocating one restricted employee accommodation unit that will be changed to a dwelling unit. The square footage is decreased from 610 square feet to 210 square feet of GRFA. The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 16 accommodation units (4,596 square feet) as well as one dwelling unit (1,134 square feet) per the use restrictions outlined in the Subdivision Regulations 17.26.075 that stipulates "The condominium units created shall remain in the short term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public... An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to 28 days during the seasonal period of December 24 to January lst and February lst to March 20th." . The project will continue to be run as a lodge in order to provide customary lodge services and facilities for guests. In the future, the owner has indicated his intention to condominiumize the project. II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST A Special Development District is being requested as opposed to Public Accommodation zoning for the following reasons: A. The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge. According to the zoning code Section 18.04.210, definition of a lodge: "A lodge means a building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families, either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the Gross Residential Floor Area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the Gross Residential Floor Area devoted to dwelling units and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing • the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities." In respect to the proposed remodel, 510 of the GRFA will not be devoted to accommodation units. Presently, 53% of the total GRFA is devoted to accommodation units. The proposed plan will allow for 27% of the total GRFA to be allocated to accommodation units. Please see Chart 1. B. The proposed plan is .5 du's over the allowable density. 12.5 dwelling units are allowed. 16 a.u.'s and 2 dwelling units exist creating a total density of 10 dwelling units. The proposal calls for 10 accommodation units, 6 accommodation units which serve as lock -offs, and 8 dwelling units for a total density of 13 dwelling units. (Please note: 2 accommodation units = 1 dwelling unit.) C. The proposed common area (4,360 square feet) is over the allowable common area of 3,519 square feet. The project's existing common area (3,575 s.f.) exceeds the allowable by 56.s.f. However, the proposed remodel will remain within the allowable GRFA even with the excess common area added to the GRFA. . In respect to all other zoning standards and parking, the project meets the requirements of the Public Accommodation 2 zone district. Please see the attached zoning statistics at the end of the memo for more specific square footage breakdowns. Please see Charts 2 and 3. III. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DE VELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Buffer zone The provision of a buffer zone is not applicable to this proposal. B. Circulation System The circulation system on the property will be unchanged. C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function. The property meets the Public Accommodation zone district's landscaping requirements. The expansion on the east side of the building will require that seven existing aspen trees and one large spruce tree be relocated and planted on site. The applicant is proposing to also add a mix of 10 trees (aspen and spruce) at the entry to the lodge. The owner has agreed that if any of the relocated trees (7 aspen and 1 spruce) die, they will be replaced with comparable trees. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities facilities and open space. Clearly, the proposal falls short of meeting the definition of a lodge which would require that more than 500 of the GRFA be devoted to accommodation units. Even though the number of au's remains the same, the average size of the proposed au's is substantially decreased. Existing rooms (au's) range in size from 328 s.f. to 672 s.f. New au's have room sizes of 222 to 355 s.f. Recently, the staff and PEC reviewed the Ramshorn project which also did not meet the strict definition of a lodge. In analyzing this type of request, the staff has taken the position that maintaining rental restricted units for the bed base is a positive one for the community. The intent of the requirement that a majority of the project's square footage be devoted to accommodation units is to maintain the purpose of 3 • the Public Accommodation District as a "site for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors." (Section 18.22.110 Purpose section of Public Accommodation district.) Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning is requested, there is some flexibility in how the intent of the Public Accommodation zone district may be maintained without meeting the precise requirement of having a majority of square footage devoted to accommodation units. If the project is viewed in terms of available, rentable units, or "keys," i.e. au's or du's that are available for rent, the project has 24 units or "keys" available for guests. This number of "keys" is based on the fact that 16 accommodation units and 8 dwelling units are available as potential rental units for guests. Of the 24 rentable units, 17 are proposed to have the use restriction per the subdivision regulations in Section 17.26.075. In other words, 70% of rentable units or keys will have the rental restriction. It is staff's opinion that the number of keys available for guests is also important in maintaining the intent of the PA zone district for lodging. This is not to say that having a majority of the GRFA devoted to au's is also not an • important criteria for insuring the short term use of a property. However, it should be pointed out that technically the owner could reduce the number of accommodation units within the project and increase the GRFA of each of these units. This approach would technically meet the definition of a lodge but would mean that the number of rentable units available to guests is decreased. Staff believes the proposal is positive in that the au's are upgraded and will be maintained as au's with the rental restriction. In addition, the applicant has agreed to restrict one dwelling unit with the rental use restriction which is not required under the lodge conversion regulations. (Please note that when a lodge is condominiumized, the rental restriction only applies to au's.) In respect to the additional density of .5 units, which is not allowed by the PA zoning, it is the staff's opinion that the proposal does not present any significant negative impacts in the area of mass and bulk. The proposed remodel will also have a total GRFA that is within the allowable under the PA zone district. L� 4 The owner has also agreed to rental use restrictions for 1 du due to the density request. This complies with the intent of the Vail Village Plan even though no specific recommendation is called out for this site. Goal 2, Objective 3 of the Vail Village Plan reads: To increase the number of residential units throughout the Village area available for short - term overnight accommodations. 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. (Please note the Vail Village Plan is not officially approved.) The applicant has also agreed to change an existing employee restricted accommodation unit to an employee restricted dwelling unit. Staff's opinion is that a dwelling unit will be much more beneficial as employee housing as opposed to an accommodation unit. S E. Privacy in terms of the needs of individuals, families and neighbors. The staff sees no negative impacts upon this criteria. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The staff sees no negative impacts upon this criteria. G. Building type in terms of appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. The project meets all of the setback, site coverage, and height requirements per the Public Accommodation zone district. Staff feels that there are no negative impacts on mass and bulk. H. Building design in terms of orientation, spacing, mareriais, color ana texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. Staff's opinion is that the exterior of the Garden of the Gods Club will be improved greatly by this proposal. 5 . With regard to solar blockage, the applicant is well within the height limits for the PA zone district which are 45 feet for a flat roof and 48 feet for a sloping roof. The existing building is 42 feet high. The proposed additional space is located on the east elevation and is 34 feet high. The proposal also includes additional landscaping which will be an improvement to the property. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Uses The property will not meet the strict definition of a lodge upon completion of the remodel. However, with 700 of the keys or rentable units being rental restricted and available for tourist use, the intent of the Public Accommodation zone district as a site for residential accommodations for guests is maintained. The proposal is also positive in that one employee restricted au is changed to a more useable du. The additional common area also provides square footage which improves the functioning of the project as a lodge. B. Density The proposal does have a total density of 13 dwelling units which is .5 du's over the allowable density of 12.5 du's. As previously stated, staff's opinion is that the additional bulk and mass of the building is acceptable and all other zoning standards, particularly the Public Accommodation GRFA require- ment have been met. The staff and PEC have also reviewed similar requests like the Christiania and Ramshorn where proposed additional density had to comply with the rental use restrictions. C. Setbacks The proposed remodel will not encroach into any setbacks further than the existing building. D. Height The height proposed in the addition is a maximum of + 34 feet, whereas, the maximum allowed is 48 feet. E. Site Coverage The site coverage is within the allowable. Allowed: 9,677 square feet. Existing: 6,363 square feet. Proposed 6,831 square feet. [:9 F. Landscaping The proposal does require the relocation of 7 existing aspen and 1 spruce. The applicant is proposing to add additional landscaping and replant the existing trees that must be relocated for the addition. G. Parking Parking requirements are met for the proposal. The proposal requires 27 spaces and 28 spaces are proposed. