Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes June- JulyPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1990 12:30 Site Visits 1:00 Review Air Quality survey questions. 1:30 A work session for a major subdivision, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail 1 -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from May 14, 1990 meeting. 2. Appeal of a staff decision relating to the number of woodburning fireplaces at Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing 4, 1175 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Sidney Schultz for Todger Anderson - 3. A request to amend Section 18.12.030 of the Vail Municipal Code to provide for Bed and Breakfast operations in the Two Family Residential(R) District. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED 4. A request for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit in order to add 868 sq. ft. to the daycare facility at 149 N. Frontage Road, an unplatted site commonly referred to as the Mountain Bell site north of 1 -70 and west of the Main Vail I -70 interchange. Applicant: ABC School. TABLED 5. A request for a side and front setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing, 898 Red Sandstone Circle. Applicant: Paul Testwuide TABLED 6. A request for a variance from the minimum lot size on a parcel of land described as that unplatted plat of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 south, Range 81 west, of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly of the Lion's Ridge Loop as shown of the recorded plat of the Lion's Ridge Subdivision recorded July 25, 1969, in case 2, Drawer L, and Book 215, at page 649. Applicant: A. L. Shapiro & Co., A Colorado Nominee General Partnership. TABLED 7. A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant • Planning and Environmental Commission June 4, 1990 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Gary Murrain Kathy Warren Susan Scanlan Greg Hall ABSENT Mike McGee Dick Duran Ludwig Kurz Betsy Rosolack Dalton Williams In the interest of documentation, minutes were taken during the work sessions prior to the beginning of the public hearing. Work session on Air Quality Survey Questions. Susan Scanlan, Environmental Health officer, presented the survey. Suggestions were made from the board. • A work session on the S raddle Creek subdivision. Kristan Pritz explained the staff concerns and asked for concerns from the board. She stated that the parcel contained about 40 acres and met the standards for Hillside Residential zone district. Kristan also explained that 1 caretaker unit with a maximum GRFA of 1200 square feet would be allowed on each lot. The roads were to be 22 feet wide, and a maximum grade of 11.9% was being proposed. The variance being asked for on wall height was for 26' high walls (6 foot walls are allowed). Kristan pointed out that this proposal really involved all of the Town of Vail departments. She showed site plans and stated that this was a very sensitive site, and that decreasing the road grades increased the wall heights. Kristan summarized the comments of the various Town of Vail departments. With regard to the proposed road grades, it was felt that the grades must be reduced to 8 %. More work was needed to decrease both the road grades and the height of the walls. Kristan stated that the Town felt that the plans for revegetation were good, though preliminary. A detailed revegetation plan should be submitted. 0 1 • Regarding building envelopes, the staff felt that it was appropriate to utilize building envelopes, due to the sensitivity of the site. With regard to site coverage, the staff would like to see a reasonable cap put on the amount of site coverage allowed for each lot. Concerning lots with slopes over 30%, staff believes that the requirements for lots in Primary /Secondary and Single Family zone districts should apply to Hillside Residential properties as Well. She stated that this had been an oversight when writing regulations for the Hillside Residential zone district. The staff would like to see open space areas dedicated to the Town as permanent open space. Staff feels that it is important that the stable use continue to exist. The memo also dealt with traffic studies, drainage, fireplace restrictions, employee housing, maintenance of the subdivision road, architectural guidelines, and utility easements. Joe Macy, representing the applicant, stated that owner was not interested in dedicating the open space to the Town of Vail. With regard to fireplace restrictions, Joe Macy stated that a study had been updated and that it had indicated that this . property was above the inversion level of the Town of Vail and that there would not be any problem with the fireplaces. Regarding employee housing, the applicant indicated that 3 employee units would be acceptable. Joe then discussed the road heights, grades, and wall grades and he felt that the road alignment forced the height for the walls. Jay Peterson, representing the client as well, stated that this was a matter of fine tuning, that they agreed with everything except the grades on the roads and the retaining walls. He had with him Kent Rose, the engineer, Dan Corcoran who did the survey, and Richard Matthews who did the landscape plan. Jay described the process that they had gone through and the various steps that had determined the proposal as it was now being presented. Jay said they could do all 8% grades, but many other negative impacts would come about. Kent Rose then explained the process that he had gone through in designing the grades. First he showed what had happened when they planned for 8% grades only and then the refinements that followed until they reached the proposal as it was being submitted. 0 2 • The stable site was discussed at the cul de sac. It was also pointed out that the roads had a larger radius than many other roads. 50' -80' radii were proposed on the curves. Dick Duran, Fire Chief, expressed his concerns. He said that while coming down an 11% grade, especially during the winter it would be nearly impossible for the fire trucks to stop. Mike McGee, from the fire department, compared the road to Potato Patch. He also repeated that the big problem was stopping and Kent explained that there would be no crown on the road but that the road would slope 2% into the hill which would have a tendency to pull vehicles into the hill rather than away from the hill. Mike McGee was concerned with stopping at the gate and wanted to have the area near the gate as level as possible. If they had to stop to open the gate it would be difficult for them to maintain their momentum. Jay explained that they would work this out so that they would have access to open the gate electrically. Mike felt that if the Town of Vail was maintaining the roads, the Fire Department would feel more at ease regarding the condition of the roads. Kathy Warren felt the need to have more study completed regarding getting the emergency vehicles up the grades. She said that this afternoon, when they went up to look at grades, they were not on many grades of 11 %. Jay reminded her that this was a sunny • area. Mike Duran stated that Potato Patch was a sunny area also but that they still had slippery roads. Discussion followed concerning other maintenance vehicles. Diana Donovan said garbage trucks had trouble with traction in Potato Patch. Kristan asked Kent to explain how the cut de sac on the east related to the wall below it. Jim Shearer expressed the need to have a turn - around below the gate and Jay said they would explore it. Kathy Warren felt that the roads were too steep overall. Perhaps there could be a better combination of roads and wall height. Mike McGee was concerned about the grades of the driveways and Kent said that they would put in all the driveway cuts. Jim Shearer questioned Richard Matthews about what kind of planting could be done on the terraces, and Richard explained that the flat areas could have vines but many vines did not live at this altitude and also some of the terraces would be too narrow so that all they could plant was grass and shrubs. He would have to wait and see the final plan and then after a couple of seasons they could also replant. n U 3 • Jim Shearer asked Kristan what grades were acceptable to the Town. Kristan reminded him that 8% was the maximum grade but that the Town was working with the applicant to find a balance point and that there would probably be areas over 8% if the criteria that wall heights be as low as possible is also given priority. Kristan then stated that she thought that the open space should be dedicated to the Town of Vail. Jay responded that it would be zoned open space with any restrictions that the Town of Vail would want to have on it. But that the problem with giving it to the Town is that any pedestrian could come up and use the area as a picnic ground and he felt that this was not an appropriate place for this. Jim asked if Gillett did not have the stable on his property, if there would be enough space in the designated stable. Joe Macy stated that horses were allowed by zoning on the large lot that Mr. Gillett would use. If horses were kept, they would probably be kept at the livery stable. Mark Wentworth, representing the Spraddle Creek Livery, said at this point, he could not keep horses for other peopole on Forest Service land with his existing special use permit. Jim Shearer asked Jay about fire protection systems, and Jay said that he had talked with Mike McGee and Dick Duran regarding sprinkler systems for the homes, but that one problem that some homes in Beaver Creek had encountered was frozen pipes. Mike McGee said that they had not had any frozen sprinkler systems for some time in the Town of Vail. Kathy Warren asked about drainage and the scarring that might occur from the drainage. Kent explained that there would be shallow swales that would be revegetated to keep them from eroding and that they would end up being natural grass swales. There was a discussion of the visibility of the cut through the trees. Kent said that they would try to utilize areas where there were previous cuts. Kathy said that although they may utilize old road cuts, she was still concerned with grade and the water drainage. She felt there should be more study of the retaining walls. She was concerned about the roads that would be owned by the Town of Vail and she felt that the Town of Vail property should in particular keep the grades down. Kathy was concerned that the slopes proposed would not revegetate very well. Regarding site coverage, Kathy felt the need to restrict the amount of site coverage and on Lots 10 & 14 she felt that the allowable GRFA should be reduced. Regarding the stable, Kathy felt that this needed to be worked out. Kathy also felt that dog runs would also have to be allowed. • 4 • Joe Macy stated that they would allow for dog runs. Jay stated that he felt it was appropriate to allow some landscaping type of fencing. Kristan said that she would like them to try to avoid fences all around the property line as was starting to happen on Mill Creek Circle. Joe Macy also said that there would be no irrigation system proposed for the retaining walls, that they would be watered by truck until the vegetation was started because the irrigation system could ruin the walls if it froze. Diana was very concerned about the visual impacts. She felt that the open space restriction was critical . The revegetation should be done with natural seed and that there should be a cap on site coverage and GRFA. She stated that the whole site was visible. She agreed with Kristan the need to know what was going to happen with the stable and felt that the stable should stay. Diana also wanted to make sure that the path from the 4 -way to the Booth Creek path remained available to the public per the recommendation in the Town of Vail Recreational Trails plan. Diana asked that when the road was plotted if the building sites had been considered and Jay felt that they had been. Kathy also wondered why people were going to be kept out of the open space and Jay felt that this space had a direct impact on those lots adjacent to it. They didn't want people picnicking there but they were willing to guarantee that it would be open space. Kathy said that she had no problem not having picnic tables on that area but did feel that people could use the open space. Jay said that people could go 300 feet to the east for open space. Dan reminded them that originally, lots were platted on that open space. Kathy asked that they not have signs that say private property. Kristan felt that there should be 5 employee units rather than 3 using the 24 unit total possible. Joe Macy had a problem with that. He said originally only 20% of the lots were going to be required to have employee units. Kristan said the original 24 lots resulted in 5 lots with caretaker units but Joe felt that the 20% should be multiplied by 14 lots which equals 2.8 or 3 units. Joe was asked if the caretaker units would be put on the market and Joe explained that the caretaker units would not be subdivided or sold off separately from the main unit. Kristan discussed architectural guidelines and asked if the Town of Vail would have to be a party to the Architectural Guidelines. They would prefer not to have to enforce them. Jay felt that the Town of Vail would be more lenient than the applicant would be with regard to architectural guidelines. Joe Macy felt that the C7 9 people building would have to go through the applicant's guidelines first. Kristan said that Larry Eskwith was concerned about the Town getting into a position of enforcing private design guidelines through the DRB. She said that they would work with Larry on that. Diana asked if the Town of Vail should be a party to the covenants and Kristan said that she would discuss that with Larry. She then showed a view analysis of the walls with photos from Kent. Joe Macy showed slides of walls around the Town of Vail that were over 6' high. After looking at the walls, Jay stated that he felt that the trade -off with road grades compensated with less visible walls. The average grade is now at 8.9 %. The trade -off was with retaining wall height and staying out of Spraddle Creek. He asked for some direction from the Commission. Connie commented that she was for steeper roadways versus higher walls and against expanding the road onto the Forest Service land. Joe said that if they do not go into the Forest Service land, they would have both steeper roadways and higher walls. Kathy showed plans where she had marked the retaining wails. . Discussion followed between Greg Hall and Kent Rose concerning the roadways and walls. Diana felt the depth of the terracing was also important. Kent explained to her that the terraces would have to go back 12' if 10' walls were used. Kathy Warren said they could use 5' walls with 6' terraces. More discussion of height of wall and length of terraces followed. Kathy stated that she disagreed with Connie in that she felt that the road could go farther east into the Forest Service land in order to decrease the grade levels of the road. Jay stated that he did have the switchback cut down because the staff had asked them to stay out of Spraddle Creek. Kathy suggested that perhaps the turnaround could be moved west. She said she would rather see lower retaining walls especially on the lower roads. Connie said she would rather see roads than retaining walls. Mark Wentworth, representing the Spraddle Creek Livery, said that was the only spot for a stable. That and the old location. Diana felt that 11% roads were too needed to see more of how the roads and she suggested that an elevation wall and its true height. steep. She felt that she and walls were going to look be drawn with every retaining . The work session was over. 6 LJ The Public Hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from May 14 1990 meeting. A motion to approve the minutes from the May 14, 1990 meeting as written was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 5-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 2: Appeal of a staff decision relating to the number of woodburning fireplaces at Lots 1 & 2,_ Block 2, Lionsridcfe Filing 4 1175 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Sidney Schultz for Todger Anderson Susan Scanlan presented the staff proposal and Sidney Schultz, representing the applicant, reviewed the proposal. Sid explained that he originally reviewed the construction of this home. He said that originally this was two lots and each lot could have had two housing units on it which would have been equal to two fireplaces and two wood stoves. The applicant would be happy to put a deed restriction on the property and also give up a right to a fireplace on a caretaker unit. Mike Mollica pointed out that the zoning had not changed, that simply a lot line had been eliminated which combined two lots into one and allowed for a larger home. Susan Scanlan added that if two condominiums are combined, one of the fireplaces must be removed. She felt that this home was being handled in the same way. Sid repeated that he would be willing to restrict the deed in order to give up any future fireplaces. Discussion followed gas logs versus wood burning fireplaces and it was felt that this was a request for a special privilege and was not appropriate. Kristan pointed out that the ordinance was based on the units, not the zoning. Susan explained that on clean burning units, she has found that people don't usually put in both wood fireplaces and wood stoves. Jim asked to have the ordinance clarified and Kristan explained that a person could have one burning fireplace and one certified wood burning stove and unlimited gas appliances but not gas fireplaces. Jim felt that he would rather see 3 gas log fireplaces as opposed to any wood burning devices. 0 7 Connie felt that the staff recommendation should be adhered to because the staff has done their homework. She also felt that this was consistent with how the condo owners were handled. Diana felt that they must stick to the Ordinance. A motion to den the aiji3eal iper the staff memo was made b Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 5 -0 TO DENY Diana added that Dalton, whom was absent also supported the staff memo. Item No. 3: A re guest to amend Section 18.12.030 of the Vail Municipal Code to provide for Bed and Breakfast operations in the Two Family Residential--(RI_ District. Applicant: Town of Vail Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal explaining that upon adoption of the original Ordinance, the Two Family Residential District had been inadvertently omitted. A motion to recommend amendment of the ordinance to the Town Council was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 5 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 4: A request for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit in order to add 868_sq. ft. to the daycare facility at 149 N. Frontage Road._ an unplatted site commonly referred to as the Mountain Bell site north of I -70 and west of the Main Vail 1 -70 interchange. Applicant: ABC School. Item No. 5: A request for a side and front setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 7, _Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing, 898 Red Sandstone Circle. Applicant: Paul Testwuide is • Stem No. 6: A request for a variance from the minimum lot size on a parcel of land described as that_unplatted plat of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 1 Township 5 south Range 81 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly of the Lion's Ridge Loop as shown of the recorded plat of the Lion's Ridge Subdivision recorded July 25 1959 in case 2, Drawer L, and Book 215_, at page 649. Applicant: A. L. Shap & Co., A Colorado Nominee General Partnershi Item No. 7: A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B Vail Village 1st Film._ Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant A motion to table Items 4 5, and 6 to June 11, 1990 and Item No 7 to June 25, 1990 was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. VOTE: 5-0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING • 40 • TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Woodburning Ordinance Research The topic of the air quality research has been raised several times, both at Council and at Planning Commission meeting. At this time I would like to give you the list of questions which are being researched by staff for various communities throughout the country. The research is presently ongoing and is producing a wealth of information from the various communities. The questions being asked of the communities contacted are as follows: 1) Name of community /city contacted 2) Name of contact person, position and phone number 3) Request copies of all pertinent legislation which is currently in place. 4) Are any additional control measures proposed for the future? • 5) Does the legislation address existing woodburning units as well as those relating to new construction or is new construction the only area affected? 6) What was the basis for implementing the control measures? Level of study or testing which was completed prior to any development or implementation of control measures? 7) Were decisions based on empirical data, visual effects or a combination of both? 8) If based on empirical data, did the data indicate violations of state or federal air quality standards? 9) What was the public response to the control measures enacted? Well received, violently opposed? 10) Do you have any type of registration or inventory program whereby you have an accurate count of the numbers of wood - burning units? Are they broken down by type so that you have a count of fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, gas logs, gas appliances, etc.? If so, how was this accomplished? 11) Did you offer or do you offer any incentives - rebates, tax breaks, etc. - to encourage individuals to convert old wood - stoves to state certified units, fireplaces to gas logs, etc.? If so, what was the funding source for that program if it was financially based? 12) What is your current air quality status? Are you in compli- ance with state and federal air quality standards? 13) Do you have any mandatory or voluntary no burn days? If so, how is the enforcement of these carried out? 14) Do you have extensive monitoring equipment used for predicting high pollution /poor air quality days? . 