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically, our position is very similar to our recommedation on the Ramshorn project. As stated previously, "although the inability of the end product to meet the strict defintion of a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will continue to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing high quality tourist accommodations in the PA zone district." The staff believes that it is critical that the property remain as a functioning lodge and that the 16 au's and 1 du be made available to the tourist bed base as per the owners' use restrictions outlined in the subdivision regulations. staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide written, legal, documentation of the Garden of the Gods' right to use the parking spaces on the east side of Vail Valley Drive on a parcel called P -2. The applicant has submitted documentation of the Garden of the Gods' participation as a member of the P -2 Condominium Association. However, staff must have written documentation as well as an attached map to scale showing the area of the P -2 parcel which is allocated to the Garden of the Gods. This agreement must also be approved by the other members of the P -2 Condominium Association. This document must be submitted and approved by the staff before the project proceeds to second reading of the ordinance. 2. The applicant must submit a revised employee housing agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the location, type of unit, and square footage of the employee housing units. This information must be submitted and approved by the owner and Town of Vail • before second reading of the ordinance. 3. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to restrict per the Subdivision Rental Restriction, Section 17,26.075, 6 lock -off accommodation units, 10 free- standing accommodation units and 1 dwelling unit as indicated on the FEC plans. This written agreement shall be submitted and approved by staff before the second reading of the SDD ordinance. l_. J 0 AU's DU's RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE UNITS TOTAL GRFA (Allowed GRFA 17,594 sf) TOTAL DENSITY 10 du's (2.5 under allowable) 3575 COMMON LOBBY LOUNGE % OF TOTAL GRFA IN AU's % OF TOTAL GRFA IN DU's % OF TOTAL GRFA RENTAL RESTRICTED TOTAL KEYS % OF KEYS RESTRICTED CHART 1 EXISTING 16 au's 7,742 sf 2 du's 6,745 sf 1 au 610 sf 1 du 515 sf 14,543 sf (3,051 under allowed GRFA) 53% 47% C 18 0 PROPOSED 10 au's + 6 au /lock -offs 16 au's = 4596 8 du's = 12,141 sf 1 du 215 sf 1 du 515 sf 17,578 sf (16 under allowed GRFA) 13 du's (.5 units over allowable) 4360 27% 73% 16 AU's, 4596 1 DU 1134 5730 sf or 34% 24 70% or 17 keys 1. Restricted employee units are not included in Density or GRFA calculations. 2. Keys are defined as rentable units, both du's and au's • 4] CHART 2 Zoning Statistics Public Accommodation Zone District Site Area: .5049 acres or 21,993 sf ALLOWED EXISTING GRFA (.80) 17,594 sf 14,487 sf DENSITY (25 du's /acre) COMMON (.20) HEIGHT 12.5 du's 3,519 sf 45' flat 48' slope SITE COVERAGE (.55) 9,677 sf LANDSCAPING (.30) 5,278 sf SETBACKS 20 ft 14,543 sf 16 au's 2 du's 10 total du's 3,575 sf 42' slope 6,363 sf OK PROPOSED 16.717 of 10 au's 6 au lock-off 8 du = 8 du 13 total du's 4,360 sf 42' - proposed area of expansion is approximately 34' 6,831 sf OK East 20' West .2' (19.8 encroachment) North 1.4' (19.6 encroachment) South 9' (11' encroachment) Same as Existing PARKING 22 required 27 required SPACES 28 existing 28 proposed (Standard parking requirements applied, no parking required for 1 lock -off per new du.) U 10 CHART 3 EXISTING i FLOORS #AU /GRFA 1ST 1 au 204 sf 2ND 7 au 3,260 sf 3RD 8 au 4,278 sf 4TH 0 TOTAL 16 au 7,742 sf W PROPOSED : #DUZGRFA 1 du 2,350 sf X 0 1 du 4,395 sf 2 du 6,745 sf EMPLOYEE HOUSING RESTRICTED TOTAL GRFA UNITS COMM. MECH 2,554 sf 1 du 2013 222 515 sf + bar 722 2735 sf 3,260 sf 4,278 4,395 sf 1.4,487 sf 1 au 0 610 sf 420 sf 0 420 sf 0 0 0 0 1,125 sf 3,575 sf 222 FLOOR AU GRFA DU GRFA TOTAL 1ST 0 1 du 2350 2350 2ND 8 au 3 du 4996 2298 sf 2698 sf MECH 3RD 8 au 3 du 4996 2298 2698 + bar 4TH 1 du 0 4395 4395 TOTALS: 16 au 8 du 16,737 . 4596 12,141 EMPLOYEE RESTRICTED UNITS COMM. MECH 1 du 210 2458 441 1 du 570 + bar 722 3180 sf 0 590 0 0 590 0 0 0 0 2 du 4360 441 780 sf 11 EXAMPLES OF AU ROOM SIZES PROJECT NAME RANGE OF ROOM SIZES 0 Garden of the Gods Existing: 328 to 672 sf Proposed: 222 to 355 sf Westin /Cascade Village Plaza I 19 au's - 293-355 sf 2 au's - 459; 1 au - 423 sf Terrace Wing- 397 -642 sf Westin 150 at 425 sf Christiania 190, 268, 282, 305 sf Doubletree 377 sf /au Ramshorn 22 au = 7,529 GRFA approx. 342 sf /au Vail Athletic Club 364 to 522 sf Gashof Gramshammer l au, 290 sf 300 - 350 sf majority of units 1 at 508 sf 1 at 613 sf Plaza Lodge 380 sf 267 sf 396 sf 285 sf 361 sf Holiday Inn 288 sf Sonnenalp 318 sf 297 sf 315 sf n L.1 12 �.. 0 TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department November 9, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance for an existing structure currently under building permit on Parcel A, Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Michael and Suzanne Tennenbaum I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants are requesting a three foot variance to the height regulation of 33 feet for a portion of roof ridge on the east half of the Tennenbaum duplex. Allowable building height in the Primary /Secondary zone district is 33 feet. The current building height at the ridge in question ranges from 36 to 35 On May 6, 1987, the Department of Community Development issued a building permit for the Tennenbaum duplex. The building permit was issued with one condition. The condition . read, "Building height must meet zoning requirements." During the plan check of the permit drawings for the Tennenbaum duplex, the staff recognized a potential height problem and contacted the architect. Upon discussion with the architect, the staff was assured the situation would be remedied, and as we have done in the past, we notated that requirement on the building permit and issued the permit to the contractor. As is required in all construction within the Town of Vail, at the time of framing inspection, the contractor is required to submit an improvement location certificate that shows the project meets both setback and building height requirements. Upon review of the improvement location certificate for the Tennenbaum duplex, it became apparent that the building was up to 3.5' above the allowable height. On October 1, 1987, the Town of Vail Building Department issued a red tag and instructions to cease construction on the site. The project architect then submitted revised plans to the Community Development Department that showed an amended ridge height that met Town of Vail requirements. Based upon the architect's assurance that the building would be amended as per the revised plans prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, the red tag was released on October • 5, 1987. The staff and applicant both understood that during this period, the applicant did have the right to apply for a height variance. On October 12th, the applicant filed an application for a height variance. . The applicant's justification for the height variance request is based on the premise that the topography utilized to measure building height may not be the original grade of that property. The applicant states that the original topography may have been disturbed during construction of the original structure located on that lot some twenty -odd years ago. The zoning code describes building height as the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade. The definition of existing grade reads as follows: "The existing grade shall be the existing or natural topography of a site prior to construction." The original grade of this particular piece of ground may very well have been disturbed during construction of the first structure on the site. Without a pre - construction topographical survey, there is no way to ascertain whether this area was disturbed or not. The staff feels that the building height of the structure currently under construction should be measured from the existing grade as shown on the Eagle Valley Engineering and Surveying topographical map dated 11/3/86. This information was submitted by the applicant with his building permit application and the building permit was accepted by the applicant based upon this information. We feel strongly that the topographical infor- mation as shown on the Eagle Valley Engineering survey should be the base topography utilized when calculating building height. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consi deration of Factors: The relationship of the re ested variance to other existinq or Potential uses and structures in the vicinity. With the exception of the Single Family zoned lot immediately adjacent to this property, the rest of the private property in this area is zoned Primary /Secondary. The maximum building height allowable for the Primary/ Secondary and Single Family zone districts is 33 It is unlikely that a 36' roof height along a portion of the ridge of this structure i 1 • would create a significant impact upon the relationship of this building to others in the structure. The impact upon views regarding a difference between 33' and 36' in height from other properties has not been studied. However, we do feel the existing structures in the vicinity have been able to meet the building height requirements and we see no reason for an exception here. The degree to which relief from the st rict 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 staff feels that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. We feel there is no physical hardship on this parcel which would require relief from the building height regulations. We feel that the applicant's statements of pre - disturbed topography would have some validity if that discussion had taken place at the design or building permit stages of the project. At that point, discussion could have taken place and agreement could . have been made upon a grade to use as the base for the building height calculations. Unfortunately, although the applicant was made aware of potential height problems, no such discussion took place during that time, and the building permit was issued based upon information supplied by the applicant. It is unclear whether the existing height situation was caused by design problems or by construction inaccuracies. Regardless of how the existing situation developed, we feel it is inappropriate at this point in time to question the topography in order to justify the building height. 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 is very little impact upon this criteria by this proposal. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • 3 :7 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 difficulty 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 n U same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for denial of the height variance request. We feel that the actions of the applicant -- submitting for, and then accepting a building permit based upon the existing topography --- negate the applicants argument of pre - disturbed grade on site. This situation is clearly a self imposed hardship. It is apparent that somewhere along the line an error was made and the building height exceeded 33 feet. We feel, however, that a construction error does not qualify as a legitimate physical hardship. • While we recognize that the existing ridge height does not present significant impacts upon the neighborhood, there is no legitimate reason to bend the development guidelines of the zone district. The applicant has submitted revised drawings which demonstrate that the ridge may be re -built to meet Town of Vail requirements. We feel this is the course of action that should be followed, and therefore recommend denial of the request. 4 r L O O M z O a X O m �C a s - F) �r- O p zG n --A z X O m z m n --lo err O -�I am --i > D m '� O m �- O z m C7 m m n n r r OO m 0 x1 m T m p T m 0 m O ?� h m n n w m Z K m Z K m Z K m Z rn C-) r © > W Q m 0 m x r- z m x O q ` J CD 1• - a 0) o a S, m N - TT V N Z m -- p x r C) 4 rt m z 0< 0 z r 00 0 m 0 0 V1 .p 0 �, O .A o rr, I � w C7 ( 1 0 � z 1 n n z > ° n D n m �' co ¢ > V M> C z - :5. 0 z 07 w• -+ r m > > m 0 I r m r M a) c' O I co a) m .,.�. O C N ro "a { z 0 O "n � > "{ -. O 0 o � n Om - I X m r O p �, D G5 X X U CO G �z 0O c C O > co O D r - N Cy -_ d 3 o z O z V) o m CD r (a SD � O O z O C V> O rr A 0 o N 5 . t7 C) Q CD 0 L r I I I C "� m (rl C= C 00 0 w R C) r CD r m O D { D w ~ M 4 CD a r p ? m x C X O r @ Ll @ a m I C z (q O w N CL w C) 00 .. w I , I r• fL o xj c . I - J. VALUATION a p O @ j� w :r P) x Z Z C 0� O I Con m mm 0 m 0 m r C r m r > G QO O @.0 O I a � (n m Y Z z J. w r O m t) m Co m 7: D m o O C o M 3 O O Co � I� -n I x R m O C7 y r G7 p f y W d Z K m co mm C z C-) p m �C) D O >> m r M r . El= �C ) W O r r O K cn h C) p� z 77 F � Q La Q ra 1 1 S d CD c CD esa O 3 0 z CL m C m o C 3 0 M Cl z > O rTf "I m 3 I � n O , ,D "n CO 'U V m x --I O co m m - 'I O z C 0 m m `l I b m 0 O@ z z zi mm z h 1 Q Q 0 W m O m w w 0 M A O m C�7 - < z 0 0 7�c I C-) r © > W Q m 0 O x r- z m x O q ` J CD 1• - a 0) o a S, m N - TT V N I m -- p x r C) 4 rt m p 0< 0 z r 00 C m „ b m z O -i I � w C7 ( 1 0 � j Q Er ?; f0 1 m r z > ° n D m W L7 n :5. 0 z 0 m > > Ln p 0 W O m m .,.�. I C N ro "a z 0 O "n � > -. O 0 o � n Om - I 1 1 S d CD c CD esa O 3 0 z CL m C m o C 3 0 M Cl z > O rTf "I m 3 I � n O , ,D "n CO 'U V m x --I O co m m - 'I O z C 0 m m `l I b m 0 O@ z z zi mm z h 1 Q Q 0 W m O m w w 0 M A O m C�7 - < z 0 0 7�c -{ E W <_- x O q ` J CD 1• - a 0) o a S, —� —i m I z 0< 0 z r (j V 0* j Q Er ?; f0 m z > ° n D W L7 n z z /7 3 � O C + CD ca 0 m Ln p 0 W O n M -. O 0 X m r O p �, D X X C n � - O �z c O > co O D r N Cy -_ d 3 o z W m CD r (a SD � � z V> A 5 . t7 C) Q CD z I I I C "� m (rl C= C 00 0 w R 1 to r CD r m O D { D 4 CD a r C n O r @ Ll @ a m C z (q O w N CL w C) 00 .. w o xj c . I VALUATION a p O @ j� w :r P) x Z Z C 0� O I Con m mm 0 m 0 m r C r m r > G QO O @.0 O I a � m Y Z z 0 D w r O m t) m Co m 7: D m o O C o M 3 O O Co � I� -n I x R m O C7 y r G7 p f y W d Z N - 3 6 C z 0 C_ n' D r r x R m z G c) m� � m o-0 9 0 \ \' O `Z O, 0 O z �I� nl� D r i Z � b 0 W -n M 3 n r > �Q c� -, I -n - I oo = 15. C z T:( — — �� z 0 m 31 � w = O I N ° cs1 W N m 0 C C � C- C Q - Z I C =3 Cn `� ' m O D (�� in 0 � � � Co C C) W WW Q r\) V v (n O O O i �Jci o - p m II I cn 0o O CO O 54 C) r cn I- C r � j(D p 0 a= i C al o O CD C) CO C) CD C) o �I si C CO O O C O O C @ O 3m y O � m � �Q rnw - , = N mI �' �� CE 0 @ Cr. C � o�,���• I� G I r D FL r I I 1+ ?3 % 7� 1 1 S d CD c CD esa O 3 0 z CL m C m o C 3 0 M Cl z > O rTf "I m 3 I � n O , ,D "n CO 'U V m x --I O co m m - 'I O z C 0 m m `l Planning and Environmental Commission November 23, 1987 2:00 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. A request to rezone Pulis Ranch, Sunburst Filing No. 3, located at 1785 Sunburst Drive, from Low Density Multi - Family to Single Family Residential zone district. Applicant: S.H. Shapiro and Company 2. A request for side and front setback variances on Lot 19, Block A, Vail das Schone Subdivision Filing No. 1 in order to build covered parking. Applicant: Tonnie Ferguson 3. A request to apply the Parking District zone to a triangular parcel of land bounded on the north and west by Breakaway West Condominiums, and on the south by the North Frontage Road. Applicant: William Fleischer 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to place seasonal parking on the upper bench of Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail 5. Appointment of board member and back -up to DRB for December, January and February. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 23, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT J.J. Collins Peter Patten Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Bryan Hobbs Rick Pylman Pam Hopkins Betsy Rosolack Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz CJ ABSENT Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by the Vice - Chairman, Diana Donovan. 1. A request to rezone a portion of Pulis Ranch, Sunburst Filing #3, at 1785 Sunburst Drive, from Low Density Multiple Family to Single Family Residential zone. Applicant: S.H. Shapiro and Company Peter Patten gave the staff presentation. He showed a plat map and site plan and stated that the staff recommended approval. Abe Shapiro made a brief statement as the applicant. Bryan Hobbs moved to recommend approval per the staff memo and Hopkins seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. A request for side and front setback variances on Lot 19 Block A, Vail das Schone Subdivision, Filing #1 in order to build covered parking. Applicant: Tonnie Ferauson Kristan Pritz explained the request and presented the zoning analysis. She then reviewed the criteria and findings. Discussion of the structure followed. J.J. Collins moved to approve the request per the staff memo with the finding that 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 vote was 6 -0 in favor. The PEC asked staff to pass on to the DRB their concern that the materials and design of the covered parking be looked at closely. 3. A request to apply the parking District zone to a triangular parcel of land bounded on the north and west by Breakaway West Condominiums, and on the south by the North Frontage Road. Applicant: William Fleischer The applicant asked to table this item until December 14. Sid Schultz moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to table. The vote was 6 -0. • r 0 • 4. A request for a conditio use seasonal parking on the Applicant: Town of Vail er rmit in order to place h of Ford Park. Kristan Pritz explained that this request was for five years instead of only one year. J.J. Collins felt that an annual review was appropriate and the PEC should have the flexibility to review any changes in the situation and add additional restrictions, if necessary. Peggy felt that in light of the World races coming in 1989, it was important to see how this would fit into larger parking plans along with the addition of a swimming pool at the park. Bryan asked if a conditional use could be revoked at any time and was told it could be, then he stated there was no reason not to give a 5 year approval. Sid agreed with J.J. and Peggy, as did Pam. Diana stated that originally the parking on the upper bench at Ford Park was to be for special events only. She felt that having a parking lot on the upper bench only encouraged locals to drive their cars to Vail instead of taking the bus. She felt it looked tacky and cheap, and pointed out that this was supposed to be open space. Kristan stated that the Town of Vail's original intent for the parking area was to provide parking for special events and overflow parking. A secondary use as an employee parking lot developed over the past two years and had not been antici- pated by the Town. Diana felt employees should ride the bus. Peggy felt this parking lot helped the small business owner who could not afford to buy a parking pass for their employees. J.J. repeated the requirement for an annual review. Peter said a five year approval could be given with an annual review in which case if the conditions change, it could be called up for public review. Diana felt approval one year at a time would keep everyone on their toes. Peter preferred to see a five year approval with annual reviews. Kristan suggested having the review in September to give time for any needed changes to be made. J.J. moved to approve the request for a five year conditional use permit with three conditions: 1. A representative of the Town of Vail would present the PEC with the plan each year no later than 10/15. 2. If the Town of Vail does not conduct a review with the PEC each year by the above date, the parking will not be approved. 3. The Planning Commission can modify, amend, deny or approve the conditional use permit. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and the vote was 5 in favor and 1 (Diana) against. . Pam Hopkins volunteered to be the PEC representative to DRB for January and February and Diana Donovan volunteered to be the PEC representative for March and April. ,r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 23, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone property located at 1785 Sunburst Drive from Low Density Multi--Family to Single Family Residential. Applicant: S. H. Shapiro and Company I. THE REQUEST In 1982, upon completion of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes Expansion project, the Pulis Ranch (which also contained the above property) was subdivided through a townhouse plat into two portions. The remaining parcel is the subject property and contains 13,823 square feet, while the larger parcel contains the expansion of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes. The two parcels are separated by Sunburst Drive. In 1983, a single family home was constructed on the smaller site. The zoning for The applicant which contains Residential. The applicant both parcels is Low Density Multiple Family. is requesting to change the zoning of the parcel the single family home to Single Family states: "The lot is presently ,zoned as Low Density Multi - Family, and is part of the Vail Golfcourse Townhome Zoning. When in fact it is a single family home, physically separated by a dedicated road (Sunburst Drive) and has nothing to do with the Townhome project whatsoever in any way. The present owners wish to have the proper and accurate zoning, which is Single Family Residential' attributable to this property and its existing improvement. The present owner is concerned that unless this is done, there could be future liability in associating this property with the Townhome project, as well as possible future title policy ramifications. The property and improvements is in appearance, design, construction, and actual use as a single family residence. The owners believe this property should show on the records of the Town of Vail accurately as a Single Family lot and residence." II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Criteria #1. Suitability of existing zoning. 