15) Any additional information, comments or observations? The list of communities to contact continues to grow as T talk to different places. They are recommending other communities to contact based on their own research and experience. Tentatively the schedule for presentation of this research is as follows: June 4th - Presentation of list of questions for research June 25th - Provide PEC members with copies of pertinent research information July 9th - Discussion of research findings at work session July 23rd - Present amendment to Fireplace Ordinance Later schedules to be determined based on the input from research and PEC requirements. • • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Town of Vail Departments DATE: June 4, 1990 RE: A work session for a major subdivision, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett Jr. I. INTRODUCTION The applicant Mr. George Gillett, Jr. is requesting a major subdivision, variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, and a variance to the maximum height for a retaining wall for a 40 acre parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek. The property is zoned hillside residential. Fourteen lots are proposed. Each lot will be allowed one single- family unit as well as one care -taker unit with a maximum floor area of 1200 sq. ft. A 22 foot wide road having a maximum grade of 11.9% is proposed. The subdivision regulations allow for a maximum grade of 8 %. In addition, the applicant is proposing retaining walls that have a maximum height of 26 feet. The Town of Vail Zoning Code allows for a maximum height of 6 feet for all walls. II. SUMMARY OF TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The purpose of the work session is to provide the and Environmental Commission with a staff overview proposal and related issues as well as to give the the opportunity to hear preliminary staff and PEC on the project. Below is a summary of the Town of Department issues related to the proposal. Planning of the applicant comments Vail and 0 1 • A. Road Grade and Retaining Wall Height The applicant needs to look at reducing the roadway grades to 8%. There are some opportunities to pick -up the grade in the following ways: I. By maintaining a 4% grade on Gillett Road from the Frontage road for 50 feet and then transitioning to an 8% grade the steepness of this portion of the road will be decreased. Drainage on this part of the road and the Frontage road can be handled with a cross --pan gutter system and inlet. 2. At the cul de sac at the very top of the subdivision, the grade should go to 8% to pick -up some fall which will decrease grades further on down the road. 3. The third way of picking up the grade will be to lengthen the roadway where ever possible. This can be accomplished at the stable through some of the S- curves and before the turn at the east property line. It is possible for the road -way to extend onto Forest Service property to the east. The permitting process is similar to the process for the roadway on the west side of the property. The Town staff did a conceptual design and was able to decrease the grades to 8 %. However, additional work should be done to refine this design and insure the assumptions are correct. Retaining wall heights increased in some areas to a maximum height of 36 feet. This height does take into account 8 feet terraces for 12 feet height intervals. The proposed variances is for a height of 26 feet. However, this does not take into account the terraces. If a 10 ft. terrace is required for every 12 ft. of wall height and the wall intercepts a 2:1 slope then the applicants wall height will be approximately 31 feet. This results in a five foot difference in wall height between the staff analysis and proposal. is 2 . The retaining walls need to be designed to a preliminary level. The staff needs to verify that the proposed wall system can handle the required wail heights in a manner that is sensitive to the site. The design work needs to identify the slopes above the wall, surcharging areas, construction areas, soil conditions, terracing and so forth for staff to determine whether a fill wall is better than a cut -slope wall. The focus should be to try to lay out the roadway for minimal impacts on wall height while maintaining the flatter 8% grades. The slopes could be 2:1 versus the 1.5:1. This will allow a better slope for revegetation. In only extreme circumstances should the 1.5:1 slope be allowed. The Town has a major concern with the type of wall being proposed in the cut slopes The disturbed area will be great. The soils report suggests other types of soil reinforcement could work. It would appear this should be investigated. The terracing of the wall should also be looked at. The staff realizes that the applicant has tried to align the road in the most sensitive manner possible to decrease the grades and retaining wall heights. We believe that more work can be completed to minimize the grades and impact of the retaining walls. We would also suggest that the possibility of realigning the road in some areas be considered by the applicant in order to minimize grade and wall heights. B. REVEGETATION AND VEGETATION IMPACT REPORTS overall the revegetation plan is very general. However, it is adequate if the statements contained within it are carried out in the landscape improvement plan. Staff believes it is important that the applicant submit a landscape /revegetation plan after preliminary plan approval has been received and before final approval of the subdivision. The vegetation impact report states "in all cases, limits of construction activity shall be imposed and enforced." This is key to minimizing disturbance to the site. Construction limit lines should be drawn on the submittal plan with a statement of how the line will be established. Fencing would be preferred but in some locations staking with lathe may be appropriate. • 3 . In several locations in the revegetation plan, the use of native trees, shrubs grasses and forbs for revegetation of the site is stated. The plan states that plants will be installed in the same percentages as what exists naturally and that the final product will be of equal quality to that of the undisturbed site. This will be the basis of all reviews made of the landscaping improvement plan when submitted. The revegetation plan states that top soil will be stripped when possible. It is important that top soil be stripped from all areas disturbed to its full depth. The wordage "when possible" should be deleted and the statement changed to reflect "all areas disturbed" and "to full depth." 4 is a minimal depth and 6 to 8" is preferred. Copies of the soil test report being prepared by CSU should be submitted with the landscape plan. The revegetation plan mentions all possible methods of reseeding grasses and forbs. The developer shall be encouraged to utilize drill seeding where ever possible, with hydromulching over it. Many areas will have to be broadcast seeded or hydroseeded. However drill seeding offers the greatest germination ratio. . An erosion control plan should be submitted prior to final approval of the subdivision. The plan should show the exact location of silt fences, hay bales, sedimentation ponds etc. to be utilized in keeping run- off from the site free of sediments. The only specific reference to an erosion control plan is the use of jute netting over seeded areas. The erosion control plan should include both plans and details for the proposed work. G. BUILDING ENVELOPES The staff feels it is appropriate to utilize building envelopes for the project. All structures should be located within the envelopes. Specifically for Lots 14 and 10, staff believes that the envelopes could be pulled back further to the north. Building envelopes are necessary due to the sensitivity of the site. We acknowledge that when the original submittal was made back in October of 1989, the staff indicated that building envelopes probably were not appropriate. However, after several site visits to the property, it is apparent that the envelopes do make sense given the sensitivity of the site. • N • D. SITE COVERAGE Due to the large size of the lots, the site coverage for each lot is extremely high. Staff would like to see a reasonable cap put on the amount of site coverage allowed for a lot. Below is a chart comparing site coverage to GRFA LOT SITE COVERAGE GRFA ALLOWED 1 9646.5 6483 2 8941.0 6248 3 12749.5 7517 4 14109.0 7970 5 10023.6 6608 6 7652.0 5818 7 7344.0 5715 8 8721.0 6174 9 11275.0 7026 10 4372.0 4725 11 10710.0 6837 12 14760.0 8187 14 41093.0 16965 15 3670.0 4491 0 E. LOTS HAVING SLOPES OVER 30% In the zoning code in section 18.69.050, there are specific requirements that relate to lots having over 30% slope. This section relates only to primary /secondary, duplex and single family lots. However, staff believes that this section should also relate to hillside residential properties. Staff feels it is appropriate to require for each residence site specific soil and foundation investigations, engineered foundations, 10% limit to total site area covered by driveways and surface parking, a minimum of one (to two) covered parking space per unit, a revegetation plan for each lot, a detailed plan for retaining walls or cuts and fills in excess of five feet. This information would not be required during the planning process. However, each individual lot owner would be asked to provide this information at the DRB stage of construction for an individual lot. It makes good planning sense for the owners of each of these lots to comply with these requirements. Staff believes that it was an oversight that the hillside residential was not listed under this section of the code when this zone district was established several years ago. • 5 • F. OPEN SPACE DEDICATION AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS The staff would like to see the open space areas dedicated to the Town of Vail as permanent open space. The reason for this request is to avoid any future sub- division of the open space into additional lots. The intent is to preserve the open space permanently The applicant has agreed to provide a pedestrian easement along the Spraddle Creek corridor. We think this is very positive. The Frontage Road widening will need to have the six foot shoulders completed to allow for the future bike path to be completed on the Frontage Road. G. SPRADDLE CREEK LIVERY The livery is proposed to be relocated to Forest Service property on the east side of this parcel. An agreement determining who will pay for the relocation has not been finalized at this time. However, it is staff's understanding that the Forest Service and County are in general agreement with the idea of the relocation of the stable. Staff believes that it is important that the stable use continues to exist. It is a much needed guest amenity. Staff does not support the idea of a horse stable for Lot 14. Horses could be stabled at the new livery. H. TRAFFIC The traffic study needs to be updated to include the full build out. I. DRAINAGE The cross - sections at the beginning of Gillett Road need to be revised to show the existing drainage ditch. The plan will need to be revised to show the big drainage hole and the culverts under the roadway. The drainage easements need to be determined and will be required before final plat. The Town has some concerns with the areas of discharge, mainly those that discharge toward the interstate. The final location and treatment of discharge should be handled in the final drainage report. A design related issue is the staff's request that the owner try to clean up the appearance of the culvert area at the entry to the subdivision. We would like to • see the chain link fence removed if at all possible. We understand this drainage area is located on CDOH property. Our request is a recommendation. M . J. AIR QUALITY Staff would like to request that the applicant restrict the caretaker units to gas appliances or gas log fireplaces. K. EMPLOYEE HOUSING Staff believes it is appropriate to restrict any caretaker unit to employee housing permanently. We also feel it may be appropriate to request the owner commit to providing a minimum of three caretaker units within the subdivision. L. COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAY APPROVALS The applicant is in the process of receiving CDOH approval for the access permit off of the Frontage Road. The permit will allow for a left -hand turn lane and minor widening of the Frontage road. The Town Engineer has reviewed this design. Staff recommendation is that the percent grade of Gillett Road be increased to approximately 4% at the entrance to the subdivision and retaining walls minimized. When the specific configuration of the intersection is . finalized by CDOH, the staff will have final comments. We must require 6 ft. shoulders to allow for a bike path. M. MAINTENANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION ROAD At this time, the staff has the understanding that the applicant is proposing that the lower portion of the road extending from the Frontage Road up to the eastern side of the property would be a public road. At this point, there would be a gate which would be a private road into the subdivision. The applicant is proposing that the Town maintain the public road. Staff's opinion is that additional work needs to be done on the grades and retaining walls and location of the road before we give the applicant a definite answer as to how we would like to see the road maintained. N. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Staff feels that it is positive that the applicant is willing to include architectural guidelines for the project. We would suggest that no fencing be allowed around houses to maintain the natural appearance of the property. • 0 O. UTILITY EASEMENTS The applicant has made a strong effort to consolidate the utility easements in the roadway. We think this is a good solution as it minimizes cuts on the hillside. We would suggest that the applicant coordinate the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District line work with the Town's parking structure project. The work will occur adjacent to Crossroads and it would be helpful to the Town if the work could be coordinated with the parking structure construction. 0 1 7-� In general, the staff realizes how much work has developing a sensitive proposal. We would like the applicant on the issues listed. Additional from other agencies are attached to this memo. gone into to work with comments 0 • • • STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL- OPPORTUI;ITY P.4PLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 May 29, 1990 Vail Assoc. ATTN: Joe Macy Box 7 Vail, CO. 81658 Dear Joe, REFER TO. OF ti This letter is to summarize the discussion we had on 5/26/90 in regards to the 5praddle Creek development. The first issue was bighorn sheep, the CDOW has reports of bighorn sheep use in Spraddle Creek drainage, the use has generally been north and east of the development. Any impacts to bighorn sheep from the development should be minimal and mitigated by following the same guidelines outlined for elk, ( ie. dog control). The second issue was the recommendation for a 100 foot setback from the USFS boundary. As we discussed on the 5/26/90 there are 3 lots on the east side of the development that can't meet this recommendation, but could have a 60 foot setback. This recommendation was for a buffer zone, not just for wildlife conflicts, but also for people conflicts, the CROW feels that a 60 foot setback on these 3 lots is reasonable. We also discussed adding some wording to the documents on the interaction and conflicts that could occur with wildlife in the area, to advise the buyer of this potential. This was mainly in landscaping and designs. Joe, if you have any further Questions please give me a call 926-3030• Sincerely, Bill Andree District Wildlife . Manager -Vail DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenBerg, Chairman . Robert L Freidenberger, Vice Chairman . William R. Hegberg, Secretary Eldon W. Cooper. Member . Rebecca L. Frank, Member . Dennis Luttrell, Member 9 Gene B. Peterson, Member . Larry N1. Wright, Member STATE OF COLORADO �p�U Roy Romer, Governor � Ta DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES �af REFr `RT0. DIVISION OF WILDLIFE d AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway SON OFyq Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 Tec. 19, 1989 Town of ?ail f Tice of poi:' mun iQ ievelo-Cmer, t : 0: _ir iStaan Yrit 75 Gouth i rootdge Rcaa Vail, Q . 81657 Tear Tristan The Division of Oildli.fe has reviewed the Spra.&dle Creek ;ubdivisAn Prorosal and has the following ccmments and recommendations. 1 The proposal states that no cog kennels or runs will be allowe Dog kerb ?el, and. run that re , ti ° t �- -- ;;'� , F.`_ _1�j fen ar the on effect.�ve t.jig,,y K control dogs. The iea,si _._w is not e1:,fective in reducing' dogs hara�ssinS wildlif the le :.�h law has been tried_in s U `' several subdivisions and to date has proved ineffective. nny unit with a 411 dog should be required to have a dog run or kennel that is fenced to a sufficient height to prevent the dog from jumping out. 2) 111 garbage cans or container should be designed and constructed to be bear proof. feeiErs for the contai can be obtained frc:� the Divisic.n or the North American =ear vociety, Scottsdale, KZ. The proposed subdivision is in bear habitat, with the ongoing prcblerm of "garbage boom" in the county, the Division is recoTmendi.ng Q! d.evela meet in bear habitat have be &r proof containers. 0e central garbage collection point would reduce cost and lessen the problem of "garbage bears ''. 3; Lots that are adjoining ha,tional Forest property should have building envelopes that mould provide a. buffer strip of at least loo feet between the Wiling and the National 2orent boundary. This :;could provide an additional buffer zone between the development and National barest land, that would reduce wildlife impacts on the Forest and also reduce the private landowner complaints, of the public being too close to his residence. 4) Finally the Division would recommend that the developer chose Landscaping items that are unpalatable to wildlife. Due to the location of the subdivision, certain species of wildlife will use the area. By using unpala.ta.ble landscaping items the developer will reduce damage to landscaping caused by wildlife, The Division or the Colorado State Extension office has information on landscaping species 411 that are less susceptible to wildlife damage. The Division appreciates the opprctunity to comment on this proposal, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenSerg, Chairman . Robert L Freidenberger, Vice Chairman • William R. Hegberg, Secretary Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Rebecca L. Frank, Member . Dennis Luttrell, Member e Gene B. Peterson, Member a Larry M. Wright, Member 4 - CTATE OF COLORADO ' Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297 -1192 I'a.ge 2 please feel .free to contact ine if you have any questians. Sincerely yep Bill Andree, Di trict Wildlife - saanager —Tail .y. � 41 � 0 REFER TO: B 1 � 4 � 0 O � UFx DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenBerg, Chairman . Robert L Freidenberger, Vice Chairman . William R. Hegberg, Secretary Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Rebecca L Frank, Member e Dennis Luttrell, Member . Gene 8. Peterson, Member . Larry M. Wright, Member. id J v - • 0 LJ 8 United States Forest White River Holy Cross Ranger District Department of Service National P.O. Box 190 Agriculturo Forest Minturn Colorarl_o __81645 Reply to 2720 Date: April 30, 1990 r Kristan Pritz Community Development Director Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristan: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. As you know from our previous discussions, I am also processing an application from Mr. Gillett to acquire subdivision access across the adjacent National Forest System land on a parcel known as the Spraddle Creek parcel. The Forest Service has a policy to permit such access when no other reasonable access exists. An additional factor is that the Forest Service has decided to sell this Spraddle Creek parcel to the Town of Vail, and the Town and Forest Service together are proceeding with this transaction. Before the parcel is deeded to the Town, I will have to determine the exact location of the public easement to be retained by the Forest Service. With that background, following are my comments on the proposed subdivision: 1. As with all subdivisions bordering National Forest System lands, it it desirable to allow permanent public access across the private land to the Forest. The proposed subdivision does allow for this. 2. The main access road to the proposed subdivision crosses National Forest System lands on the Spraddle Creek parcel on an existing road. I understand the grade of this road exceeds Town of Vail standards. I feel it is appropriate to grant a variance at this location to keep the access road on this alignment. Keeping the road on the present alignment seems to be the environmentally preferred location to keep from disturbing additional ground and to minimize the visual impact from Interstate 70, the Town of Vail, and the ski area. This alignment then would also become the Forest Service easement when the parcel is deeded to the Town of Vail. In summary, the Spraddle Creek Subdivision meets the needs of the National Forest System. I feel the access road across the National Forest is in the best possible location and urge you to approve this alignment for access to the subdivision. If you would like to discuss this further, please let me know. FS•8200- 28(7.82) a Thank you. Sincerely, P AMMA. L OOD District Ranger • C7 FS•5200•2a(71•92) • TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Appeal of Staff Decision Relating to Fireplaces for the Anderson Residence, 1175 Sandstone Road Lots 1 & 2, Blk 2 Lionsridge Fit 4 Applicant: Sidney Schultz for Todger Anderson I. ISSUE Sidney Schultz, as representative for the Andersons, has filed an appeal of a recent staff decision to prohibit the construction of three masonry woodburning fireplaces in the following configuration: one woodburning fireplace with an A vent and two gas log fireplaces with the A vents, in the Anderson residence which is currently under construction. One of the fireplaces would be used for woodburning and two would be equipped with gas log sets. The for the app the request was made initially at the time of application a building permit. Based on our existing ordinance, staff denied the request for a second fireplace. The aal of this decision is now being brought to members of Planning Commission. II. STAFF DECISION The staff based the denial for the Anderson's request on Ordinance 24 Series of 1983. The ordinance provides