7 1.11 C. The existing zoning, Low Density Multiple Family, is clearly not appropriate for the site of the present single family home. However, the building conforms in density to either Single Family or Low Density Multiple Family zoning, as it contains 2,182 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area. Under Low Density Multiple Family the allowable GRFA would be 4,146 square feet and with Single Family zoning, the allowable GRFA would be 3,455 square feet. Height and setbacks also conform to Single Family Residential. The property is adjacent to Primary /Secondary property on the east and to the Vail Golfcourse on the rear and west side. Although there are townhomes across Sunburst Drive, they are well removed and buffered by a berm. Clearly, the less dense zoning of Single Family Residential is more suitable for this property than Low Density Multiple Family. Criteria #2 Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal obJectives? With respect to the physical nature of the property, the zone change would be compatible with the neighboring land uses of low density residentialto the east and the Vail Golfcourse on the west and north. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? The staff feels that the rezoning does provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The downzoning to a single family development reduces potential density in the area of of the golf course. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff recommends approval of the rezoning of this parcel. We feel that the zone of Single Family is an appropriate zone for this lot and see no adverse conditions as a result of the rezoning. AJ rD M - S: m Hu N OS °12�5� 86.8 "a e M $I y 20 Sewer EasemsM -.. -- �- -, -- 64,51 • .• O � N26y/ 3 56 9b e� 1� •Op N 7 / / 5 ti p / O N 'd y f 1 A' • 26i q, o _ a 0 9O - •!s I 1 f � O m to C � a r t 1 i • u •off - u .+ 0 c P y G? ?. uv Y w p 4 u W a 8 O ; 4 r C� a W W Ci 't7 0 o c t+ -Nm P 7 4 fr ■ m u V 4 V U m N �P. 4 m i1 • N a u. � Y G u 4 W Y. - M VN 7r• C IG. -fir � -a n r T r O q C _C C 7 .y M� .. y a v V !Z • f+ . 7 IZ �f E M C O W r�1 S �� V y 1 r O u g M M CO f'1 L h: V R -0 30 4 F i w u N� s Y x • � i. ►. e ea 1. m r r � t p "-. u � � a V 9 ! f1 O I a, Q a C ' C c o v b w M 111111 t K 4 V� �'O Y .i M ' 7 � ✓ W N 41 7 A V _� a r t i T °: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department November 23, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for zoning of a 0.120 acre parcel previously designated as State Highway right -of-way to Parking District {Section 18.34 of the Town Municipal Code ). Applicant: William I. Fleischer I. BACKGROUND In April of 1984, the applicant received the deed to a 0.212 acre tract of land located adjacent to the Breakaway West Condominium project, which had previously owned by the Colorado State Highway Department and designated as I -70 right -of -way. The property was acquired through purchase from the Colorado Department of Highways as a remainder parcel. On October 13, 1986, the PEC heard a request for a minor subdivision and zoning to Parking District for this parcel of land. That hearing was tabled until October 27, 1986, at which time the Planning Commission approved the minor subdivision and the zoning request with a 3 -1 vote. . The zoning request then moved forward to Town Council where it was indefinitely tabled at first reading. The applicant once again wishes to revive this request, and due to the great length of time from the original tabling at Town Council, Town staff decided that this application should start again at Planning Commission. The minor subdivision approval in October of 1986 was finaled, so the request today is once again for the zoning of the parcel to the Parking District designation. At the time of the original application, the Community Development Department staff recommendation was for denial. The staff's recommendation has remained unchanged from the original zoning request. While the issues concerning this tract of land and this application have not changed, conditions at Vail Run have changed. In 1987 the PEC and Town Council gave Vail Run approval to change a tennis court to a parking lot. This was done to provide the project with 24 additional parking spaces. Given this approval, the staff sees little merit to the argument that Vail Run is in need of additional parking. Staff feels that the planning issues cited in our original memo are valid and establish justifiable grounds for denying this request. The Town attorney has advised us that the failure to approve a use with some level of economic return may constitute a taking. In this case, we feel strongly that the Parking zone district is not the appropriate zone district for this parcel of land and therefore maintain our recommendation of denial. e, �7 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for zoning of a 0.120 acre parcel previously designated as State Highway right -of -way to Parking District (Section 18.34 of the Town Municipal Code). APPLICANT: William I. Fleischer I. THE REQUEST In April of 1984, the applicant received deed to a 0.12 acre tract of land located adjacent to the Breakaway Condominium project, which previously had been owned by the Colorado State Highway Department and designated as I -70 right -of -way. This property was acquired through purchase from the Colorado Department of Highways. Because the applicant desires to develop a parking lot on this parcel, the Town of Vail has requested the applicant to file a request for both minor subdivision and for zoning. This property, previously being held by a public entity and designated as highway right --of -way, has not previously been designated with a Town of Vail zone district. The minor subdivision request is being addressed under a separate 16 memorandum. Chapter 18.34 of the Town of Vail municipal code describes the Parking Zone District. Section 18.34.010 of that chapter states the following as the purpose of the Parking zone district: "The Parking District is intended to provide sites for private or public unstructured off- street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off - street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The Parking District is intended to provide such facilities while insuring adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas." The applicant states the following in support of this request: "In the present case, the parking would be used for employee parking for Vail Run. Currently Vail Run is 97 spaces short on parking. This zoning application would help alleviate the problem." The applicant has also submitted a site plan detailing design of the proposed parking lot on the site. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST 16 A. Criteria #1. Suitability of existing zoning. The Town of Vail, like most municipalities, has no zone district designation for highway right -of -way properties. Highway right -of -way properties have traditionally contained public highways and streets, pedestrian and bicycle pathways and associated open space buffering those highways and streets from the adjacent private properties. Due to the transfer of this property from public to private entity and Mr. Fleischer`s subsequent request to utilize this parcel, the Town of Vail has requested Mr. Fleischer to file for a zone district category for this property. B. Criteria #2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable rel ationship among land uses, consistent with municipal obj_e_ctiyes? U With respect to the physical relationship of this parcel to adjacent land uses and consistency with municipal objectives, the staff has several concerns with this request. The parcel proposed for zoning is extremely small, 0.12 acres for a total of 5,227 square feet. While the Parking District contains no requirements for minimum lot size, we feel that creating a parking lot on a parcel of ground as small as this creates negative impacts which negates the small gain in parking. The proposed parking area, when viewed in conjunction with the parking for the adjacent Breakaway West Condominiums, will create a large, visible asphalt area and will have a high negative view impact from the public right -of -way as well as the immediately adjacent residential units. The creation of this additional parking lot will also create a dangerous interface with both the existing bicycle path and the North Frontage Road. Philosophically, the Community Development Department does not believe that this proposal is consistent with municipal objectives, nor does it present a convenient workable relationship among land uses. The portion of State Highway right -of -way that is not being utilized as vehicle or pedestrian passageways has traditionally been used as a buffer zone and setback area to protect the adjacent private properties. Development all along I -70 within the Town of Vail, especially in this area, is based on the aspect of using that right -of -way as an open space buffer. It is common for private property owners to develop recreational or parking uses right up to their property line. These uses are then buffered from visible and physical aspects of the public by this open space as a part of the State Highway Department system. The existing Breakaway parking areas have utilized this right -of -way land as an open space buffer zone from the bicycle path and from the highway. Another example of this is the current request by Vail Run to develop additional parking on the south side of their building. That parking is being developed right to the property line with the Highway Department right -of -way being utilized as a berm and landscaped area to buffer that parking from both the bicycle path and the highway. The possibility of the transfer of these properties from highway right--of -way to private land, which prompts development requests, places the development philosophy of utilizing this land as an open space buffer in jeopardy. The staff feels that the highway right -of -way land should remain as open space and should not be developed by either private or public entities for anything other than the uses than have traditionally been found within the highway right -of-way. C. Criteria #3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly, viable The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning proposal does not provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Disposal of property by a public entity within the community makes it extremely difficult to plan and provide for orderly and viable growth. Through research being done on the current Land Use Plan, we have determined that the Interstate 70 right -of -way utilizes 505 acres of land within the community, which is 15% of the total land mass within the Town of Vail. Planning for the disposal of even small portions of this area would be an extremely difficult task, and we would recommend that whether this land designated as I -70 right -of -way is in public or private ownership, that the uses continue only as traditionally found within the highway right -of -way. Those uses being public highways and roadways, pedestrian access ways and open space. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposal of zoning this parcel Parking District is for denial. We feel that both physically and philosophically the impacts of zoning this property as Parking District are extremely negative. We make this recommendation due to immediate concerns of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community as well as with regard to the long range planning principles within the community. • 7 I f o 7 v r 1 .a t .e LJ N LJ 7 5. Request to apply the Parking Zone District and for a minor subdivision for an unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road and bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums. Applicant: William I. Fleischer (Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, joined the meeting for this item.) Rick Pylman explained that the board would deal with the zoning first. He added that traditional uses of highway rights -of -way were paths, bikeways and open space. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that he had tried to work with the staff to come up with some appropriate use of the property. He said the applicant had owned the property since 1984, so it had been in the private domain since that time. He mentioned that the applicant had spoken to Mike McGee of the Vail Fire Department about the property, and that therefore the Town did know of the approval to construct an entrance to the property. Peterson reviewed the criteria and stated that parking is allowed on rights -of -ways and mentioned the South Frontage Road as an example. He felt that the second criteria, that of the relationship with adjacent land uses, would support the parking, since there was much parking in the vicinity. Peterson also mentioned the fact that from Sun Vail to Safeway there were 21 road cuts across the bike path, and passed photos to show this. He felt that buffers cannot be guaranteed in all areas. He felt that the staff was not proposing any use, for there was no use on Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone districts. Peterson said in 10/83 the Town approved a landscape plan for Breakaway West which included parking on the subject site, and in 11/83 the Council also approved it. Peter Patten stated that parking use allowed in the Parking District was up blic parking. He added that the 21 road cuts were in place before the bike path was installed. He added that in every case of sales of rights -of -way, the staff had protested the sale. Further, staff did not support the DRB decision concerning landscaping of Breakaway West, and that staff does not write a memo to DRB concerning items on the DRB agendas. George Rosenberg, representing Breakaway West home owners of 50 units, stated that the zoning should be consistent with the Master Plan and Land Use Plan. He stated that the parcel has been and should remain open space or a compatible use. Rosenberg added that Mr. Fleischer should have know the use when he acquired the property. He stressed that the burden of proof to make the appropriate change should be the applicant's rather than the Town's. Rosenberg reminded the staff that Sections 18.34, Parking District and 18.52, Off Street Parking and Loading must be harmonious to some extent. He quoted from 18.34.010 Purpose Section, "...while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas." He pointed out that one use could be a park. Rosenberg felt that this application tied into the earlier one for Vail Run and stated that each development is required to provide parking on site not off site. He felt the safety issue was paramount, and the situation as proposed was clearly hazardous. He mentioned that large trees as proposed in the landscaped berm would block the view. He mentioned that no provisions had been made for snow storage on the lot. Referring to Jay's statement that the adjacent lot was not landscaped, Rosenberg pointed out that Breakaway West had recently spent $90,000 to landscape their property. -5- PEC 10/13/86 Rosenberg felt that the disposal of this right -of -way area was precedent setting and the staff would see more sales of this type. He added that open space was a use and a reasonable use. He added that an alternate use could be a tot lot. Duane Piper stated that the Town had received 38 letters in opposition to the proposed zone. He asked Larry Eskwith whether or not open space was indeed a use, and Larry answered that it was. He added that the Highway Department had violated State statutes by not offering the r.o.w to the local government for first right of refusal and as a result had placed the Town in a difficult position. Larry Eskwith stated that he would like to have more time to deal with the Highway Department and requested the matter to be taken under advisement until the meeting of October 27. Piper asked the board how they felt about tabling, and the board agreed it would be good to learn more, although it would mean the public would have to come back again. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table this request until October 27, 19886. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tablinq. 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to change the use of the old Town Shops located on a__ __a_rt _of Tract p _ C Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Town . of Vail Peter Patten showed site and floor plans which respected an existing easement Is to the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation building to the east. The shops are zoned Public Use District, but lie generally within the Arterial Business District. The Town had been leasing the building to a variety of tenants and was now in the process of taking it over for Town of Vail use. The request is to allow recreation facilities and programs on the upper floor as well as storage on the lower floor. Public recreation facilities (other than parks and playgrounds) are a conditional use in the Public Use District. The site contains 30 parking spaces, and the staff felt that this number would be adequate to serve any peak parking demand. Also, the small lot east of the UEVWSD plant would serve as an overflow. The lot is currently used by UEVWSD personnel during the day. Ceil Folz of the Recreation Department explained that the gymnastics program would be moved from the Red Sandstone gym to this building and the gymnastics program could then be enlarged and the space at Red Sandstone could be utilized for other activities. Diana Donovan was concerned about the safety of the children being dropped off and suggested that a drive - through drop off at the upper door be installed before the gymnastics program be allowed to begin. The board also discussed needed landscaping, and were told that DRB would address the landscaping required. to Donovan moved and use permit per th level drive -throu use the facility Osterfoss seconded to a staff memo with the co h drop -off be installed nd landscapinq be done approval was 6 -0. prove_ the request for a conditional dition that, due to safety, a top before any children were allowed to r DRB e vote for -6- PEC 10/13/86 �4 n 1� (0 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 27, 1986 PRESENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz ABSENT Bryan Hobbs Duane Piper Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Rick Pylman Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack After site inspections, the meeting was called to order at 3 :00 pm by Diana Donovan. 