for the construction of one solid fuel burning device per dwelling unit with the exception granted for a second solid fuel burning device if it is a "clean" woodburning stove. The ordinance also allows for the installation of unlimited gas appliances which utilize the B vent. An exception to this ruling was granted exclusively for accommodation units in Ordinance 28 Series of 1987. This ordinance allowed for the construction of a masonry fireplace in accommodation units only if it was equipped with a gas log set. A gas log set requires an A vent as does a woodburning fireplace. In response to public request the staff also took the issue to Council on May 14th for discussion and policy direction because of continued requests for the construction of 49 additional fireplaces to allow for gas logs. This issue related specifically to residential units. The Council directed staff to amend the ordinance to allow for the construction of two masonry fireplaces only if both were to be equipped with gas logs. The owner would be required to give up the right to burn wood. Staff is scheduling a worksession on this issue for the July 9th PEC meeting with final approval scheduled for the July 23rd PEC. The Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission directed staff to research fireplace ordinances and enforcement in other communities before implementing this change. At this time the staff continues to stand by the decision to deny the request of the Andersons to allow the construction of two additional masonry fireplaces for the installation of gas logs. The staff believes this decision is appropriate given the existing ordinance and direction given to staff at the joint Council /PEC worksession. • • 21, May, 1990 • APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING USE OF GAS LOGS ANDERSON RESIDENCE - 1175 Sandstone Drive Approximately one month ago a building permit was issued for the Anderson Residence. The Building Department was told during the permit review process that the Owner wished to have one wood burning fireplace and two fireplaces with gas burning log sets. Since Town ordinances currently allow only one fireplace capable of burning wood per dwelling unit, the Building Department indicated that two of the three fireplaces shown must be gas appliances. At the Town Council work session on May 5, it was decided that no change to the ordinance would take place at this time. The general consensus was that if today someone wished to give up his right to burn wood entirely the Town would be willing to allow a maximum of two gas log sets per dwelling unit. The current ordinance allows one wood burning fireplace and a clean- burning wood stove per dwelling unit. In the case of the Anderson Residence, there were originally two lots that would have allowed a maximum of four dwelling units. With the down - zoning that occurred with this project there is still the possibility of having two dwelling units with a total of two wood burning fireplaces and two wood stoves. The appellant is requesting that he be granted the same privilege as others have who have installed gas log sets in their homes. He is willing to deed restrict the property as required, give the Town right of entry for inspections, or any other reasonable condition that the Town considers appropriate. If this request is not granted the Anderson Residence will have the wood burning fireplace and wood stove that is allowed. There is no question that there will be less wood burning in the home and less pollution created if the two gas logs as proposed are installed. Aspen's resolution allowing gas logs is based on the facts that "fireplaces containing.gas logs can pollute less than certified stoves, and ... many people would prefer a gas log - containing fireplace to a certified stove, and whereas even though gas log- containing fireplaces may be used to burn wood, the risk of citizens doing that balanced by the desire of the city to allow devices that most residents and visitors will use properly..." If it is the intent of the Town to encourage the use of gas rather than wood, then this appeal should be granted. . for Todger Anderson • ORDINANCE 24 Series of 1983 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 28 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOLID FUEL BURNING DEVICES; PROVIDING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; REGULATING THE NUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION OF SOLID FUEL BURNERS; REQUIRING HEAT EFFICIENT UNITS; PROHIBITING COAL USAGE. WHEREAS, the setting of the Town of Vail in a valley between two mountains restricts air movement through the valley; WHEREAS; the movement of air through the Gore Valley is further restricted in cold times of the year; WHEREAS, the pollutants in the air caused by solid fuel burning devices have become increasingly worse; WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the pollution caused by solid • fuel burning devices is exacerbated by the altitude, topography, climate and meteorology of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these sources of air pollution may be minimized by presently - existing, practical and economical technologies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 . The Vail Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 8.28 "Air Pollution Control" which reads as follows: 8.28.010 Purpose and Applicability These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents and visitors in the Town of Vail. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: . (1) To protect the air Quality in the Town of Vail; (2) To reverse the trend towards increased air degradation in the Town of Vail; (3) To provide heat sources that are efficient and have a reduced polluting effect; - -2_ 8.28.020 Definitions (l) Solid Fuel Burner A fixed apparatus that burns fuel to !F provide heat, including, but not limited to, a masonry fireplace, prefabricated zero clearance fireplace, freestanding fireplace, Franklin Stove, or air tight stove. (2) Oregon Method 7 : Shall mean tests promulgated by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in effect on the date of certification as provided herein. (3) Refuse Means all solid wastes, garbage and rubbish, whether combustible or noncombustible, including rubble. (4) Clean Solid Fuel Burning Device Any solid fuel burning device having particulate emissions of less than O.33xlO gm /joule of useful heat output, averaged over at least six tests, or no more than 0.65x10'6 gm /joule of useful heat output for any single test. ! (5) Any word, term or phrase not hereto defined or specified shall be defined in accordance with Title 18 "Zoning" of the Vail Municipal Code or Title 8 "Health and Safety of the Vail Municipal Code. Seciton 8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning Devices It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, install, maintain or operate any solid fuel burning device within the Town of Vail in a manner not in compliance with this section. (A) No building permit shall be issued for or including the installation of any solid fuel burning device(s) or component(s) thereof unless the number of such device or devicesin each structure is less than or equal to the following: (1) Each dwelling unit may have one solid fuel burning device per dwelling unit. Reference (C) for exceptions. (2) A hotel, motel, inn or lodge may have one solid fuel burning device per lobby. Solid fuel burning devices in individual f. -3- (B) Gas Fireplaces The restrictions of this Chapter shall not apply to a fireplace fueled by natural gas, propane, or any similar liquid fuel so long as said fireplace is designed and constructed so that said fireplace cannot be used or modified to burn solid fuels. Gas fireplaces shall be permitted in any unit. (C) Additional Solid Fuel Burning Devices: Each dwelling unit may have two solid fuel burning devices in the following types of combinations: one fireplace and one clean woodburning stove or two clean woodburning stoves. • 1. No building permit shall be issued for installation of any clean burning solid fuel burning device in any building of the Town of Vail unless the Vail Environmental Health Officer has first certified in writing that the device has particulate emissions less than or equal to those specified above. The Environmental Health Officer will so certify any device found to have the required emissions provided tests on that brand or class of device are conducted by an approved independent testing using the "Oregon Method 7" and operating procedures as determined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality or an equivilant procedure, as determined by the Environmental Health Officer. Tests must be conducted as a low- medium or lower burn rate, as defined by Oregon Method 7 ". On or before June 1 or each year, the Environmental Health Officer will publish a list of devices known to be certified, which list shall be available for inspection at the Community Development Officer. 2. All solid fuel burning devices shall be constructed, installed, maintained and operated in such a manner that their operation will result in an increase in heating energy, i.e. that the heat supplied ..4.. 8.28.040 Coal Usage Prohibited The burning of coal is hereby prohibited within the Town of Vail. 8.28.050 Refuse Burning Prohibited The burning of refuse in any solid fuel burning device is hereby prohibited within the Town of Vail. Section 2 . If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the vailidity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3 . The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS J'J�Z day of 1983, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the of 1983, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Ci. Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ATTEST: Ordered published in full this Xn R a 7 7 Pamela A, Brandmeyer Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 28 Series of 1987 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.28 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLID FUEL BURNERS WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIED CONTROLS IN CERTAIN TYPES OF BUILDINGS IN SPECIFIC ZONE DISTRICTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL, AND ADDING A SECTION SETTING FORTH PENALTIES FOR A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. WHEREAS,. technology has been developed to allow certain types of gas burning fireplace logs to be utilized in solid fuel burning devices; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the public health, safety and welfare will best be served by amending this Chapter to allow this new technology to be utilized in certain kinds of buildings and certain zoning designations within the 10 Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to ensure that should such devices be installed, they not be utilized for the burning of solid fuels. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: 1. Section 8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning Devices of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail paragraph B. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning Devices B. Gas Fireplaces The restrictions of this Chapter shall not apply to a fireplace fueled by natural gas, so long as said fireplace is designed and constructed so that said fireplace cannot be used or modified to burn solid fuels. Notwithstanding the foregoing, solid fuel burning devices may be installed in properties classified under the Town of Vail Building Codes as R -1 and which are also accommodation units pursuant to the definition of such contained in the Zoning Code, may install equipment, flues, fireboxes and other features in accordance with the applicable list'ngs of U.L., A.r.A. or other recognized testing organizations ` r Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer. The owner of any property containing such equipment shall pay to the Town of Vail the amount of thirty dollars ($30) per year on the first day of the year following the year in which said equipment was installed for each such solid fuel burning device, and the first day of each year thereafter during the time said equipment remains installed. The owner of any such device shall allow the Town of Vail Health Inspector access into the area where such device is located for the purposes of doing such an inspection. Such equipment shall have fixed a means to prohibit access to the firebox by casual means and unauthorized persons. There shall be a sign on the fireplace reading: "C'aution - Gas Fireplace Only ". Access to the firebox shall be for maintenance and repair, testing or inspection only. The device utilized to prohibit access shall be permanently closed by means of tamper resistant screws or other suitable means. 2. Chapter 8.28.030 Air Pollution Control of the Municipal Code of the 'town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Section 8.28.060 Penalties to read as follows: 8.28.060 Penalties It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Chapter or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter. Any person performing any act prohibited or declared to be unlawful by this Chapter or failing to perform an act required by or otherwise made mandatory by this Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred ninety -nine dollars ($499). Any such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which a violation of any provision of this Chapter is committed, continued, or permitted by such person and shall be punished accordingly. In addition to penalties provided in this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed a public nuisance, and may be by this Town similarly abated as such, and each day that such condition continues shall be regarded as a new and separate offense.. 3. In order to enable development projects within the Town to install technologically superior gas logs this current building season,' the Town Council J ` declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE this 28th day of July , 1987, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 28th day of July 1987. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Pamela A. 8randmeyer, Town Clerk � 3 a • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 4, 1990 SUBJ: A request to amend Section 18.12.030, Conditional Uses in order to allow Bed and Breakfast operations in the Two Family Residential (R) zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST In December of 1989, the Town Council passed Ordinance 31, Series of 1989, which allowed Bed and Breakfast businesses in the Town of Vail. The Two Family Residential (R) zone district was inadvertently omitted. This request is to correct that omission. II. STAFF REC OMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval. The omission of the Two Family Residential Zone District from Ordinance 31 was not intentional, and persons in this zone district should be . permitted to apply for a Bed and Breakfast conditional use permit to operate such businesses. • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 11, 1990 11:30 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1 1. A request to apply High Density Multi- Family zoning as an underlying zone district to the Joint Marriott Mark Resort, Special Development Council /PEC District No. 7, a major amendment to Special Site Visit Development District No. 7 (Marriott Mark) in order to add 56 timeshare units and 10 employee housing units, 714 West Lionshead Circle, Lots 4, 7, C, D, Block 1, Vail - Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. 3 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Intermountain, 2754A Basingdale. Applicant: Catherine S. Cheney WITHDRAWN 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8A, Vail Village 10th Filing, 920 Fairway Drive. Applicant: Alice M. Cartwright 6 4. A request for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit in order to add 868 sq. ft. to the daycare facility at 149 N. Frontage Road, an unplatted site commonly referred to as the Mountain Bell site north of I -70 and west of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: ABC School 9 5. A request for a setback variance in order to add a bay window at Villa Valhalla, Unit No. 3, Lot JI, Block A, Vail Village 5th Filing, 360 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Harry Davison 7 6. A request for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E -6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive, Crossroads Condominiums. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. • 8 7. A request for a height variance for an addition to Condominium unit E -5, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive, Crossroads Condominiums. Applicant: Robert Smith 2 8. A major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Area C, Section 18.46.100, Paragraph C: deletion of the following sentence "No residential lot shall contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon subdivision covenants ", which amends the GRFA requirement to conform to the Primary /Secondary zone district, Section 18.13.080, Density Control. Applicant: Greg Amsden for 75% of the property owners. 5 9. A request for a side and front setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing, 898 Red Sandstone Circle. Applicant: Paul Testwuide 4 10. A request for a variance from the minimum lot • size on a parcel of land described as that unplatted plat of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 south, Range 81 west, of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly of the Lion's Ridge Loop as shown of the recorded plat of the Lion's Ridge Subdivision recorded July 25, 1969, in case 2, Drawer L, and Book 215, at page 649. Applicant: A. L. Shapiro & Co., A Colorado Nominee General Partnership. 11. A request for a work session for a major subdivision, a request to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail 1 -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. is y r TABLED UNTIL 12. A request for a front setback variance and a JUNE 25 creek setback variance for Lot 6, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, 1755 West Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey TABLED UNTIL 13. A request for a conditional use permit to JUNE 25 allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and 1/2 of 5, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, 1119 E. Ptarmigan Road. Applicant: Monie S. Beal TABLED UNTIL 14. A request for a conditional use permit to JUNE 25 allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition, 5198 Gore Circle. Applicant: John and Paula Canning • • • iJ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JUNE 11, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Absent Ludwig Kurz Staff Present Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry Larry Eskwith In the interest of time, Item No. 11 a work session was begun at 2:30 prior to the Public Hearing. Item No. 11: A re nest for a work session for a mar subdivision a re nest to amorove the preliminar plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade-for a road_, on a parcel commonly referred to as S raddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I -70 interchange and east of the S raddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. Joe Macy and Kent Rose displayed revised plans beginning at the lower level on the hill. Kent Rose stated that the road took advantage of two benches and the whole road was out of the creek by taking advantage of two of the "platform" areas where the stable was located and by putting two switchbacks in that area. Kathy asked what the vertical distance between the two roads on the Forest Service land was and Kent stated that there was 22' difference. He added that they may still have to adjust the roads. Kent summarized the situation with the grades by saying that the first 250' were 3.8 %, the next 700' were 9% onto 7.5% to station no. 24. He finished describing the roads and explained that all the switchbacks were 8% grade or less except for the first switchback which was 8 -1/20. He felt that there were some trade- offs. Where they were increasing the fills to have a lower grade on the road, they would have higher walls. He said that the worse scenario was at station 5 with a 13 foot high wall. 1 Jay pointed out that the only way to come up 8% grades everywhere was to go onto Forest Service property and although they had laid it out that way they didn't know if they could get Forest Service approval. He asked what the quantity of retaining wails was with the new proposal versus the previous proposal, and Kent stated that the retaining walls had been lessened with the new proposal. Kent felt that the balance was better. Jay Peterson felt that the trade -off was quite significant. Kent pointed out that if they limited all of the road to 8% there would be higher walls, but if they could be allowed to go up to 9 %, they could reduce the height of the walls. Kristan stated that Greg Hall felt that Joe and Kent were going in the right direction but that they needed to meet with the Forest Service and refine part of the plan. Jay said he would like to have the flexibility to go over 8% grades. Dalton felt that the Forest Service land was a good place for a turnaround in order to make the Forest Service land more accessible. Jay asked if they could have the flexibility to design the roads to 9 %. Dalton was concerned with the top switchback and the fact that it was so tight and Kent explained that the road sloped toward the mountain rather than away from the mountain. Kent explained that the slopes made additional changes very difficult. Cars, if sliding, would tend to slide into the hill rather than away from the hill. Kathy felt the project was looking good and that she would be comfortable with a 9% grade maximum. She was still uncomfortable with the heights of the walls. She wanted to see 8' maximum tiered walls. Connie Knight was concerned about the prospect of using Forest Service land. She was concerned about getting into a situation similar to the Tannenbaum conflict. Jim Shearer was comfortable with any grade less than 9 %. He suggested the possibility of increasing some of the 8% grades in order to reduce the wall heights. Jim also suggested the applicant make the flat area at the project entrance into parking and a trail head and Jay explained that the trade -off to the Forest Service for the use of the land would be construction of the trail head and the old road would be maintained. 