1. Approval of minutes of October 13, 1986. Peggy Osterfoss corrected the minutes. It was her understanding that the board's interpretation of 2.8 was that it was to be jointly financed by the ski mountain owner and the town. This was suggested when Viele made the motion to approve the Land Use Plan, and Viele said that this was understood and it did not need to be added to the motion. Diana Donovan corrected the motion concerning the Town shop building. The motion should have included the statement that the building was not to be used by children until a drive -in drop -off was installed. Peggy Osterfoss moved the minutes be approved as corrected and Sid Schultz_ seconded the motion. The vote was 3 in favor with Pam Hopkins abstaining 2. Request to apply the Parking Zone District and for a minor subdivision for an unzoned parcel of land _located on the North _Frontage Road and bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums. Applicant: William I. Fleischer Rick Pylman reviewed the issue as it was presented at the previous meeting. Larry Eskwith stated that he had spoken to the PEC before the meeting and asked the other attorneys to speak. George Rosenberg, representing the opponents of the issue, stated that the basis for not approving the zoning request was that this was not a self inflicted hardship. He stated that Fleischer was aware of the pre- existing use of the property. He mentioned that by Colorado law, the board had the right to turn down requested zoning. Jay Peterson, representing Fleischer, stated that the issue of whether or not the Highway Department should have notified the Town of Vail was an issue between the Town and the Highway Department, not the Town of Vail and the applicant. He mentioned that he had spoken to Bill Powell of the Highway Department who was in charge of the disposition of parcels of land. Powell explained 4 ways the Highway Dept could dispose of land, and he felt that this parcel did not have to be offered to the Town first. Peterson mentioned that in nearly all cases of Colorado law where someone had requested a zone district, a previous zone had existed. In this case there was no zone. He stated that the parcel had highway right of use which included parking, that the applicant had a right to use the property in some way, and that this parcel was already approved for parking when Fleischer bought it. Peterson showed several documents he had found to substantiate his claims which included memos from Trout Creek Architects dated September 1983. He read from one which indicated that Jim Sayre, former planner for the Town, had allowed Breakaway West to move forward to apply to the DRB. A DRB approval dated 16 October 1983 included the contingency that no building permit would be issued until the property was purchased from the Highway Department. Jay also read other documents which he felt showed the item would not have been required to go through PEC. Peterson said it was apparent to the Town that they knew about the transfer of this land. He stated that this was not a self inflicted hardship. He mentioned that the photos used at the meeting previously should be part of the record. George Rosenberg stated that an error made on the part of the staff in 1983 did not mean the error should be compounded. He stated that if Breakaway West had DRB approval, they still needed PEC approval, and the deal never went through. He added that the first priority must be to on -site parking, not off -site. He felt the applicant knew what he could use the property for. He could have made inquiries before purchasing the property. Larry Eskwith stated that the town was not bound to follow a process in which it had previously made errors, that the process was not "stopped." Eskwith repeated that a self inflicted hardship included the knowledge of what the zone was before purchasing. Jay stated that the applicant did come to the Town to find out what the property could be used for. Peter Patten said the Town did not support the sale of the parcel or the use as parking. The staff remains neutral in DRB issues. Patten pointed out that the condition placed upon the approval stated the problem. He asked if the property was going to be restricted to the private use of Vail Run and Jay answered that there would be no restrictions upon who could use the lot, although according to the zone code, it could be restricted to private use. Peggy Osterfoss stated that in light of the Colorado law regarding unzoned land, she felt that Fleischer had a right to put parking on the property. Peggy felt that it was an unfortunate use of the property and hoped an appropriate buffer and maximum safety to bikers would be part of any approval. She felt that a hump in the bike path that was made during the construction of the road cut should be corrected. Sid Schultz regretted the piece of land went to the highest bidder, and the Town could not purchase it. He agreed with Peggy about Fleischer's right to use the land and of the need for landscaping. Schultz was concerned about the landscaping blocking the view of bikes and cars. Pam Hopkins also regretted the fact that the Town could not own the land. She felt that landscaping should also be placed between the lot and Breakaway West's property and the bike path smoothed out. Jay stated that the hump in the bike path was made so that cars would not slide back onto the bike path in winter. Diana Donovan stated that she chose to look at the property as a piece of land surrounded by the Town. She felt that the history of the land was not applicable, and the PEC had the right to adopt zoning to a reasonable use, and felt that parking was a forced use. She pointed out that as proposed by 40 Breakaway West, the access was different, and therefore it was like dealing with a different parcel. The lot is not legally tied to the property it seeks i to serve. Diana pointed out that landscaping of the lot was necessary, which then made the situation unsafe, especially to the bike path. This parking lot 46 would have a negative impact on both the bike path and the surrounding property. Diana said that when Jay stated that the same number of cars would be accessing the Frontage Road, he did not mention that at present these cars are coming from a main road, not a parking lot. Osterfoss moved and Schultz seconded to recommend approval to Town Council of the request with two conditions: 1. Landscape is required per DRB. 2. Staff ensure that safet of bikers be considered in the placement of signs,1_andscaping, etc. The vote was 3 in favor and l (Donovan),ayainst. Next considered was the request for a minor subdivision of the same property. Schultz moved and Hopkins seconded to _approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4-0 in favor. 3. Request for rear setback variance in order to construct an addition to a dwelling unit located at 4026 Lupine Drive Lot 13 Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Gene Williams Rick Pylman explained the request, pointing out that this was a second floor addition to the already encroaching first floor, and no increase in encroachment was being requested. Staff recommended approval. Schultz moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo b ecause of the existing s etbacks. " b The vote was 4 -0 in favor. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM. . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 23, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a five year conditional use permit in order to place parking on the upper bench of Ford Park during the winter season. Applicant: Town of Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Town of Vail has received conditional use approval for winter parking at Ford Park during the 1985 -86 and 1986 -87 ski seasons. The Town is now requesting a conditional use approval for the mats for a period of five years which would allow winter seasonal parking on the Park during the '87 -88, 88 -89, 89 -90, 90 -91, and 91 -92 winter seasons. The proposal is essentially the same as previously approved. The landing mats will be installed when the ground is frozen and before significant snowfall to minimize damage to the grass. The Town will remove the mats and discontinue parking at the start of spring thaw. The Town will repair any damage caused by winter parking in Ford Park (including resodding the grass areas and repairing sprinkler systems, if • required) before the softball season begins. The parking area is 540 feet long and 140 feet wide and will be able to handle approximately 250 cars. Bus service will be provided for the parking lot. The Town will also maintain a packed pedestrian path from the parking lot to the access road down to the Ford Park covered bridge so that pedestrians can reach Golden Peak. The Town will be responsible for plowing the parking area. Ford Park is located in the Public Use District. In this zone district, a public parking lot is considered to be a conditional use. Even though a parking lot already exists on this site, a conditional use review is required, as the use is being expanded. The applicant has submitted the following cost information which was requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 22, 1986 conditional use review: "This parking area has provided two major benefits for the Town: 1. Needed overflow parking during peak skier periods when all public parking is full. 2. Free parking for local employees who have limited financial resources. • • During the 1986 -87 ski season, the parking lot received considerable use, with an average of 75 cars daily. During weekends, other peak skier periods, and special events, the lot was often extended to 220+ vehicles. Bus service was provided to the lot utilizing the existing Bighorn route during mornings and afternoons. Most people using the lot, however, chose to either walk or ski down the hill to the lower bench of Ford Park and over to Golden Peak. The grass under the mats was damaged during the 1986 -87 season. In discussions with Ben Krueger, Vail Golf Course Superintendent, the major reason for the grass kill was severe swings in temperature over a prolonged period of time. The cross - country tracks at the Vail Golf Course suffered similar damage. The damage was repaired with the use of an overseeding machine. Vail Metropolitan Recreation District personnel repaired the field at a cost of approximately $1,000. The Town will repair any damage caused by winter parking in Ford Park in the future. Town of Vail Public Works personnel expended approximtely $5,000 in the installation and removal of the mats (13 personnel x $12 /hour x 32 hours). Because of the success of the temporary parking at Ford Park, the Town is requesting a 5 -year conditional use permit." 0 II. CR ITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factor: A. Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives nt the Tnwn As was stated in the previous September 22, 1986 memo, the Vail Transportation and Parking Task Force evaluated the 1985 -86 ski season use of the landing mats and recommended to Town Council: "Utilize the existing landing mats and purchase additional mats to extend parking area through the softball fields." The Vail Town Council approved this recommendation on August 19, 1986. The parking experiment is in compliance with the development objectives of the Town. • • 0 The effect of the use of light and air_, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities and other public facilities needs. The two seasons of use for the parking mats indicate that some damage is possible to the existing softball fields if there are severe swings in temperatures over a prolonged period of time. However, the Town has agreed to repair any damage that may possibly occur due to the parking. The cost of repairing this potential damage is minimal. 