40 Kathy Warren asked who would maintain the road proposed on the Forest Service land and Joe explained that as part of the agreement with the Forest Service, the applicant would have to show that the Homeowners Association would agree to maintain the road. Connie Knight asked what percentage of the road was over 8% and Kent calculated approximately 25 %. Diana felt they were getting much closer to an acceptable proposal. Kristan stated that the next step was to meet with the Forest Service and Joe Macy explained that he had a meeting set in approximately 45 minutes. He would get back with Kristan with the results of the meeting. The Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing was called to order at 3:10 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: A request to apply High Density Multi- Family zoning as an underlying zone district to the Marriott Mark Resort, Special Development District No. 7, a major amendment_ to Special Development District No, 7 (Marriott Mark) in is order to add 56 timeshare units and 10 employee housing units, 714 West Lionshead Circle, Lots 4, 7, C, D, Block 1. Vail- Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. Diana Donovan wished to point out that there were two requests and two memos. One request was to apply High Density Multi - Family zoning as an underlying zone district and the other request was for a major amendment to the Special Development District. Diana then proceeded to explain to the public the format for the review. There would first be a staff presentation, an applicants presentation, public comments, and then board comments. Kristan explained that at the April 23, 1990 PEC work session, the Commissioners had requested that underlying zoning be applied. Kristan briefly described the research that was done and the reasons behind applying the underlying zoning. She then reviewed the zoning criteria explaining that the proposal was, with the exception of units per acre or density and GRFA, in accordance with zoning regulations with regard to setbacks (with the exception of one side), height, site coverage, and landscaping. Kristan then reviewed those land use policies that related to the project. She felt the "key goals" of the Land Use Plan gave direction to the staff. The staff recommendation was • for approval of the application of the High Density Multi Family 3 zone district as an underlying zone district to the Special Development District No. 7 with the approval being Contingent upon the SDD amendment being approved. Staff believed that the proposal net all of the criteria for a zoning review. Kristan then proceeded to review the proposal for a major amendment to SDD No. 7. She gave a brief summary of the proposal comparing the changes made since the April 9, 1990 meeting. She reviewed the SDD criteria stating that the goals of the Land Use Plan, especially goals 1.12, 2.1, and 4.2, supported such a project. The staff recommendation was for approval. A review of the SDD criteria indicated that the project was consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone district. Staff felt that it was important to emphasis the uniqueness of the Marriott Mark Resort's situation to ensure that density increases were not deemed automatically acceptable by using the SDD process and Kristan reviewed a brief list identifying these characteristics. Kristan also felt it was important to identify the "public benefit" which would result from the project and proceeded to review the benefits. The staff recommendation was for approval with the conditions found within the memo. Diana asked if there was an applicant's presentation. Jay Peterson explained that Bill Burding, the attorney is representing the Vail Spa, needed to return to Denver as soon as possible and requested he be allowed to speak first and Diana agreed. Bill Burding explained that the Vail Spa had, to this point, been against the proposal due to the view blockage, design, and current Marriott appearance. He stated that, at this time, the Vail Spa approved of the proposal. The Marriott had been very accommodating in working with the Vail Spa and they felt that the new design, decrease in mass, new color, and landscaping were needed improvements. The Vail Spa was in support of the proposal. Peter Jamar began the applicant's presentation by introducing those people in attendance with him who were available for questions. Peter gave a brief history of the Land Use Plan explaining that the Land Use Plan guided the Marriott in the proposal. Peter stated that the applicant had tried to respond to all the input received from the staff, boards and public. He stated that they now had strong support from all the neighbors, with the exception of the Forest Road owners, including Vail Associates, the Vail Spa, and the Antlers. They felt it was unfortunate they could not get the Forest Road owners' support. 4 . Peter felt that the density comparison that the staff compiled was an accurate representation. He felt that the Doubletree and the Vail Village Inn were planned in response to the Land Use Plan and that all the projects, including the Marriott proposal were for the public good and in accordance with the Land Use Plan. He didn't feel they were pushing the limits. Peter continued explaining that all aspects had been met with the exception of density. applicant was in agreement with the conditii recommended by the staff with the exception and felt it would be easier to discuss this meeting. of the zoning code He stated that the Dns of approval as of the left -turn lane toward the end of the Jay Peterson stated that the opposition to the proposal had been very vocal. There were some people in favor in the audience and asked if they could speak at this time. Packy Walker, representing the Lionshead Merchant's Association, explained that they had recently held a meeting and the majority of the members were in favor. They felt the increase in traffic and improved landscaping would be good and that the design was great. Diana asked if this was in fact a majority vote and Packy replied "yes. it Bob Lazier, a property owner in the Lionshead area, felt the building would be a good addition. He felt the building would actually help the view from I -70 by eliminating the view of the present parking structure. Regarding timeshare, he explained that, in his experience, timeshare had substantially improved occupancy during shoulder seasons. He felt that future expansion of the ski mountain was the reason we were all here. He hoped that projects similar to the Marriott would be considered in the future. Tom Banner, a Lionshead Merchant, confirmed Packy Walker's statement regarding the Merchant Association's support. He also personally supported the redevelopment as well as his family, who owned property on West Forest Road. He submitted a letter to the board regarding his family's support. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, was curious about the timeshare marketing and how it would be handled. Specifically, he wished to assure that there would be no marketing planned in the streets. is 5 . John Sweeney, representing the Marriott Corporation, stated that the marketing efforts were one of the Marriott's proudest points. They did not participate in the timeshare marketing methods (premiums, on street contact) that had given timeshare a bad name. He explained that the clients came to them. Larry asked if they would have a problem adding wording to the SDD amendment in order to restrict the on- street marketing, and John Sweeney explained that the scope was very general but he would be willing to discuss the matter. Jay Peterson added that he felt he understood Larry's concerns and that he didn't think what he felt Larry had in mind would be a problem. Kathy Warren asked about the Corporation and the owner of explained that the Marriott of the timeshare could, when vote them out. The Marriott long -term operation. relationship between the Marriott the property and John Sweeney was the managing entity. The owners the majority of the units were sold, had committed themselves to the Jay Peterson, in the interest of clarifying the issue, explained that the MK Corporation owned the property and the Marriott would be the developer and manager. Kathy then wanted to know if there was any type of parking agreement and Jay stated that parking arrangements would run with the land. Cindy Jacobson, from the audience, then asked about taxes. Discussion centered around whether condominium associations were responsible for taxes or if they would be billed to each owner separately. A majority of timeshare projects bill the taxes through maintenance fees and pay the taxes directly. Larry was not sure if this was law or simply the preferred way. John Sweeney stated that the Marriott timeshares are done both ways. John Sweeney elaborated by stating that the Marriott projects had a 96% level of satisfaction hence a lower default rate. The Marriott also financed their own sales and therefore had a bigger interest in properties that defaulted. Tom Jacobson, the owner of 765 Forest Road, stated that his biggest disagreement was the GRFA. He also wanted to know what the effect of the project was going to have on sewage processing. He lived just up the street and often could smell the sewage. He felt it was interesting that he had asked for the berm to be fixed for the last 10 years and that, of all times, he woke up the day of the meeting to find the applicant was working on the berm. He said that the board should not allow the project on the basis of GRFA. • 71 Cindy Jacobson, a resident Spa has made great deals. request for conditions now wanted conditions placed on of 765 Forest Road, stated that the She asked if she should make her or later and Diana explained if she the SDD to request them now. Cindy commented that Kristan had viewed the creek as a buffer and Cindy felt the statement was inaccurate. The creek was an amplifier. She stated that she had not complained about the view. She was mainly concerned about the GRFA. She felt the Town was getting too big. There were already too many people on the mountain. Cindy gave examples of hotels that were closed due to lack of occupancy. She would like the board to consider restricting tents, amplified sound, organized parties, weddings, and no commercial entities including food stands on the greenspace created by the deletion of the tennis courts. Connie Knight wished to commend Ned Gwathmey, the architect and the rest of the Marriott's representatives for a good looking building. She liked the reduction in mass and height. However, she was still uncomfortable with the density. She felt the reduction from the original proposal was great but was beginning to feel that "this was how the game was played." Connie was not speaking specifically about the Marriott project. She explained that she felt that an applicant would originally propose more than what was desired in order to get the desired project. Connie didn't feel she could vote for the project. She felt that the number of owners at sell -out, hypothetically 2800, would be too great an impact. Connie questioned Mr. Sweeney about the statement he made regarding the Marriott having 9 million dollars worth of resales. She said that it made her apprehensive of timeshare. Connie also wanted to know how sales at the newly purchased Streamside project were going? John Sweeney, in response, stated that they had not been in management and sales of the Streamside project long enough to give her an accurate accounting. As far as the ownership of timeshare, the average income of their timeshare owners was in excess of $80,000 per year. Kristan added that timeshare was specifically listed in the Land Use Plan. Research was done at the time the Land Use Plan was developed. Kristan believed that timeshare had at one time had a bad image but that it was good for the Town. Jim Shearer felt that the applicant had created an attractive building. He felt that, when building a model, trees were placed where it was easiest rather than where they were planned. Jim stated he would like to see the landscaping on the model duplicated as closely as possible to the plan. He wished to see more trees planted on the south property line in order to help • buffer the noise. He encouraged extensive landscaping. Jim 7 liked the changes that had been made since the April 9, 1990 meeting. He was glad they had agreed to repaint the existing building. Jim liked the circulation plan and wanted to see the applicant work with the Town on the turn lane. Jim asked if there would be gates to help control the parking and Jay explained that the applicant proposed to control the parking either by gate or an individual attendant. Jay continued explaining that if a gate was used it would be under the structure and out of view. Ned expanded stating that any control would be approximately 20 spaces back and pointed the proposed area out on the plans. Jim Shearer expressed that he was pleased with the employee housing and parking. He was happy that the applicant did not ask to exceed the allowed height. He would also like to see marketing language pursued with Larry as well as the applicant participate in the Vail Marketing Plan. He would vote for the project with the staff recommended conditions, especially those concerning employee housing and drainage. Jim wasn't sure if sewage, as addressed by Tom Jacobson was a concern. In response to the sewage concern, Peter explained that sewage was addressed in the EZR and it was stated that the sewage plant had the capacity to handle the project. Jim would also like to see the conditions include a traffic study, landscape issues and a requirement for the staff to monitor the conditions carefully. Jim also wanted to see the front stairs reduced or some type of planters come down the side of the stair. Kathy Warren asked Ned if he had given any consideration as to how he was going to lay out the employee units and Ned responded that he had a general idea but no definite layout. Kathy was concerned that the area was too small. Ned explained that the area would be used as a studio, probably incorporating a murphy bed. Kathy Warren asked Jack Hunn if Vail Associates would allow the applicant to landscape the west side of the V.A. parking lot and Jack responded that, as long as there would not be a loss of parking spaces, additional landscaping in the already existing buffer would be fine. Kathy then asked Ned if he had color samples and Ned showed a sample board with the colors and explained that the model was painted as similarly as possible. They were planning to use a light and dark grey as well as a green trim and the stone piece found on the sample board. • 8 • Kathy Warren asked, in response to Action Vail's letter, why staff was so supportive of such a large increase in GRFA? Kristan explained that this was an important part of the issue. She could not say that this was the only site an SDD of this density could be proposed, but in this instance, the site was suited to the Land Use Plan and SDD criteria and met all other zoning standards except GRFA and number of units. Dalton Williams stated that the rest of the board expressed his feelings pretty well. Regarding the creek side, he walked the area a few days prior and tried to imagine the new structure. He felt it would make the pedestrian area more comfortable. Dalton was glad they were going to repaint the existing building. He wished to encourage the applicant to discuss the interior of the employee units with the housing task force prior to final design. Dalton felt that the landscaping was a sensitive issue. He felt that the whole process might have gone faster had the original landscape promises been kept. He asked that the staff watch the project carefully. Dalton also wanted to see the landscaping look like the model. He wanted it clear, upon a vote in favor of the project, he would be voting for lots of trees. Dalton agreed that the density increase looked like a tremendous increase. However, he was looking at the Town's needs 10 years down the road. From that standpoint, the Town needed infill development and there were not many areas that were suitable. The Marriott site was one of the areas. Dalton felt the project was right for the site, location and scale of buildings. He could recommend approval per the staff memo with particular attention to landscaping. Diana asked why there was no landscape buffer between the road and the sidewalk in front of the new building and Ned explained that they felt a pedestrian landing and bus area was needed and if they pushed it back it would reduce landscaping along the building. Diana wanted to see the sidewalk pulled back and Jay stated that they would be happy to discuss the issue with the Design Review Board. Diana, in response to Tom Jacobson's concern regarding the sewage, explained that the sewage problem was provoked more from the morning and after ski crowed showering at the same time. She did not see how the proposed project would cause a problem. She didn't feel that it was the number of people but rather the similar times of use that created a sewage problem. Diana then questioned the left turn lane requirement. She could visualize an adjacent property owner holding the project up. 0 David Leahy, of TDA Colorado, agreed that the applicant was prepared to pay their fair share as determined by a subsequent study. As the memo stated, it is a matter of timing. He felt that if the left turn lane was built alone rather than with the improvement planned by the Town it could be dangerous. During the night or when roads were iced over, having a lane expand out for a turn and then back in could cause confusion and thus accidents. Diana was concerned that if the fair share amount was put in a fund that it might be spent elsewhere and Kristan explained that it could be earmarked for that project alone. Peter wished to clarify that the applicant was willing to pay their fair share, the cost to the Marriott would be the same. They were simply asking that since the study was underway, waiting would be better. He offered the solution to simply add to condition #4 found in the memo the wording "unless waived by Town staff based upon the Town Wide transportation study." Kristan explained that staff could not commit the Town to priorities for the transportation plan and they were concerned about the project being completed without the lane. According to her conversation with Rich Perske of the CDOH, if the Marriott did not do the lane, it was possible the Town could be forced to build the lane. Peter asked that conditions of ap] the "fair share" that was why the inappropriate to the turn lane as the words ?roval #3, would not condition recommend part of t "fair share" be added to the memo 5th line and Diana was concerned that build the lane. Kristan explained was worded as it was. She felt it was approval of the project without having he permit. Diana agreed that she would also like to see the marketing language reviewed with Larry and added as part of the SDD. She also wanted to see sound amplification mitigation. Jay didn't feel that it was appropriate to ask for limits on activities. Discussion then circled around the effectiveness of the sound amplification condition, and it was decided that no sound amplification should be allowed on the green area created by the deletion of the tennis courts. Diana stated that she was surprised by the letter submitted by Action Vail since the deletion of the tennis courts actually added more green space and that the Town of Vail publicly owned green space was going to be improved. She believed that a person could not simply state that the GRFA was too large and therefore the project was bad. If you combined the elements and unique characteristics as well as the public benefits the project was 10 acceptable. With an SDD, you give and take to come up with the best project. The proposal fit well with the Land Use Plan and the SDD criteria, Diana didn't believe the project would be precedent setting. A motion was made to recommend approval of a major amendment to SDD No. 7 to Town Council per the staff memo with the following conditions with additions and chances was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. conditions: I. Deed restrictions limitina the use of the ten emplovee units to long term employee rentals in perpetuity shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. The units shall meet the conditions for employee housing outlined in Section 18.13.080 B10 a -d of the Zoning Code except that the units are restricted permanently. 2. A detailed drainage plan and other design issues relevant to public works concerns shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building creeK snail be prorecrea from any consrr by the use of an erosion controlplan. �J 3. Workina in coordination with the Town staff, the applicant shall fund and conduct a_ comprehensive traffic study of the West Lionshead Circle area suitable for determining the Marriott Mark's contribution to the cost of constructing any necessary turn lanes on the S. Frontage Road to West Lionshead Circle. Preliminary design and cost estimates for the turn lanes shall be provided. At a minimum._ the applicant shall responsible for contributing this agreed upon amount toward the cost of this improvement. 4. A preliminary design and funding strategy for constructing any turn lanes shall be established prior to the issuance of any building permit, and the turn lanes shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy unless deferred by the Community Development Department and Public Works. The funding and construction plan must be a roved b the Town of Vail engineer, Community Development Department, Town Council, and Colorado Division of Highways before the building permit is released for the expansion. 11 • The applicant shall be required to submit a CDOH access permit application on behalf of the Town for the West Lionshead Circle /South Frontage Road improvement. A signed CDOH permit must be obtained by the applicant before a building permit is released unless_ deferred 12y the Community Development Department and Public Works. 5. All aspects related to the timesharing of this facilit shall comply with all applicable town ordinances that regulate timeshare activity. Timeshare is only approved for the proposed 56 unit building. The 10 employee units shall not be allowed to convert to timeshare. 6. Detailed landscapina similar to the Westin Hotel landscaping along the recreation path proposed on Town of Vail land shall be submitted by the applicant to the Town of Vail landscape architect_ and engineer for approval before the proposal is submitted to the Design Review Board. All landscaping-proposed on Town of Vail._ land shall be maintained by the applicant. 