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 parki areas. As mentioned in previous memos, staff believes that the users of the parking area will have easy auto ingress and egress to the parking lot. The speed limit along the Frontage Road in this area is 35 miles per hour. Visibility is excellent from the parking lot entry. There are also no adjacent ingress and egress points which would create traffic congestion. Pedestrian safety has also been addressed by locating the packed path on the northern boundary of the park. Staff finds that the proposal has no negative impacts on these particular considerations. Effect use is osed e The use will have some impact on views from the east side of the Wren due to the potential for 250 cars to park on the upper bench. The parking has been located close to the Frontage Road so that impacts on the Park's natural character are minimized. The proposal will have no effect upon the character of the area during the summer, as it is a seasonal winter use. III. APPLICABLE RELATED POLICIES OF ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not applicable. • IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. V. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the seasonal parking. area.. We find that the location of the winter seasonal parking lot the conditions under which it would be operated meet the conditional use findings and maintain the purpose of the Public Use district. In addition, the proposal is in compliance with recommendations made by the Parking Task Force which has studied in detail how to address the parking demands for the Town of Vail. 0 I9E � v :P yy d Y• P . M . �d' k -tr4 F� ai , fl]1a 1 - } 4 S �- _ V, kkk c J ��� +� I f I 1 V �„�r� _ ,�� i t }! n �� .1� _y 1' x r _ r 3+ -�• ! C- �� Y "' I L - I �j� r � n � I ,� "S. �2 Y -.: , g 5 r } / pat QW . � L �a w ily Se t L� _ h k k, I t Jj 2 ,.� . ,. � •tea,- - I9E � v :P yy d Y• P . M . �d' k -tr4 F� ai , fl]1a 1 - } 4 S �- _ V, kkk c J ��� +� I f I 1 V �„�r� _ ,�� i t }! n �� .1� _y 1' x r _ r 3+ -�• ! C- �� Y "' I L - I �j� r � n � I ,� "S. �2 Y -.: , g 5 r } / pat QW . � L �a w ily Se TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 23, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for front and side setback variances for covered parking in order to add a secondary unit on a 'lot less than 15,000 square feet, on Lot 19, Block A, Vail das Schone Subdivision Filing No. 1. Applicant: Tonnie Ferguson I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant would like to add a secondary dwelling unit to an existing residence on a Primary /Secondary lot that is less than 15,000 square feet. The Primary /Secondary zone district allows for a secondary dwelling unit on a lot under 15,000 square feet under certain conditions. One of the conditions stipulates that 50% of the required parking be enclosed. Due to this requirement, the applicant has proposed to build a carport in an existing parking area to meet the enclosed parking requirement. The proposed carport would be built entirely within the existing cribbed area currently used for parking. * In this situation, the staff feels that a carport meets the intent of enclosed structured parking, as the cars are screened from above by a roof and on two sides by retaining walls. The requested setback variances include: Front (South): 14' -8" encroachment, maintains 5' -4" from the front property line (20' front setback required) Side (West): 3' encroachment, maintains 12' from the west property line (15' side setback required) II. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot 19 has a lot size of 8,921.9 square feet which allows for a total GRFA of 2,231 square feet. The secondary unit is allowed to be up to 40l of the allowable GRFA which is 892 square feet. GRFA Primary Unit 1,718 sf Secondary Unit 840 sf Existing GRFA over allowable, 327 sf Parking Required: 4 spaces (2 spaces must be covered) III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The surrounding area is primarily residential. In addition, most of the parking is located in the public right -of -way or in front setback areas for these properties. The proposed carport will be an improvement to the general appearance of the neighborhood by partially enclosing the parked cars. Neighbors' views from above and to the west of this property will be improved, as the cars will be shielded from view by the roof of the carport. 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 Primary /Secondary regulations governing lots under 15,000 square feet state: "That no variances for setbacks, height, parking, site coverage or landscaping, site development or gross residential floor area would be approved unless the granting of such a variance benefits the visual . appearance of the site and surrounding area;..." Staff believes that the proposal does improve the visual appearance of the site and is therefore warranted. It should be noted that the present slope on the front portion of the lot is 30% which would allow for the garage to encroach into the front setback. However, an existing parking area has been built which means that the slope beneath the carport is not 30% due to the construction of the parking area. The applicant does deserve some relief from the strict interpretation of the front setback requirements due to the existing slope condition. In respect to the side setback variance, an existing retaining wall already encroaches into the side setback. The • column supporting the two western corners of the carport will encroach 3 feet into the side setback. This encroachment is actually less than the existing retaining wall. Relief from the setback requirement is appropriate given the fact that the encroachment is minimal and the existing retaining wall encroaches even further into the setback than the proposed column. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities publicfacilities and utilities and safety. There are no significant effects on any of these issues. IV. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Community Action Plan: Community Design: No. 3. The Town of Vail should make long - range plans to meet needs for employee housing. Land Use Plan: Goals: 5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, . with appropriate restrictions. 5.5: The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 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 difficulty 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 two setback variances. The Planning Commission has reviewed two requests for this property to obtain a variance from the required covered parking requirement for a secondary unit. The staff and DEC's denial of the two previous covered parking variance requests was based on the opinion that covered parking could be provided on this lot with reasonable setback variances. This applicant has made the effort to try to incorporate covered parking onto this site in a way that has the least impact on adjacent properties and the neighborhood. • It is staff's opinion that this proposal is consistent with the staff's objectives to encourage enclosed parking facilities. The applicant is also able to meet the parking requirement (4 spaces) for the proposal on her property. In addition, the staff believes that it is positive to encourage this type of disbursed employee housing as long as the special criteria for lots under 15,000 square feet is met. The owner has agreed to meet all of these requirements. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request. E36- 07 I' E e , 0 A o 0 LE T 19, WINDOW WELL � f WINDOW WELL TWO STONY �` 1 iq L WOOII FRAM �' / / / - � ✓ ` r x' RF7AINING r WALL �. w•' / 1 n 7J'r � fi t,$ "�"`� � __- c� "s y lit qlkk -FAUNb loo n! 9 GRAVEL "WATE\ 1 S PARKING VALVE' \\ 990 .�, ter- - Tg8 .66� A= "70.94' Q 2� OF � ~ I � A PHq_LT ? � RTE P .�EOGE l R ��n i (5O 1 coN O N I X + � f (J GHAM � BENCHMARK. NOTICE. According to Colorado law, you must commence 0 1 MANHOLE A- 126.4.4 any legal action based upon any defect in this survey RIM ELEVATION- 7985.31 within three years after you first discover such defect. h V. , IN OUT ELEV - 7977.21 In no event, may any action based upon such defect in (�} this survey be commenced more than ten years from the :4 . 7 P t i y VA DRAWING UMBER i F .. .... it A y Fe:p,cz, 0 SCA SCALE: ! {'q� APPROVED BY: - - - DRAWN BY y I REVISED DATE: �) 1 .,✓ - _ - VA DRAWING UMBER r e A �d 1 ............ r ' "" «ar.,.r.�„nJ.'•r+•1+"'.«+.'_� -� err:+sw.�.• +�..rvArM n..>o+c -, rnc. .:.. + r.. x r F j e 1 F j TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 23, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone property located at 1785 Sunburst Drive from Low Density Multi - Family to Single Family Residential. Applicant: S. H. Shapiro and Company I. THE REQUEST In 1982, upon completion of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes Expansion project, the Pulis Ranch (which also contained the above property) was subdivided through a townhouse plat into two portions. The remaining parcel is the subject property and contains 13,823 square feet, while the larger parcel contains the expansion of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes. The two parcels are separated by Sunburst Drive. In 1983, a single family home was constructed on the smaller site. The zoning for both parcels is Low Density Multiple Family. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the parcel which contains the single family home to Single Family Residential. The applicant states. "The lot is presently zoned as Low Density Multi - Family, and is part of the Vail Golfcourse Townhome Zoning. When in fact it is a single family home, physically separated by a dedicated road (Sunburst Drive) and has nothing to do with the Townhome project whatsoever in any way. The present owners wish to have the proper and accurate zoning, which is Single Family Residential` attributable to this property and its existing improvement. The present owner is concerned that unless this is done, there could be future liability in associating this property with the Townhome project, as well as possible future title policy ramifications. The property and improvements is in appearance, design, construction, and actual use as a single family residence. The owners believe this property should show on the records of the Town of Vail accurately as a Single Family lot and residence." II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST 0 A. Criteria #1. Suitability of existing zoning. The existing zoning, Low Density Multiple Family, is clearly not appropriate for the site of the present single family home. However, the building conforms in density to either Single Family or Low Density Multiple Family zoning, as it contains 2,182 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area. Under Low Density Multiple Family the allowable GRFA would be 4,146 square feet and with Single Family zoning, the allowable GRFA would be 3,455 square feet. Height and setbacks also conform to Single Family Residential. The property is adjacent to Primary /Secondary property on the east and to the Vail Golfcourse on the rear and west side. Although there are townhomes across Sunburst Drive, they are well removed and buffered by a berm. Clearly, the 'less dense zoning of Single Family Residential is more suitable for this property than Low Density Multiple Family. B. Criteria #2 Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal objectives? With respect to the physical nature of the property, the zone change would be compatible with the neighboring land uses of low density residentialto the east and the Vail Golfcourse on the west and north. C. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly, viable_ community? The staff feels that the rezoning does provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The downzoning to a single family development reduces potential density in the area of of the golf course. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff recommends approval of the rezoning of this parcel. We feel that the zone of Single Family is an appropriate zone for this lot and see no adverse conditions as a result of the rezoning. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 9 December 14, 1987 2:30 P.M. Site Visits 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 11/9 and 11/23. 2. A request for a variance in order to place a 13 foot diameter satellite dish at Vail Run, 1000 Lions Ridge Loop. Applicant: Joyce Communications, Inc. 3. Preliminary review of submittals for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II: a. Gramshammer enclosure of deck, CCI b. Extension of Otto Stork Building, CCI C. Golden Peak House, CCI d. Vail 21 second floor expansion, CCII e. Lionshead Center expansion, CCII • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 14, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT J.J. Collins Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele 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 11 /9 and 11/23. Diana Donovan moved to approve both sets of minutes and Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0. 2. A request for a variance in order to_place a 13 foot diameter satellite dish at Vail Run, 1000 _Lions Ridge Loop_. Applicant: Joyce Communications, Inc. • Tom Braun presented the request and explained that the applicant had already gone to Design Review Board for approval of the 9 foot diameter satellite. Mr. Clay , manager for the applicant, K -Lite Radio Station, stated that he had explored using a 9 foot diameter satellite, but it was not large enough to receive the desired signals. He was asked what the radio station received from the dish, and answered that it was not what was received as much as the quality of the reception that dictated the use of a dish. It was also explained that if the tennis bubble were to come down, the radio station must return to the DRB with another means of screening the dish. Peggy felt that trees ought to planted on the road above Vail Run. Bryan moved and Pam seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 7 -0. 3. Preliminary Review of Exterior Alteration Proposals for CCI and CCII a. Enclosure of Gramshammer deck, CCI. Hobbs moved, Peggy seconded a 90 day review period. Vote was 7- • 0. b. Extension of Otto Stork Building, CCI. Hobbs moved, Diana seconded a 90 day review period. Vote, 7 -0. C. Golden Peak House expansion, CCI. Hobbs moved, Diana seconded for a 90 day review period. Vote was 7 -0. d. Vail 21 Building, deck enclosure, CCII. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to have a 60 day review period. Vote was 7 -0. e. Lionshead Center Building, extension, CCII. Diana moved and Hobbs seconded for a 90 day review period. Vote was 7 -0. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 14, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a variance to allow 13 feet in diameter to service the located in the Vail Run Building. Applicant: Joyce Communications, I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED for a satellite dish K -Lite Radio Station Inc. K -Lite Radio Station is in the process of relocating their studios from Eagle to the Vail Run Building. A component of this operation is a satellite dish necessary to receive signals used in the operation of the station. The proposed dish is 13 feet in diameter and would be located west of the Vail Run Building and north of the covered tennis courts. • Town of Vail ordinances limit the size of satellite dishes to 9 feet for single family and business uses, and 12 feet for dishes serving multi - family dwellings. These limitations were established based on input from the industry at the time this ordinance was adopted. While an argument could be made that this dish would serve more than one unit, it is technically serving a business and as such is in excess of the permitted 9 foot diameter by 4 feet. Please refer to the site plan and applicant's statement outlining why this variance is needed. 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 variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Limitations on the permitted size of satellite dishes were established because of the relationship between size and visibility. In evaluating potential impacts from this request on adjacent uses, one must consider • the proposed location of this dish. Located within the interior of the Vail Run project, this dish will be screened from most vantage points. As a result, it is . felt that granting this variance will result in no negative impact to existing or potential uses and 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 rant of special privilege. Based on Federal Communication Commission standards, the applicant has little choice but to propose a dish of this size. This is similar to the KVMT application that was considered by the Planning Commission last February. The size of the dish proposed is not greater than necessary and, based on the staff's position with the KVMT application, the approval of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff can find no significant effects on any of the above considerations. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting 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 • difficulty 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. The parameters established by the satellite dish ordinance were intended to provide a general limitation in the size of dishes proposed. It is apparent that radio stations have unique needs with regard to their transmission facilities. The location of the proposed dish is a sensitive one in that it will not be visible from most vantage points. Specific measures required to further screen this dish are technically the purview of the Design Review Board. It • should be noted that K -Lite has approached the DRB with a satellite dish proposal of 9 feet in diameter. This was done as an interim solution to service the station prior to review of this application by the Planning Commission. At that meeting, the DRB approved the 9 foot dish and gave conceptual approval to the 13 foot dish conditional upon Planning Commission approval. Conditions on the DRB approval were established that limit the height of the dish as well as requiring K -Lite to come back to the Board for further review in the event that the tennis bubble is removed. r� . Application attachment. Item III. The applicant, K -LITE (KWLI FM) Radio, a division of Joyce Communications, Incorporated, requests a variance to construct a 3.8 Meter, (thirteen 1131 foot diameter) satellite receiving antenna, necessary for the day to day operation of its business, at the Vail Run Resort, 1000 Lions Ridge Loop, Vail, Colorado, where a long term lease for studios and offices has been drawn. K- LITE /KWLI FM is a licensed commercial broadcast station and must adhere to all Federal Communications Commission rules, regulations and guidelines concerning program transmission quality. Such rules and regulations are specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 73, and can be summarized as follows: 1. Measurements of transmitted signal -to -noise ratio levels must exceed 53 decibels. 2. Frequency response must remain essentially flat in a • band from 50 to 15,000 hertz. 3. Intermodulation and separation of left and right channels (stereo FM) must be less than 1% total; separation can not be less than 40 decibels. The guidelines imposed upon commercial FM broadcast stations, as paraphrased in the above federal rules and regulations, require a satellite receiving antenna of not less than 3.8 meters if the high quality, interference free broadcast signal demanded in these rules and regulations is to be achieved. This receiver will be utilized to receive radio network programming, including state, national and international news, CBS network news, national Emergency Action Notification (EBS) information, specialized programming and other broadcast services currently utilized by KWLI FM. The antenna will be installed in a depression area, or gully, on otherwise unusable land, between the upper parking lot retaining wall, the tennis court dome and the Vail Run Resort building, on the west side of the building. It will be completely blocked from view from the south and west, and only fractionally visible from the east and north. The antenna itself is of a color and texture so as to minimize the visual effect from the east and north in that it is of the same basic color as both the tennis court dome and the concrete retaining wall that surround the antenna. • Application attachment. Item III. Page 2. The applicant anticipates that the overall height of the antenna will remain within the fifteen foot height restrictions of the commission. Current town regulations allow such antenna having a diameter of twelve feet. The applicant's request for a variance is for an antenna having a thirteen foot diameter, not significantly greater than those allowed by current regulation. Since the proposed antenna site is in a depression between existing structures, on otherwise unusable land, and blocks the proposed antenna from view, it is anticipated that the issuance of the requested variance will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic, utilities, and /or public saftey. • A