7. The applicant shall agree to re grade, reve etate and repair the drainage on the bank adjacent to the .bike path along the southern property line of the Marriott Mark by August 1, 1990. A letter of credit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail before second reading of the SDD ordinance. The landscape and drainage work shall be submitted to the Town Engineer and Landscape Architect for approval before the proposal is presented to Design Review Board. 8. A temporary certificate of occupancy shall not be released for the expansion until all site improvements have been completed such as sidewalks, landscaping, drainage etc. If the weather prohibits the completion of the site improvements, the applicant shall be required to provide a letter of credit to cover 125% of the construction costs for these improvements. The construction estimate shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and Landscape Architect. The agreement stipulating how the site improvements will be completed and letter of credit shall be submitted bV the applicant to the Town Attorney for approval before .a temporary certificate of occupancy may be released. 9. Before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released, the applicant shall plat a public easement to insure public access through the site on the proposed sidewalk improvements. The applicant shall submit the . easement agreement to the Town Attorney and Town Council for approval before recording the easement._ 10. Marketing language for the sale of the timeshare units shall be submitted by the Town Attorney by the applicant for approval. This wording__governing_ the marketing of the time ring shall be added to the SDD 11. No amplification of sound on the green space created by the removal of the two tennis courts shall be allowed for conventions or other special events. 12. Significant landscaping including evergreens, deciduous trees, and shrubs shall be provided on the landscape terraces over the narking area. If additional structural support must be added to the terraces to support significant landscaping (as described in previous sentence), the applicant /owner shall be required to strengthen the structure of the terrace to allow for the landscaping. 13. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the west elevation of the parking structure. A mix of deciduous, evergreens, and shrubs shall be provided of a size adequate to screen the structure as much as possible. The applicant is directed to work with Vail Associates . on the landscaping buffer. 14. All loading areas shall have additional landscaping and screen fencing, 15. The amendments to Special Development District No. 7 are approved conditional upon Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council givin approval to the underlying zone district-request. • 16. The ballast on the existing building be changed to match the color of the metal roof of the proposed addition. VOTE: 4 -1 IN FAVOR WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED AND CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING A motion to recommend approval of the request to apply underlying zoning with no conditions to the Town Council was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton_ Williams. VOTE: 5 -0 IN FAVOR WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING Item No. 2: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 3 Block 3, Vail Intermountain, 2754A Basingdale. Applicant: Catherine S. Cheney This item was discussed during site visits. A motion was made to approve a conditional use _permit for a Bed and Breakfast by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. 0 VOTE: 6 -0 13 Item No. 3: A request for a conditional use permit to • allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8A Vail g Villae 10th Filina, 920 Fairwav Drive. Applicant. Alice M. Cartwright Item No. 3 a conditional use permit for Alice M. Cartwright was withdrawn. No action was taken. Item No. 4: A re uest for an amendment to an existin conditional use permit in order to add 868 sq. ft. to the daycare facility at 149 N. Frontage Road, an unplatted site commonly referred to as the Mountain Bell site north of T-70 and west of the Main Vail 1 -70 interchange. Applicant: ABC School Shelly Mello presented the project explaining that the ABC School proposed to add 868 sq. ft. on both the north and south sides of the building. The applicant was also proposing to pave the parking area. The addition would provide additional administrative area, a reception room, an additional classroom and increased storage area. Shelly explained that the property was shown to be in a moderate rock fall zone as depicted by the Town of Vail geologic hazard maps. A site specific study had been conducted by Nicholas, Lampiris, Ph.D. and the recommendation was made that no mitigation for rock fall would be required for construction of the addition. However, Mr. Lampiris stated in his report that the existing building, the proposed addition, and playground area were in a debris flow area which was not identified by the Town's Debris Flow Study by Art Mears, 1984. Mr. Lampiris prescribed "extending or perhaps adding to the existing low, linear rocky hillside, northwest of the school which was formed by previous debris flow decades ago." The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request for the ABC School expansion proposal. Staff felt that the use involved provided a benefit to the community and the proposed improvements to the property would benefit both the ABC School and the Learning Tree preschool. The staff recommended that the approval be conditioned upon the installation of the debris flow mitigation. Diana felt that the big concern was the berm, not the expansion. Bill Pierce, representing the ABC School, explained that the ABC School had planned to get a second opinion regarding the Debris Flow. He explained that the location of the berm was already established, but getting to it would be hard. Diana suggested the possibility of building a concrete wall to divert the debris flow. . Chuck Crist asked how the Town, if conflicting reports were submitted, would determine which study to use and Kristan stated it would have to go before the Council. 14 Diana expressed that the Town would need the documentation regarding the need of a berm prior to issuance of a building permit. Bill Pierce explained that, in looking at the map, it looked as though any debris would flow to the west of the building. Bill felt that the expansion had nothing to do with the debris flow. The building was already there. The mitigation would be installed if the second opinion made the same findings. He was concerned, there were children in the building. However, he didn't want to be ultra conservative. A motion to annrove a conditional use permit far the.._ABC School with the condition that, if it was determined that mitigation was necessary as per a licensed engineer_, the miticiation would be -com leted prior to TCO and that the recommendation be made to DRB that the mitigation be as scarless as possible was made by Chuck Crist and Seconded by Kathy Warren VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 5: A request for a setback variance in order to add a bay window at Villa Valhalla, Unit No. 3, Lot JI, Block A Vail Village Filing, 360 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Harry Davison Kathy Warren removed herself from the board due to a conflict of interest. She represented the applicant. Shelly Mello explained that the applicant was requesting a variance from the 20' setback requirement on the south side of the building in order to construct a 2 foot deep bay window on the south elevation of the existing building. The owner was required to obtain a variance because the window would increase the nonconformity of the building. The staff recommended approval of the requested 2' encroachment into the 20 foot setback requirement. The staff found that the existing nonconforming building which currently encroached 4' into the 20' setback requirement in the area of the window constituted a physical hardship. Jim Shearer asked Kathy Warren, the applicant's representative, if she felt there would be a problem with dry -rot due to snow build -up and Kathy responded "no ". Connie Knight asked if they had received condominium association approval and Kathy answered that they had more than the required approvals. A motion to approve the setback variance_ requested per the • staff memo was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by__ -Jim Shearer. VOTE: 5 -0 IN FAVOR WITH KATHY WARREN ABSTAINING 15 Item No. 6: A reauest for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E -6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail • C� • Mike Mollica presented the proposal explaining that the owner of condominium unit E -6 was requesting a height variance in order to expand the condominium by 343 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition would be on the east elevation of the building, at the 5th story. A false facade would be constructed at the fourth floor level. The proposed addition would match the appearance of the existing building with both colors and materials. Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis and the criteria used in evaluating the proposal. The staff recommendation was for approval. Staff believed the recommendation to be consistent with recent decisions by the staff and the PEC, which had allowed some flexibility in the height requirements for pre- existing, nonconforming buildings, as long as the existing ridge line of the building was not modified and as long as the alteration did not negatively effect any adjacent properties. Sid Schultz, representing the applicant, brought and displayed additional photographs to show the proposed addition and stated that as far as the views that Mike had shown, they were worst case. Regarding the upgrading of the planters out in front of the building along East Meadow Drive, the applicant and Robert Smith were in favor of renovating them. However, the bank owned more than 50% of the property and had the deciding vote. Mike Mollica gave some brief examples of other variances that had been granted under what he felt were similar circumstances. Dalton Williams felt the proposal would block views to the ski mountain. He was concerned about the void area not being completely closed off. If the project were to be approved, he would want to see the void area completely enclosed. Sid explained that the neighbors below, at the 4th floor level, did not want them to enclose the area completely. It would block light and air from their unit. Dalton explained that he was afraid the area would collect snow and trash. He felt the area needed to be enclosed completely or be left open all together and Mike suggested closing the area off with glass. Kathy Warren stated that she was not comfortable with the architectural design. Jim Shearer felt there was a problem with the blocked view from I -70 and Mike showed a Vail Village Master Plan map that called out for a 5 -6 story element in this area. View corridors were preserved directly to the west and east of the property. Diana felt the proposal was similar to adding another building and she questioned where it would stop. Jim Shearer agreed with Diana. He felt there was not enough transparency in the existing building already. Chuck Crist was concerned, though he liked the balcony on the side facing the Frontage Road, about the small void space and did not wish to set a precedent. He felt that if they were to approve the proposal, the precedent might encourage someone to ask to add a penthouse on top of the cinema. Kristan agreed that, if approved, the project could be precedent setting. Sid stated that when using the Vail Village Master Plan as a guide, the plan showed the roof heights tapering down from the Frontage Road to East Meadow Drive. Diana felt that the proposal looked like another building. she stated that the Master Plan showed a wall that V'd down in the middle. Dalton felt that the proposal gave a "great wall" look and feeling due to the lack of transparency. Connie Knight explained that when she first read over the proposal she didn't have a problem with the addition. She now felt uncomfortable due to the additional GRFA, height and the void space. A motion to den 1, C -2 and C -3_ Jim Shearer. Discussion after the the denial. it was element and not just intent of the Master stories. the height variance request per findings C- T was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by motion centered around the reasoning behind Eelt that the proposal read as a whole new a roof change. It was also decided that the Plan was to step down, not simply allow 5 VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR OF DENIAL Item No. 7: A re guest for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E -5, Lot P. Block 5D. Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive Crossroads Condominiums. Applicant: Robert Smith Mike Mollica explained that the owner of Condominium Unit E -5 was requesting a height variance in order to expand the condominium by 86 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition would be on the south elevation of the building, at the 5th story. The proposed addition would match the appearance of the adjacent balcony enclosure. is 17 The staff recommendation for the project was for approval. Staff believed the proposal to be consistent with recent decisions by . the staff and the PEC, which had allowed some flexibility in the height requirements for pre - existing, nonconforming buildings, as long as the existing ridge line of the building was not modified and as long as the alteration did not negatively affect any adjacent properties. Dalton felt that the proposal did not have the same circumstances as the proposal for Unit E -6 due to the fact that the addition would not change the ridge line. Jim Shearer had no problems with the proposal and the rest of the board agreed. Diana felt it was important the reasoning behind the support be documented stating that the addition may be above the height requirements, but was below the existing roof form. A motion to approve the requested height variance per the memo was made by by-Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 5 -0 IN FAVOR - Connie Knight left sick during the above presentation and was absent for the vote. Item No. 8: A major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Area C, Section 18.46.100, Paragraph C: deletion of the following sentence "No residential lot shall contain more than 4200 sauare feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon subdivision covenants_ "_, which amends the GRFA re uirement to conform to the Primary /Secondary zone district, Section 18.13.080, Density Control. Applicant: Greg Amsden for 75% of the property owners. Shelly Mello explained that the applicant was requesting to delete the requirement which stated "No residential lot shall contain more than 4200 sq. ft. of GRFA per the Glen Lyon Subdivision covenants." The amended code would read "GRFA shall be calculated for each lot per Section 18.13.080, Density Control A and B for the primary /secondary district of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." Because of the lot sizes, the amendment would allow 40 of the 51 duplex lots to increase their GRFA over what was currently allowed by the SDD density requirements. The staff felt that the restriction was used as a means of guaranteeing GRFA to the Glen Lyon lots and instead, the maximum became a restriction. Staff felt that the deletion of the maximum would have no negative impacts on the surrounding properties. The amendment would allow the above lots to be controlled under the density requirements that were used for all other Primary /Secondary lots. Staff recommendation was for approval. • 18 Andy Norris, the original developer, explained the intent of the restrictive statement as a means of guaranteeing GRFA. Since . that time, the statement had become restrictive in nature. He explained that the applicant pimply wished to be treated as any other Primary /Secondary development. Dalton and Chuck had no problem with the proposal. Kathy Warren said that she could accept the proposal with the exception that she would like to see the allowance for 250 sq. ft. of GRFA be disallowed on the property. Andy Norris didn't feel that it would be fair to disallow the additional 250. He said that the applicant simply wanted to be treated the same as any other Primary /Secondary subdivision. The deletion of the 250 rule would be singling out the subdivision. Diana and Kathy seemed to feel strongly about disallowing the additional 250, stating that they set the ground rules to begin with and they didn't feel it was too much to ask. Stan Beard, owner of lots in the Glen Lyon Subdivision, was opposed to the deletion of the additional 250, reiterating what Andy had felt about the fairness. He felt that deleting the 250 rule would be penalizing them for asking to be treated the same across the board. Diana stated that she felt the 250 rule was a mistake. She asked . how the board could keep the monster house from being built. Stan Beard stated that the site coverage formula was designed to address Diana's concerns. He suggested that if they wanted to delete the 250 rule that it should be deleted for the whole town not just one development. Mike Mollica stated that he understood Diana's concerns. However, this was an issue that should be brought up with Tom Braun, the consultant working on the Zoning Code revisions. Stan Beard contended that there would be as much control as there was throughout the Town. The whole idea of the amendment was to establish uniformity with the Town. Shelly Mello explained to Diana that a number of the lots had large percent slopes and therefore were limited to 15% site coverage. She added that as depicted on the chart found on page 3 of the memo, only 11 of 51 lots could add over 500 sq. ft. Andy reminded the board that a large portion of acreage in this subdivision was dedicated open space. A motion to recommend approval to Town Council of the major amendment to SDD No. 4 was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Chuck Crist 0 VOTE: 4 -1 IN FAVOR WITH DIANA DONOVAN VOTING AGAINST 19 Item No. 9: A request for a side and front setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 7, Block--3,- Vail Village 9th Filing, 898 Red Sandstone Circle. Annlieant! Paul Testwuide Shelly Mello explained that the applicant's request was for a garage and storage addition to the west side of an existing residence. The garage had a total area of 644 sq. ft. and would encroach a maximum of 3 ft. into the 15 foot side setback requirement and 6 ft. into the 20 foot front setback requirement. With the exception of the requested variance, all other development standards would be met. The staff felt that the addition of enclosed parking would improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. However, the staff found that the size of the garage (24 could be decreased to minimize the front setback encroachment. Staff was recommending denial of the request. Staff would be supportive of a request for a 3 ft. side setback encroachment and a one or two foot front setback encroachment with the condition that the applicant remove and landscape the excess paved parking area to the east of the garage. Diana asked what standard credit was given with GRFA calculations and Shelly answered 600 sq. ft. Mike expanded, saying that a basic /standard garage was 24 Paul Testwuide, the applcant, explained that the reason he asked for a larger garage was that he would be using the area as an entrance. The only other option would be around the other side and the entrance would be directly into the living room. With a young active family, that was not sensible. Kathy Warren asked why 10' walls were planned rather than 8' walls and Galen explained that the cost was minimal and it would be easier to add a floor in the future. He explained that Mr. Testwuide had the remaining GRFA so that he could enclose the area in the future. Kathy stated that she understood the hardship on the side but not the front setback. There were too many other options. Dalton Williams also felt there were other options and gave examples to the applicant. Jim Shearer liked the profile better with the garage than without. He made some suggestions on how the garage could be redesigned to avoid the encroachment. Jim's preference would be to see the applicant move the garage back a few feet or shave a couple of feet off the front to minimize the encroachment. Jim was more against setting a precedent. Dalton stated that he could be in favor of some variance in the front if they could show cause. . Diana stated that she saw other alternatives. She was comfortable with the side setback variance request. Galen asked the board if they might consider a 4' front setback and the informal vote was 3 -2 in favor. 20 A motion to table the item until the June 25, 1990 meeting was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Chuck Crist. • 5 -0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING Item No. 10: A re est for a variance from the minimum lot size on a parcel of land described as that unplatted plat of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 south, Range 81 west, of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly of the Lion's Ridge Loop as shown of the recorded plat of the Lion's Ridge Subdivision_ recorded 25, 1969, in case 2, Drawer L, and Book 215, at page 649. Applicant: A. L. Shapiro & Co., A_ Co_ l or_ado Nominee General Partnership. Mike Mollica explained that the applicant was requesting a variance from the minimum lot size to allow for the construction of a single family residence with a secondary, caretaker unit, on an unplatted site zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The zone district had a minimum lot area requirement of 35 acres with a minimum of one acre of "buildable area ", per dwelling unit. The applicant was requesting that two dwelling units be allowed on the parcel. Under the Agricultural and Open Space zoning this would require a parcel of 70 acres in size. The applicant's parcel was 6.844 acres in size, and so the total lot size variance request was for a shortage of 63.156 acres. Also, the applicant's parcel was .61 acres short of the two acres of "buildable area" which was required for two dwelling units. The staff recommendation was for denial of the requested lot size variance. Staff believed that approval of the request would be a grant of special privilege and that the variance would not be in compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan. Staff also felt that approval of the request would set a dangerous precedent for future lot size variance requests and therefore believed that the request should not be approved. Mr. Shapiro felt that the Town didn't wish him to build a home on the site. In response to Mike's presentation and the staff memo, Mr. Shapiro wished to dispute the staff's position as follows: PAGE 1, LAST PARAGRAPH: The memo stated that Mr. Shapiro wished to build a single- family home with a caretaker unit and that it was counted as two units. Mr. Shapiro wanted it understood that his application was for a single family home with a caretaker unit. If the caretaker unit counted as a second unit, his application was for one unit. 21 PAGE 2, CRITERIA A -1, PARAGRAPH 1: The memo stated that the applicant's parcel is highly visible and therefore construction on the site would have a negative impact on the neighboring properties. According to the memo, staff also felt any Cutting into the site would likely leave visible scars. Mr. Shapiro pointed out the zoning on the neighboring lots and stated that he would do whatever necessary to avoid scaring. He did not feel that it was fair to deny the application on these grounds without letting him present a preliminary plan first. PAGE 2, CRITERIA A -1, PARAGRAPH 2: This section of the memo stated that the site area was located in a "high hazard debris flow" and a "high severity rockfall" zone. The staff questioned whether the geologic hazards could be properly mitigated. Mr. Shapiro felt that, as a major developer in the area, he had addressed the issue many times. Again, he felt he should be given the opportunity to submit a proposal. PAGE 2, CRITERIA A -1, PARAGRAPH 3, 4, AND 5, OTHER CONCERNS: The staff questioned the availability of utilities to the parcel, access for fire protection, as well as the mass and bulk of the building. In response, Mr. Shapiro stated that he could substantiate that the necessary utilities were available and that no trenching would be needed. He would put the necessary lines under the driveway. Regarding fire protection access, he felt he should at least be allowed to submit plans and regarding the mass and bulk concerns, his wife would not clean a house the size concerned with by staff. He agreed he would not build a home any larger than 5,000 sq. ft. PAGE 3, CRITERIA A -2: This section of the memo addressed the inability for staff to identify a physical hardship and that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. Mr. Shapiro asked how it was determined that it would be a grant of special privilege. He felt that the surrounding properties were zoned Duplex and Tract A, open space. PAGE 3, CRITERIA A -3: Staff was concerned about the negative impact of providing access to the parcel. Mr. Shapiro stated that he had sent his application to the Forest Service and they had given him verbal approval to grant access if he received PEC approval. He felt that he was a good developer and would like the chance to submit a plan for review. PAGE 3, RELATED POLICIES, A: The memo described how the Land Use Plan had identified this parcel's potential use as Open Space and Mr. Shapiro felt he could point out many precedents in which parcels with steep grades had been built on. PAGE 4, RELATED POLICIES, B: Policy 1.6 stated that hillside areas could be developed upon as long as the area was not highly visible from the valley floor. Mr. Shapiro felt that all real estate was visible from the valley floor and that the policy did not apply. Policy 5.1 was quoted as stating that growth should . occur in areas where high hazards did not exist. Mr. Shapiro felt that other properties had done what he proposed. Examples he stated included Potato Patch and Spraddle creek. 22 r Mr. Shapiro felt he met all the findings and criteria. He felt that what he had proposed would not be a grant of special privilege and was not detrimental to the public safety or welfare. He felt that other precedents had been set. He asked for the opportunity to present to the Town plans that he felt would satisfy and prove that he could do what he said. Dalton Williams asked staff if he was prohibited from bringing in plans and Kristan explained that Mr. Shapiro was not prohibited from presenting plans. However, she felt that Mr. Shapiro did not wish to spend the money until he knew where he stood with the Town and Mr. Shapiro agreed. Kristan expanded saying that it was not necessary for Mr. Shapiro to expend such large amounts when the Town already had enough information to base the decision on. Chuck Crist felt that he had to uphold the zoning on the property. Mr. Shapiro did not have the required 35 acres and therefore could not build. Kathy Warren agreed with the staff. in response to some of Mr. Shapiro's comments, she wanted to clarify that Tract A was also open space. Kathy stated that she could not support the variance because she felt the project would scar the hillside and that it would in no doubt be a grant of special privilege to allow him to build on 6 acres when the zoning called for 35 acres. Jim Shearer asked the staff what a person could do with property zoned Agricultural open Space and Larry Eskwith explained that there were two types of Greenbelt was for parks farms, row crops, etc. Jim explained that even land to meet the 35 acr concerned with scaring, open space, Agricultural and Greenbelt. and Agricultural could be used for tree if Mr. Shapiro was able to procure enough requirement, Jim would still be hazards and access. Diana felt that Jim expressed her feelings well. A motion to denv the variance reauest_pe_r_ the staff memo and the findings that a variance would be a grant of special p rivilege , no extraordinary circumstances exist no Physical hardship could be found and due to the fact that the Property was purchased with the zoning in place was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist VOTE: 5 -0 IN FAVOR OF DENIAL Item No.11.: A request for a work session for a maior subdivision a reauest to approve the preliminar plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade-for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle S Creek an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I -70 interchangeand east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett,_ Jr. 23 I* In the interest of time, due to short site visits, the Commission held this work session prior to the public hearing. Item No. 12: A request for a front setback_ variance and a creek setback variance for Lot 6 Vail Village West. Filing No. 2, 1755 West Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey Item No. 13: A request for a conditional use_permit__to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and 1/2 of 5. Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, 1119 E. Ptarmigan Road. Applicant: Monie S. Beal Item NO. 14: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8 Block 3 Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition, 5198 Gore Circle. Applicant: John and Paula Canning A motion to table items 12, 13, and 14 to the June 25, 1990 meeting was made by Diana Donovan and seconded by Kath Warren. 0 VOTE: 5 -0 IN FAVOR OR TABLING • 24 e n U T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 RE: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark Resort) in order to add 56 timeshare units and 10 employee housing units at 714 West Lionshead Circle, Lot 4, 7, C, D, Block 1, Vail - Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: MK Corporation, Kaiser Marcus I. INTRODUCTION A. Proposal Below is a summary of the proposal: " 56 timeshare units each having 1200 sq. ft. for a total of 67,200 sq. ft. of GRFA. One week timeshare intervals are proposed for each unit (50 intervals /unit /year). All timeshare units shall meet Town of Vail Ordinances governing timeshare. C 10 employee units at 400 sq. ft. each for a total of 4000 sq. ft. of GRFA. Units are permanently restricted as employee housing. Replace two of the western most tennis courts with landscaping to create an open green space area. Landscape improvements around the pool area. Pedestrian path connections for general public use throughout the project. Pocket Park for public seating adjacent to the Lionshead Recreational Path located on Town of Vail property. " 127 additional parking spaces which provides 2 spaces per dwelling unit and 1.5 spaces per employee unit per Town of Vail code. 5 spaces are valet. Landscaped terraces are proposed to cover the parking. Regrading and revegetation of hillside adjacent to Town of Vail Recreation Path along Gore Creek. 0 1 " No wood - burning fireplaces are proposed for any of the units. This addition would be located on the west end of the property and built primarily over the existing parking structure. Since the Planning and Environmental Commission review of the proposal on April 9, 1990, the following changes have been made: " Decreased timeshare units from 57 to 56 units. Decreased GRFA from 74,205 sq. ft. to 71,200 sq. ft. for a net decrease of 3,005 sq. ft. " Decreased height from 58 to 48 feet. Increase in employee units from 8 to 10 units. Commitment to participate on a fair -share basis in the provision of a west bound turn -lane on the South Frontage Road. Commitment to repaint the entire existing Marriott Complex to compliment the new building. • " Significant changes to the massing and architectural style of the expansion. " Completely enclosed parking area on west elevation. These changes were made in response to comments from the Planning and Environmental Commission as well as adjacent property owners. As outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code, the following nine criteria are to be used in evaluating the merit of the Special Development District. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 0 2 r � Development Statistics Site Area: 5.17 Acres 225,205 sq. ft. Existing Proposed Development Development Total Accommodation Units 248 0 248 Dwelling Units 53 56 109 Employee Units 0 10 10 GRFA 134,000 71,200 205,200 Meeting Room (sq.ft.) 12,000 0 12,000 Ancillary Retail (sq.ft.) 1,500 0 1,500 Restaurant /Bar (seats) 426 0 426 Parking Spaces 273 127 400 Am II. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale bulk buildin height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity an ori entation. The Planning and Environmental Commission, staff, and adjacent property owners had concerns about the height and mass of the building. In response to these comments, the applicant has decreased the height from 58 to 48 feet. The mass of the project has been centered in the existing parking structure footprint. As with the original proposal, the mass and height of the proposed expansion have been designed to "step - down" from the existing 7 -story hotel to a three to four story element along Gore Creek. 40 3 • In respect to setbacks, on the south side "Gore Creek side ", the new building maintains a 20 ft. to 43 ft. setback. On the side of the project adjacent to the Vail Associates parking lot, the expansion of the parking structure would continue an existing 5 foot setback. The actual timeshare building on the southwest corner of the property maintains a minimum 20 foot setback. The north side or west Lionshead Circle side of the project maintains a 35' setback. View studies have been completed from a variety of vantage points. The addition conceals the existing parking structure and eliminates any open parking on the site except for a few spaces on the north elevation. The addition of any new structure will have some degree of impact on views. There are no major negative impacts on views from public spaces. When walking along west Lionshead Circle in front of the project, instead of seeing exposed cars, one will view a three story building. The view analysis indicates that the vantage points from the interstate and the Frontage Road are not affected greatly. The view of the Mountain and ski slopes is substantially maintained. There are some impacts on views from the Antlers (looking towards Red Sandstone Mountain), the residential area along Forest Road (looking toward . Potato Patch), and the Vail Spa (looking toward Vail Mountain). From these vantage points, the proposed building is blocking either a view of the existing parking structure or other commercial or residential development. Obstruction of views of undeveloped mountain sides does occur in some areas. By terracing the building down to Gore Creek to relate to the lower density development on Forest Road and also the public recreational path and stream corridor, the applicant has responded to view concerns raised by the public at previous reviews by lowering the height of the building by 10 feet. The architecture of the proposed addition does not mimic the existing hotel. Instead, the applicant proposes to relate the two buildings by the use of complimentary colors. The applicant has agreed to repaint the entire existing Marriott project in a manner which will compliment the proposed expansion. • 4 . B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible,_ efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density The residential uses proposed for this facility are consistent and compatible with surrounding development. Located in the Lionshead area, overnight lodging accommodations are appropriate for this site. One of Vail's major mixed use activity centers, Lionshead is centrally located and well served by the Towns transit system. At the present time, the site is developed to approximately 34.2 units per acre. The development proposed with this amendment would increase the site density to approximately 47 units per acre (this includes the 10 employee units). This level of development exceeds that permitted by the Town's highest density residential district (PA or HDMF, 25 dwelling units per acre). However, 47 units per acre is not unprecedented. The Lionsquare Lodge is developed at 55 units per acre, the Antlers is at 60.5 units per acre, the Doubletree is 51 units per acre, and Vantage Point is at 71 units per acre. The Vail Spa directly to the north is at 17.2 units per acre and the Enzian is at 31.4 units per acre. However, looking only at units /acre misses many important planning issues. The relationship of the building to the site and surrounding neighborhood is extremely important. Staff believes this project relates positively to the specific site and surrounding neighbors. The density proposed for this site is much greater than the low density development on the south side of Gore Creek. Gore Creek provides a natural buffer between the low density residential development along Forest Road and the entire Lionshead area. This open space provides an adequate buffer between these two residential areas. Gore Creek also serves as a natural barrier defining the physical limits of the Lionshead core area. Please see the attached chart indicating the existing development on adjacent properties attached to the zoning memo. Timeshare The proposed timeshare use is acceptable to staff. Timeshare would only be allowed in the new west building through this amendment. Any additional timeshare would require that the applicant amend the SDD. This use is encouraged by the Land Use Plan. The applicant has agreed to comply with all conditions of 0 5 • Town of Vail Ordinances governing timeshare. Timeshare projects generally retain a higher year round occupancy than any other tourist accommodation use and this use fits well within Vail's policies to level off seasonalities of guest visits. Employee Housing originally, the staff requested seven employee housing units. The applicant is proposing 10 units or 17.8 %. The Housing Task Force is discussing a possibility of a 20% or greater housing requirement for SDDs. The Marriott proposal has been evolving at the same time that the Housing Task Force has been refining its policy recommendations. The staff opinion is that the applicant is providing 10 high quality employee units, permanently restricted. We believe the applicant has taken the staff's original request of seven units (March 1990) and increased the amount to 10 units which is appropriate for this SDD. The 56 timeshare units will generate an employee demand of 5 to 7 additional employees. This is due in part to the fact that the existing Marriott will provide most of the services for the timeshare project. The employee demand generated by the expansion is met by the 10 units. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 15.52. Assuming 1.5 parking space for each of the 10 employee units, and two parking spaces for each of the 56 timeshare units (as per zoning requirements), the new parking requirement for the proposed addition is 127 spaces. The expansion of the existing structure will satisfy this requirement. To the best of staff's knowledge, the parking required through previous approvals has all been constructed (273 spaces). As required by existing SDD No. 7 there are to be 273 parking spaces on the Marriott property. As with any property, the management and control of parking spaces is critical to their efficient use. At the present time, the westerly parking structure provides a very inviting environment for illegal parking. Locating a building over the structure should provide greater control and increase efficiency in how these spaces are utilized. Two loading areas presently exist. Staff will also require that the screening of loading areas be addressed by the applicant at DRB. In particular, the loading area on West Lionshead Circle to the east of the main hotel's entry must be landscaped and fenced. 9 6 . D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The Vail Land Use Plan is the most relevant document to be used in evaluating this development proposal. The project is consistent with a number of goals outlined in this document: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating the visitors. • 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long,as the existing character is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and is appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2 Quality timeshare units should be accommodated to keep occupancy rates up. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at various sites throughout the community. • These goal statements provide the fundamental framework to be used in determining whether or not additional density is appropriate on this site. As reflected in the above goals, this proposal is very consistent with the direction provided in the Land Use Plan. *Please note that the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan does not apply to this property. F. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. This property is not affected by any natural and /or geologic hazards that have been identified within the Town of Vail. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The site planning for the addition has changed in that a major portion of the addition has been centered over the existing parking structure. The location of the • mass and bulk of the building in this area has allowed the designer to reduce the height by ten feet. It has also helped to reduce the building mass along Gore Creek. A portion of the new development is proposed on what is now undeveloped open space directly south of the existing parking structure. Several aspens will be removed to allow for the building. However, this open space is generally not accessible and not an aesthetically pleasing area. A major element of the proposal's landscape plan is the elimination of two tennis courts. Converting this area to functional green space will more than off -set the loss of open space south of the parking structure. A major concern of the staff is the physical relationship of the building addition to Gore Creek and the recreational trail. originally proposed at 5 stories and within 5 feet of the property line, the addition would have seriously impacted the enjoyment of this trail. The building is now 20 -40 feet from the rear property line. The building is approximately 50- 60 feet from the recreational trail. The south facade is three and four stories. The location and mass of the building now provides for a comfortable relationship with the recreational trail. • 8 G. A circulatio pedestrians__ circulation. Improvements to the pedestrian circulation system include a path connecting to the Gore Creek bike path, a walkway through the proposed development connecting the West Day Lot with other parts of Lionshead, and the development of a sidewalk along West Lionshead Circle connecting to an existing sidewalk on the South Frontage Road. This improvement is located off the applicants property. These improvements are designed to serve not only the proposed development, but also to improve pedestrian circulation throughout this area of Lionshead. Staff would suggest that the applicant include a pedestrian connection between the west day lot and the lower level of the parking structure to allow for easier pedestrian access. We would also ask that the owner provide a public pedestrian easement through the property. Internal vehicular circulation will also be improved by redesigning the existing parking structure. Currently each level is accessed individually, resulting in difficult circulation patterns. The proposed modifications to the structure will introduce internal . circulation between the three levels of the structure. An assessment of the potential traffic impacts of this development has been included as a part of the environmental impact report. A March 9 addendum to this report indicates that a westbound left turn lane off of the S. Frontage Road onto West Lionshead Circle is needed today based on existing traffic volume. Currently, 35 vehicles make this left turn during the p.m. peak hour. This development would increase this situation by 20 %, to 42 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Based on the State of Colorado Access Code, a left turn lane is warranted with more than 30 turns per hour. Given the 20% increase in this left turn activity, there is no question that this improvement must be completed before the proposed expansion receives a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. However, the Marriott addition is not the sole contributor to the need for the left turn lane. Town buses, the West Day Lot and a number of other properties are creating the need for this lane. Because the Marriott is the "last guy in the door" does not justify requiring them to 0 9 fund and construct 100* of this improvement_ The Marriott is responsible for, and is willing to contribute to, their fair share of the expense in constructing this improvement. There are a number of alternatives for how this improvement can be implemented. The main issue with each of these alternatives is with regard to the timing of the improvement. The Town will be completing a comprehensive transportation plan for the Frontage Road this fall. it is very likely that this improvement will be identified by this plan. However, the Town is in no position to commit to funding or a specific schedule would assure this improvement is in place prior to completion of the Marriott facility. This essentially puts the burden on the applicant to develop some mechanism for assuring that the turn lane is completed when the addition is finished. The simplest way to accomplish this is for the Marriott to fund 100% of this improvement. However, this is not an equitable solution. Other alternatives involving the participation of the Marriott, surrounding property owners, and the Town are possible, and should be explored to arrive at an equitable solution. • H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features recreation, views and functions. There are a number of significant improvements proposed to landscaping and open space throughout this site. Foremost among these is the conversion of two tennis courts to green space areas, a pocket park /pull off area to be developed along the Gore Creek trail, landscape improvements to the berm around the proposed addition, and landscape improvements along Lionshead Circle throughout the length of the property. These changes will provide not only functional open space, but also aesthetic improvements to the site. The pocket park is a positive addition. Staff would like to see a picnic area added to the pocket park and more landscaping. The developer has also agreed with the staff's requirement that the stream bank be regraded and revegetated this summer. The drainage walls and pipes will also be cleaned and integrated into the slope. • 10 � 1 T . In addition, more landscaping is required along the west elevation of the structure. A mix of aspens, shrubs and evergreens is appropriate. Staff acknowledges that the space for planting is only 5 feet. However, more landscaping and a variety of materials are necessary. I. Phasing plan or subdivision Plan that will maintain a workable functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. As proposed, the addition and all related site improvements are to be completed in one construction phase. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Environmental Impact Report prepared by Peter Jamar Associates (Revised May 10, 1990) summarizes any impacts and proposed mitigation on p. 32 of the report. The primary impact areas relate to views, traffic, and the question of additional density. These issues are reviewed by staff in Sections IIA- Views, IIC & G- Traffic, and IIB- Density. All mitigation measures proposed in the EIR shall be incorporated into the SDD. • VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In evaluating this proposal, one must first consider the fundamental question of whether or not additional development should be considered in Lionshead on this site. Based on the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, it is appropriate to consider a request of this nature. A number of goal statements support the concept of timeshare units and infill development in the Core areas. The task at hand then, is to evaluate whether the design of this project is sensitive to all applicable criteria outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code. A review of the SDD criteria indicates that this project is consistent with the purpose and intent of this zone district. A number of issues have been raised by the PEC and staff during the review of this project. In each case these concerns have been addressed by the applicant in a manner that is consistent with the Design Criteria. Parking, circulation, height and massing, view impacts, employee housing, and landscaping /open space have all been addressed by this development plan. • 11 • Staff must emphasis the uniqueness of the Marriott Mark situation. There are very few sites within the Town of Vail that have the capability to add this type of density. Staff believes that there are unique characteristics related to this site that make it possible to add a proposal of this scale. Unique factors include: 1. The existing parking structure is in a location that would actually be improved in appearance with this expansion. The site is very well suited for infill development. 2. The Lionshead area (excluding the Forest Road neighborhood) has similar lodging uses, mass, bulk and units per acre which are compatible with this type of addition. 3. The applicant has maintained a 48 foot height which does not exceed the limits of the Town's highest density zone district (HDMF or Public Accommodation zoning). 4. The proposed use is in keeping with the Land Use plan goals calling for additional timeshare units and other Land Use policies as listed in Section IID of the memo. 5. The Environmental Impact Report and staff review have not identified any major negative impacts with the project. Any impacts that have been determined by the environmental impact report have been mitigated in a reasonable fashion. 6. The project meets parking, setbacks (except on the east side by the parking structure), site coverage and landscaping requirements. In fact, the minimum requirements for site coverage and landscaping are substantially exceeded by the project. 7. The site has good vehicular and pedestrian access. Vehicular traffic will use the Frontage Road. It is not necessary to access the site through a low density residential neighborhood. 8. The site is located near all of the services and a primary ski base area, Lionshead. It is very appropriate to allow for infill development in an area that already has a wide variety of guest services. Staff feels it is critical to identify the uniqueness of this special Development District to ensure that density increases are not deemed automatically acceptable by using the Special Development district process. • 12 Y � y It is also important to identity the "public benefit" which results from this project. Below is a list of the benefits which are derived from this proposal.: The substantial upgrade of landscaping on the Marriott property as well as area adjacent to the recreational path along Gore Creek owned by the town of Vail. The provision of public walkways along west Lionshead Circle through the center of the Marriott site from the West Day Lot. The entire repainting of the existing Marriott Project to compliment the proposed expansion. Enclosure of the existing surface parking and the addition of landscaped and open area above the parking. This is achieved by the landscaped terraces over the parking area as well as the elimination of two tennis courts. The provision of 10 employee housing units which have been fully counted in the density and GRFA for the project. • The provision of additional high quality timeshare units which diversify the existing unit type and mix and provide Vail with additional destination guests year - -round per the Land Use plan goal 5.2. Staff recommends approval of this proposed amendment with the stipulation that the developers /owner meet the following conditions: �. Deed restrictions limiting the use of the ten employee units to long term employee rentals in perpetuity shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. The units shall meet the conditions for employee housing outlined in Section 18.13.080 B10 a -d of the Zoning Code except that the units are restricted permanently. 2. A detailed drainage plan and other design issues relevant to public works concerns shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Pollution control devises shall be incorporated into the parking garage per the EIR. The creek shall be protected from any construction impacts by the use of an erosion control plan. • 13 • 3. Working in coordination with the Town staff, the applicant shall fund and conduct a comprehensive traffic study of the West Lionshead Circle area suitable for determining the Marriott Mark's contribution to the cost of constructing any necessary turn lanes on the S. Frontage Road to West Lionshead Circle. Preliminary design and cost estimates for the turn lanes shall be provided. At a minimum, the applicant shall be responsible for contributing this agreed upon amount toward the cost of this improvement. 4. A preliminary design and funding strategy for constructing any turn lanes shall be established prior to the issuance of any building permit, and the turn lanes shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. The funding and construction plan must be approved by the Town of Vail engineer, Community Development Department, Town Council, and Colorado Division of Highways before the building permit is released for the expansion. The applicant shall be required to submit a CDOH access permit application on behalf of the Town for the West Lionshead Circle /South Frontage Road improvement. A signed CDOH permit must be obtained by the applicant before a building permit is released. • 5. All aspects related to the timesharing of this facility shall comply with all applicable town ordinances that regulate timeshare activity. Timeshare is only approved for the proposed 56 unit building. The 10 employee units shall not be allowed to convert to timeshare. 6. Any landscaping proposed on Town submitted by the applicant to the landscape architect and engineer the proposal is submitted to the All landscaping proposed on Town maintained by the applicant. of Vail land shall be a Town of Vail for approval before Design Review Board. of Vail land shall be 7. The applicant shall agree to regrade, revegetate, and repair the drainage on the bank adjacent to the bike path along the southern property line of the Marriott Mark by August 1, 1990. A letter of credit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail before second reading of the SDD ordinance. The landscape and drainage work shall be submitted to the Town Engineer and Landscape Architect for approval before the proposal is presented to Design Review Board. • 14 • + ' 8. A temporary certificate of occupancy shall not be released for the expansion until all site improvements have been completed such as sidewalks, landscaping, drainage etc. If the weather prohibits the completion of the site improvements, the applicant shall be required to provide a letter of credit to cover 125% of the construction costs for these improvements. The construction estimate shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and Landscape Architect. The agreement stipulating how the site improvements will be completed and letter of credit shall be submitted by the applicant to the Town Attorney for approval before a temporary certificate of occupancy may be released. 9. Before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released, the applicant shall plat a public easement to insure public access through the site on the proposed sidewalk improvements. The applicant shall submit the easement agreement to the Town Attorney and Town council for approval before recording the easement. 10. In addition, the staff recommends that the DEsign Review Board address the following design issues if the project proceeds to DRB: " Additional landscaping shall be addressed along the west elevation of the parking structure. A mix of deciduous, evergreens, and shrubs should be provided of a size adequate to screen the structure as much as possible. " Landscaping beyond sod should be provided on the landscape terraces over the parking if possible structurally. All loading areas should have additional landscaping and screen fencing if necessary. The loading area to the south of the Enzian or L'Ostello should be fenced. Pedestrian access should be provided from the West Day Lot through the lowest level of the parking structure. " The entry stair on the north elevation should be decreased in width to allow more landscaping. " The north elevation adjacent to the parking structure stair should have more windows. Landscaping should be planted along the stairway and building. • 15 W V ovNOaoaino� -r +% t7 hi G Q to W � �a H coo�0000woo - to �o moo.- IOOONOr Ch NH NotnsrV' N N rl O .1 O r4 O H m N. 9-1 E�O O W �O E-4a H LL oDO roN OO to w0 vH 000Nrnr O Nri NOU) V M H7 0h 00 N ei O OH o E-4 0 N ri O \ E-4 d' C7 z �7 H F4 o Inr10 Nr U) N M \ N N ri r co X004 rim H � a a s r o z c� z H r�-l H a ` ` 0 4 ` U) OLn 0oQOcq I- W NZInNN � p � H tO In ` V) En a O w°a r 01IW x P. as 0 a+ ew \ r rh a � 0,q� 00PlOODO�De'1 W 04 'rLn 000Nr0 H -vcgH N MDD0 A H wj r 00 4 W PG W A r 04 H rn � W [) W �N s P. N �E-j a a -- fn fn ' W O H H Z W U O G o 1 aW N a U rI H O z W V' V' O H H 043 H" HH E FLO U� 40MUZOON W W pq 4W T0! Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 RE: A request to apply the underlying zone district of High Density Multi - Family to Special Development District No. 7 (Marriott Mark Resort) 714 West Lionshead Circle, Lots 4, 7, C, D, Block 1, Vail- Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: MK Corporation, Kaiser Marcus I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST At the April 23, 1990 Planning and Environmental work session on proposed amendments to SDD No. 7, the PEC recommended that an underlying zone district be clearly identified for this Special Development District. The Planning and Environmental Commission made this request of the applicant in order to clarify the underlying zone distract. An underlying zone district is defined in Section 18.40.020, Definitions D as: "Underlying Zone District" shall mean the zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time that the Special Development District is approved. As stated in previous memos, there is some question as to what the underlying zoning was when this Special Development District was approved in 1977. (Please see Section II for background on underlying zone district staff research.) A second reason for applying Special Development District use. The HDMF zone district within the Town of Vail that conditional use. In Section Development District it stat HDMF zoning to the entire is to allow for the timeshare is the only zone district allows timeshare as a 18.40.070 Uses of the Special es: Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental commission and Town Council as a part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted by the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a properties underlying zone district... 0 1 • In summary, the purpose of applying HDMF zoning to the property is to clarify the underlying zone district for the entire SDD, allow for the timeshare use specifically for the 56 unit timeshare expansion, and to also provide a guide for any future proposals that may be submitted to the Town. II. BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT FOR SDD NO. 7 The staff has pieced together a sequence of events relating to the Marriott Mark Resort property. We must emphasize that this information was taken from the Community Development Department file and is not conclusive. Below is a summary of this research. 1973 The Mark Resort constructed 74 hotel rooms and 14 condominium apartments. This original development (east building) is referenced as having HDMF zoning in an Environmental Impact Report prepared by John Ryan dated January, 1977 (pg 36). A building permit dated May 31, 1973 also references HDMF zoning. 1977 Ordinance 3 of 1977 rezones Lots 4 and 7 and a portion of Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing from Public Accommodation and HDMF to Special Development District to allow the development of the site "in a more innovative manner ". However, in reviewing planner staff zone checks in the file, Lot 4 is referenced as having HDMF, Lot 5 - HDMF, and Lot 7 - Public Accommodation zoning. Lots 4 and 5 relate to the western portion of the Mark property while Lot 7 appears to be the original lot for the very first building on the eastern portion of the site. 1977 A resubdivision of Lot 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Lionshead 3rd Filing was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Please note that the block references are different for the SDD Ordinance and for the resubdivision 1978 A building permit was released for the Mark Resort and Tennis club which has been referred to as Phase I (second building to the west). 1981 Ordinance No. 25 of 1981 approved a specific development plan for Phase II which allowed for the construction of the convention center, parking structure, two additional tennis courts and allowed 8 fireplaces in 8 dwelling units. 0 2 1981 The building permit for the development approved Ordinance No. 25, commonly called Phase II was released. 1985 The request for timesharing for Phase II was denied by the Planning Staff. This request proceeded to Planning Commission and the applicant tabled indefinitely. From this research, it appears that the Special Development District actually had two underlying zone districts. The eastern Lot 7 had been Public Accommodation Zoning. However, this conflicts with John Ryan's reference to Lot 7 as being zoned HDMF in his EIR. Lots 4 and 5 which are to the west of Lot 7 appear to have been zoned HDMF. Staff also contacted John Ryan, who prepared the original EIR in 1977, Jim Lamont who was on the Planning Staff when the Marriott Mark was reviewed in 1977, Danny Corcoran, surveyor of Eagle Valley Engineering and Tom Briner, architect for the Marriott Resort and Tennis Club in order to find out any additional zoning information. In discussing the issue with Jim Lamont, he stated that everything before 1974 had zoning. He also agreed that the . site probably had either Public Accommodation or HDMF zoning originally or a combination thereof. The other persons contacted where unable to provide the staff with any definitive underlying zoning information. Suffice it to say, that the property appears to have been zoned HDMF. In the zoning analysis section of the memo, staff has compared the proposed SDD to HDMF and Public Accommodation zoning. The major difference is that Public Accommodation zoning allows for a GRFA maximum of 180,164 sq. ft. while HDMF allows for 135,123 sq. ft. In respect to parking, HDMF states that 75% of the parking must be in a building or screened while PA zoning states that 75% of the required parking shall be located within the main building and hidden from public view. In all other respects, the two zone districts have basically the same requirements. III. ZONING COMPARISON The Special Development District has been compared to HDMF and Public Accommodation zoning in Chart 2. Because the request is for underlying HDMF zoning, the staff comments will relate specifically to this zone district. (Please note all calculations include the 10 employee housing units) . 0 3 The existing Special Development District and the proposed SDD both exceed the HDMF maximum allowance of 25 units per acre. The existing SDD has 34.2 units and the proposed SDD would have 47 units per acre. In respect to GRFA, HDMF allows 135,123 sq. ft. The existing SDD is slightly under this amount while the proposed SDD exceeds the HDMF GRFA limit by 70,077 sq. ft. The HDMF zone district allows 128 dwelling units for the site. The existing SDD has 177 dwelling units and the proposed SDD would have 243 dwelling units. The height maximum for HDMF is 48 feet. The existing SDD has a height of approximately 85 feet while the new SDD expansion area will not exceed 48 feet. In respect to site coverage and landscaping, both the existing SDD and the proposed SDD exceed the minimum requirements of HDMF. The site coverage maximum is 55% for HDMF. The proposed SDD has 45% site coverage. The landscaping minimum is 30% of the site. With the existing SDD 63% of the site is landscaped and with the proposed SDD 55% remains as landscaping. U In respect to setbacks, 20 feet is required on all sides of the property. The built SDD encroaches into the setbacks in some areas. The new proposal on the west side of the property does not encroach into the 20 foot setback except on the western property line where the existing parking structure (setback of 5 1 ) is extended to the south. All parking requirements are met per the Town of Vail parking code with the allowance of 5 valet parking spaces. Each timeshare unit has 2 spaces and each employee unit has 1.5 spaces. IV. EVALUATION OF UNDERLYING HDMF ZONE DISTRICT FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 7 A. Suitability of the proposed zoning. The existing zoning is Special Development District for this site. A specific underlying zone district is not identified in the SDD ordinance. For the purpose of clarity, it is appropriate to apply underlying HDMF zoning to the entire SDD. The intent is to not tamper in any way with the existing development on the site but to provide an underlying zone district that can be used as a guide for the review of any future proposals. 0 4 In addition, it is appropriate to apply HDMF duo to the request for timesharing for the proposed expansion by the applicant. Timesharing would not be approved for any other portion of the SDD unless the applicant requested to amend the SDD in the future. B. Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship within land uses consistent_ with municipal objectives Staff prepared a chart titled "Development Analysis" in order to compare the proposed SDD with surrounding properties. As indicated by this chart, there are a number of properties developed beyond what is proposed on the Marriott site such as the Antlers, Landmark, Vantage Point, Montaneros, Lionsquare Lodge and the Doubletree Hotel. Staff believes that the proposal is in concert with many of the policies outlined in the Land Use Plan. The site is identified as being in the Resort Accommodation and Service_ Category_ defined below: This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from I- 70, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses. (Please see Special Development District Memo concerning this project and its relation to the Land Use Plan and surrounding neighborhood). In the Land Use Plan analysis, a development scenario was selected based on market demands and the desires of the citizenry. The Plan states (page 30): The public input had shown a general satisfaction with the location of existing land uses, which was used as the foundation for the preferred development alternative... The most important goals culled from the public meetings were used to formulate the Trends Alternative. These key goals are as follows: 0 5 A. Commercial Uses 2) Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3) New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas. C. Village /Lionshead Core Areas 1) Increased density for commercial, residential and lodging uses in the Core areas would be acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is being preserved. This proposal supports the Land Use Plan "key goals " in that the expansion occurs in an already developed area of Lionshead, the uses proposed support the desire for timeshare, and the design of the proposal is respectful of surrounding properties and the character of the West Lionshead Circle area. 0 C. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community? The staff believes that the Special Development District expansion does provide for the orderly development of the community. We believe that the project enhances many of the community's goals outlined in the Land Use Plan. The time share use is also specifically called out in the Land Use Plan. The suitability of this property for infill development is discussed in detail in the SDD memo in respect to traffic, density, design etc. which all relate to "orderly development." IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the application of the High Density Multi Family zone district as an underlying zone district to the Special Development District No. 7. We believe it meets all of the three criteria for a zoning review. The recommendation for approval is conditional upon the SDD amendment being approved. 6 Z-I co kn n I n z ca z z z co t0 le i7 r w HW �x oQ(nww0wC -1 NDO r� O ND%D0NMQWN 'd' co Ol W E-I Cl •ri U 4-) z ON W WW(-Mo 00 MO O Ul H 0 r W ra r-I m O O ul O o -r H OW%rW WNMO r-I0 N +l m tlrM VrHd'v %D0 U) b H (n co LO 00 f) -cp'v m %D N O 43 x H r-( CH _ N Ul ftl (7W 0 ;r ONd'Nl(1W co 00 ON O E 0HtDNrid'�Dr OkD 1 E-i Q In d rn n U) r M co ri P, H %t rl r•I A H l[1 N N rl O \ O bl (1) d' in M cn -0 W ON ON z rH-I W P1 N NNifIONd'N -om 00 rir O P4 tl 1- 0 Q O ri r r. 0 rl M r-i kD (n r d C.) Lo ul M d' (d 0 •l to U z r mN W LOr-IW m 00 Kr r O O H r - m r n to " m m M M i• rc$ tP r-i H CA O fl) � rri U i � W A z co 0) 0 co Ni co 1f1 cn co LO M 0 J H o _ ,--f i3 E-+ r O 0 r N l(1 O tr L� tD M 0 9 r-I r•i W WNMNNMd' wW N 0 0N U -,A O 4J � N U U D r4 rid 9 N A Id z AT�IHHHHHH HA W A >ard•� 3 H A,Z;HHHHHH mm x\ R N z UI A U U U U U U 4 \❑ Ul - rI p O xUUUUUU AU y � � P, 4) 4J w H O Z + -ti +} O N mNkDvoH WN co N r N O 4 Ur U) 0 m M O d M O r ON ON N OD 0 +l S1 W H NmODONLOd' (;N (I r-(N N 4-) U4 ;J E-i W in ON r-I d ON �r N r d' rn dW O LO U 41 -ri O H W NM LOlDMd'LO HM H1n N N r-! ;:A rn . N r-4 r� H C-4 H N - O :J H 0�4 ro a�or w •r{ OA W u n06NQtr-INH()) d'O NLO r (�(1'� a 1. j En 'A cq 'i , P cn 0 N i- kD N W V' 11 EA 111 O U] PaU UlMrlriOrirlr4 NM N("1 Lf O O O A I WW U (U 4-) 0 O W R, Cn 9 O r -j 1 0 H H x a o 0) H � rl >~ (n zU) H ', O W (D F4 En � O ro w o X 0 00 Ei 1d X p (d >4 0 P .i Cl .i b) :J m Pi* H ri H 04 to I-i 4) W 6 (d 4 43 -ri W H Id f-, O iJ a 0m A ul a)p 0) (t) 0 - 14 ri H 1 O P4 to V H � -ri -H U) } { ri +l A F', N O to r�, 0 to L]z4 > � >zpq►4 '3: A> P zHWAP4 • • • H rX4 01 ❑ a O E4 A A W N O a ° a w a H O Ei ❑ H a H 4 a w A x 1 1 I I 1 I I t I 1 F ! o i N I M l ! 1 N I ! 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I N 1 Ca I [n I • I o 1 � E M I d' I A I min I I 1 1 1 E I I I 1 l I N I �o I t!! I co I A i m1 I I N I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I ! to I M I to 1 N i�i� I In I A I 1 1 1 1 I I I I E I 1 i I I I 1 I 1 I I ! I 1 I 1 1 i is 1 I I I 1 I U I 1 I CA I H I W I H I X 44Ln , it U) o Q 0 0 wW M t O 1- tr 01 M 00 W dP to .tf Of wo M co M N r-I wn In to o M �o co M N ri W W 0 U W E+ H N In z zx H aka a 14 H G4 I I H O 1 1 I 1 A 1 I A W 1 • I a I Lnn14��'1 a w i w CY 0 1 H w a 1 W I M 00 I I OXE ! � Nwtn 1 1 I 1 fZ i w � i N 1 1 a I c [ O 1 1 In iA 1 � 1 x z H i W o 1 W I OO pq r� 1 to 0 1 N I W LO I I 1 I kD I I OD I Ln I 1 v I r- I I I %D 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I z i in i 1 1 to 1 I I i E 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 z ! 1 i� 1En I s I H 1 r ❑ w zn w o a a a z 4W cn w a� . rn wM ❑ I` N W P4 0 z H ❑ a w z H dp LO I` z ❑ w H P4 aw wto HO dP U) r- 0 z x U' z H U) 0 x w w 9 w W a U z H z O H V a U a Lt] Q N to in C7 N z N H A ` o 1 H ❑ 9C W cWWn W O �4 0 P4 H O KC x za C9 N C) � � 04 q-4 O ❑ \ H UU(n v] a O E4 A A W N O a ° a w a H O Ei ❑ H a H 4 a w A x 1 1 I I 1 I I t I 1 F ! o i N I M l ! 1 N I ! 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I N 1 Ca I [n I • I o 1 � E M I d' I A I min I I 1 1 1 E I I I 1 l I N I �o I t!! I co I A i m1 I I N I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I ! to I M I to 1 N i�i� I In I A I 1 1 1 1 I I I I E I 1 i I I I 1 I 1 I I ! I 1 I 1 1 i is 1 I I I 1 I U I 1 I CA I H I W I H I X 44Ln , it U) o Q 0 0 wW M t O 1- tr 01 M 00 W dP to .tf Of wo M co M N r-I wn In to o M �o co M N ri W W 0 U W E+ H N In z zx H aka a 14 H G4 I I H O 1 1 I 1 A 1 I A W 1 • I a I Lnn14��'1 a w i w CY 0 1 H w a 1 W I M 00 I I OXE ! � Nwtn 1 1 I 1 fZ i w � i N 1 1 a I c [ O 1 1 In iA 1 � 1 x z H i W o 1 W I OO pq r� 1 to 0 1 N I W LO I I 1 I kD I I OD I Ln I 1 v I r- I I I %D 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I z i in i 1 1 to 1 I I i E 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 z ! 1 i� 1En I s I H 1 r ❑ w zn w o a a a z 4W cn w a� . rn wM ❑ I` N W P4 0 z H ❑ a w z H dp LO I` z ❑ w H P4 aw wto HO dP U) r- 0 z x U' z H U) 0 x w w 9 w W a U z H z O H V a U a L W TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 RE: Letters received regarding the Marriott Project Attached are all of the letters received by the Community Development Department concerning the Marriott proposal. • 14 Hutton # 1 Aurora, CO 80045 April 29, 1990 Honorable I {ent R. Ro =e Mayor, Town of Vail P. O. Sox 2101 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mayor Rose: This letter is in response to Mr. Peter Jamar's letter to the West Forest Road homeowners, in which he stated that he did not believe that the addition of the Marriott's sixty plus time -share high rise would "not have...a negative effect on your property ". Mrs. Deevy's letter very clearly expresses he',F feelings that there will be a negative impact, not only on the Forest Road neighborhood, but all of Lionshead as well. For the Community Development Department to lead the Marriott Corporation into believing that their massive building will be approved in some form, is giving the clear message to all that the Town. of Vail zoning rules are for sale to large corporations, and only apply to those who cannot afford their price. Many cases can be documented of small property owners being emphatically told that the zoning rules cannot be changed nor circumvented even for very small pro,jectsf, and yet, this massive transgression of zoning regulations by a large corporation does not seem to bother some of the members of the Commission in the least'. Your support for this unsightly project which goes against all the aspirations of the residents of Vail to keep our beautiful Valley from becoming another Manhattan or Cancun, with money making high rise structures as the only hallowed mausoleums, will certainly not go unnoticed by your constituents, most of whom are not in the line of fire now, but are smart enough to know where your allegiance might lie when their turn comes. Please call Gretta Parks and hear her concerns; she is also most anxious to have your input. Her number in Denver is (303) 773- 3079, and in Vail, (303) 476W-3671. Our phone numbers are (303) 367 --4367 at home, and (303) 361 -8575 during the day. Sincerely, 1 • Roger V. and Sall Cado1 Vail address: 725 Forest Road • /�oA-1 27,-;? -,- � 1/1 f 7 , ri A�d - ? ,- � ,Iv� - c. . e. • FEB `?, 2 1990 736 Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 1 Littleridge Lane Englewood, CO 80110 February 5, 1990 Mr. Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. Planning Development Analysis Research F Vail National Bank Building, Suite 308 108 So. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Mr. Jamar: In response to your recent correspondence, I must confess it has been my hope for some 15 years that something would happen to the Marriott, allowing for a decent looking building to take its place. Since I have become a West Forest Road resident, I feel even more strongly about this, the singularly least attractive and ill maintained (landscaped) structure in town. The news that there were plans to expand rather than bulldoze came as a shock to say the least. The fact that the Town of Vail would consider changing zoning laws to allow an unattractive time share structure on its natural resources in such a visible area makes me wonder. Is no one minding the store? Sincerely, Caryn Deevy cc: Vail Associates: George Gillette West Forest Road Homeowners Association Vail Town Council: Rondall Phillips, Town Manager • 0 VAIL SPA 710 West Lionshead Vail, Colorad (303 March 5, 1990 Planning and Environmental Commission The Town of Vail Vail Municipal Building Vail, Colorado RE: Major Amendment to Special development District No. 7 (the Marriot Mark) Filed by Marriot Corporation. Dear Members of the Commission: z The Vail Spa Board of Managers, on objects to the proposed amendment for the Marriott Mark Proposed by (60) time -share units and five (5) side of the Marriott Mark. behalf of its 55 members, hereby to the special development district the Marriott Corporation to add sixty employee housing units on the west The Vail Spa lies immediately north of the proposed location addition to the Marriott Mark. The location, height and bulk proposed addition will substantially and adversely affect the The addition will obliterate the mountain view from virtually rooms at Vail Spa. Moreover, the increased traffic that will be generated by the overload the existing internal roadway system adjacent to the Traffic is already a problem in and around Vail Spa and this make that problem even worse. of the of the Vail Spa. all of the addition will Vail Spa. addition will We have reviewed the staff report on the proposed addition and corre- spondence from other property owners in the area, and we concur with their objections to the proposed amendment. This proposed addition, if -. approved by the Town of Vail, would result in a significant deterioration in the quality of the vacation experience of the owners of Vail Spa and their guests, as well as other visitors to Vail, with a negative impact on the reputation of Vail. The Town of Vail must be sensitive to pre- serving the excellent vacation experience available at Vail at this time. Vail must not approve requests for substantial increases in density of projects which gill change the pleasant experience to one which is much too similar to the urban experience of people who come to Vail for a change of pace. is (2 ) Planning and Environmental Commission We will have representatives of Vail Spa present at the hearing on March 12, 1990, to provide additional input to the Commission's decision. Sincerely, VAIL SAOARD QF 1 rht Mark c President MF /lh CC: James Kurtz - Phelan • �-1 • PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH January 5, 1990 Dear Forest Road Property Owner: As you may be aware, Marriott is proposing to add 67 units to their existing Hotel located in Lionshead. The addition is proposed to occur on the southwest portion of their property west of the existing tennis courts and adjacent to their existing parking garage. Along with the addition approximately $4 million worth of improvements, renovating and upgrading is proposed for the existing buildings, landscaping, and amenities. These improvements' are badly needed and important for Marriott to keep the Mark Resort functioning on the same quality level as the other first class Hotels in Vail and Beaver Creek. We believe that the addition and renovation does not in any way negatively affect your property but rather will be an enhancement to the neighborhood and surrounding area. The purpose of this letter is to invite you to contact me regarding any questions that you might have regarding the proposal. You can also contact Jay Peterson at 476 -0092. We represent the Marriott and would be happy to provide you with additional information or meet with you to discuss the addition and renovation at your convenience. once again, please feel free to contact us regarding any questions that you might have. Sincerely, Peter Jamar, ATCP PJ:ne cc: Jay K. Peterson • Suite 308, Vai# National Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81651 4 (303} 476 -7154 14 Hutton # 1 Aurora, CO 80045 April 29, 1990 Mr. Randall V. Phillips Manager, Town of Vail P. O. Box 1322 Vail, CO 82658 Dear Mr. Phillips: This letter is in response to Mr. Peter Jamar's letter to the West Forest Road homeowners, in which he stated that he did not believe that the addition of the Marriott` s sixty plus time -share high rise would "not have...a negative effect on your property ". Mrs. Deevy's letter very clearly expresses her feelings that there will be a negative impact, not only on the Foz�est Road neighborhood, but all of 1,ionshead as well. ' For the Community Development Department to lead the Marriott Corporation into believing that their massive building will be approved in some form, is giving the clear message to all that the Town of Vail zoning rules are for sale to large corporations, and . only apply to those who cannot afford their price. Many cases can be documented of small property owners being emphatically told that the zoning rules cannot be changed nor circumvented even for very small pro,jectsf, and yet, this massive transgression of zoning regulations by a large corporation does not seem to bother some of the members of the Commission in the least! Your support for this unsightly project which against all the aspirations of the residents of Vail to keep our beautiful Valley from becoming another Manhattan or Cancun, with money making high rise structures as the only hallowed mausoleums, will certainly not go unnoticed by your constituents, most of whom are not in the line of f ire now, but are smart enough to know where your allegiance might lie when their turn comes. Please call Gretta Parks and hear her concerns; she is also most anxious to have your input. Her number in Denver is (303) 773 3079, and in Vail, (303) 476 -3671. Our phone numbers are (303) 367 -4367 at home, and (303) 361 -8575 during the day. cere l y, Roger V. and Sally M. Cadol Vail address: 725 Forest Road S. Robert Contlguglla, M.D. Melvyn H. Klein, M.D. .Jeffrey L. Mishell, M.D. Colorado Kidney r �ssoclates, P.C. April 25, 1990 Dear Sirs: We would like to strongly protest any plans for the development of a new Marriott high-rise, timeshare property across from West Forest Road. We have been Vail property owners for over 10 years and our property at 736 Forest Road looks out directly over the proposed site. There is no question in our minds that building such an edifice would not only obstruct ouiZ view of the Vail valley but also affect the value of our property. We have been great supporters of the Town Council and its movement toward increasing open space and recreational facilities in the Vail valley. Approval of this project would be contradictory to that movement. We would appreciate it if you would consider asking the Marriott to modify the structure of its building, perhaps making it fewer stories in elevation, and attempt to make the facade attractive to us homeowners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, S. Robert Contiguglia, M.D. Jef r y L. Mishell, M.D. Melvyn Klein, M.D. SRC /dml cc: Vail Town Council members Planning and Environment Commission members Design and Review Board members • 4545 East 9th Avenue - Suite 154 Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 320 -2911 • C] January 19, 1990 427.3 ExEcutive cSquaxe S- te. Soo la goffa, 6a. 92037 Mr. Peter Patten Town of Vail Planning Director 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Patten: I have a residence at 636 West Forest Road attention that it is Marriott's intention to the town of Vail's planning staff to build time share building with sixty -seven uirits right on Gore Creek. o -Zindfey !9zuggi and it has come to my get the approval of an enormous six story which would be built It is also my understanding that this building would violate all zoning codes for the area. The Marriott is already built out to their maximum and this density was even over the original allotment for the area. They were able to get it through by getting a special district approval, of which none the homeowners on Forest Road were given notification. We can not believe that they are at the Town's door again asking for more special favors. I bought this property for its privacy and seclusion and I do not want to wish for the further encroachment that this building represents. I believe this addition to the Marriott will create a "New York City" effect along Gore Creek and in our neighborhood. We also believe that if this encroachment were to be allowed it would create an obvious "me too" opportunity for all major development in Vail. Please do not allow this project. Very truly yours, Z le g H. Lindlyr bs H LG:wer Ofcz (6rg) 346 -2926 Come (6rq) 759-1969 Cam ( 9&x 9.X (619) 433 -2 &12 • L) ad a �m von Uad- CIO e'- Z )V AfAl Xp- all- aT7� PERFORMANCE SPORTS • 531 LionsHead Mall Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -1718 �6; / pAl -7 eAl �ii c 4(-- C:4 wtclu+7�l 7 1 (rq�mf� r� U) N d� Vfi- L f 1C M4(2 -2 c o t lH �C,1 d i.� s i� t �3-t� A WD �'`ii , V'\ Ve 7 Z r nl 7jJ-t S I- fL? - 7 - TO MY PuLl- SvrP a-7 'rilt 5 R , 6 1 ii G-7 S tP 1 1 i1 71$2 # D D 1 01) 0 K I /.f1z f'Z d p6mi) 1 UNI Tom. ifILa- �� 1 GuILL 15 6_ A _ p6,517 I U C, 1M P4<, 7 . `0)2 LION5i-�+€/� - i7 � �L ,��'p{� f►' V] +L W�. OF IrtM n } c u N l? f)1D - Di715r.►ra - Z 30 - t 74f-W1 Ac -" rj �• / 7e-( -0M0 r O J % U % "5 � W.4. SI lei G 6ALf 1✓- . OL n U • ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR. ONE FINANCIAL PLACE SUITE 916 CHICAGO, IL. 60605 TEL.: (312) 663 -7086 January 4, 1990 Mr. Peter Patten, Town of Vail Planning Director 75 Frontage Rods Vail., Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Patten: r1 U Twenty -five years ago ire wilt our resedence at 655 West Forest Road and, as long term residents of Vail., ve want to register a strong objection to the proposed zoning variations requested by the Marriot Hotel. X support fully all the objections raised in the letter you have received from Cindy Jacobson. Sincerely, t f os- - , Sr. RSE/msh c.c. Ms. Diana Donovan - P.O. Boat 601, Vail Colorado 81658 Mr. Charles Crist - P.O. Box 1482, Vail Colorado 81658 • S. Robert Contigugfla, M.D. Melvyn H. Klein, M.D. Jeffrey L Mishell, M.D. Colorado Kidney . Associates, P.C. (i :) April 25, 1990 Dear Sirs: We would like to strongly protest any plans for the development of a new Marriott high - -rise, timeshare property across from West Forest Road. We have been Vail property owners for over 10 years and our property at 736 Forest Road looks out. directly over the proposed site. There is no question in our minds that building such an edifice would not only obstruct o4r view of the Vail valley but also affect the value df our property. We have been great supporters of the Town Council and its movement toward increasing open space and recreational facilities in the Vail valley. Approval of this project would be contradictory to • that movement. We would appreciate it if you would consider asking the Marriott to modify the structure of its building, perhaps making it fewer stories in elevation, and attempt to make the facade attractive to us homeowners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, S. Robert Contiguglia, M.D. Je£ r y L. Mishell, M.D. Melvyn Klei AM. SRC /dml cc: Vail Town Council members Planning and Environment Commission members Design and Review Board members • 4545 East 9th Avenue - Suite 150 Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 320 -2911 ��. NN . a-Y ? 9�9v • COAST SAVINGS TOWER 225 Broadway, Ste. 120 • San Diego, CA 92101 • (619) 696 -6290 FAX (619) 696 -7878 May 10, 1990 Rondall Phillips, Town Manager P.O. Box 1322 Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Phillips: As a concerned owner of a residence at�636 West Forest Road, I am writing to the Planning Commission to protest the proposed six story time share building that the Marriott is trying to build on Gore Creek. Not only will it be an unsightly addition to the area, increase an already over developed space, but more importantly it violates all zoning codes for this area. I can not believe that the planning commission will allow this to happen. I, along with all my neighbors, purchased this property for its privacy and seclusion and I do not wish the further encroachment that this building represents. It is also of great concern to me that if you allow this rezoning request that you are opening the doors for further big developers to encroach on this beautiful land. Please do not allow this project. Homeowner Sincerely, H. Lindley G ubbs HLG:wer • June 8, 1990 • Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75.South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Commission Members, On behalf of ourselves and many home owners in Vail we strongly oppose the granting of additional zoning privileges to the Marriott Resort in their request to be able to add approximately 74,000 square feet of additional building on their property. The following are good basic reasons why this project should be flatly turned down. 1. The Mark - Marriott property is currently built to it's maximum allowable density and square footage. They have twice previously recieved increased density allocations, and already exceed the density origionally planned for the area when it was platted. This application proves no benefit for the general public good, as would a hospital or school. There is no evident and purposeful reason for them to be granted special privileges for increased density or squarefootage. 2. The encroachment of this huge building project on Gore Creek and the surrounding area is a threat to the one main element of pristine natural beauty in the Town of Vail. The Town has spent $10 million dollars to provide open space, and this proposal will under- mine the Town's and the citizens efforts in this endeavor. 3. The "Vail Comprehensive' Plan" or Vail Master Plan, which the Marriott is using to justify this additional building is both grossly out dated and quite opposite of the current attitudes of many of Vails property owners regarding massive buildings in the core areas of the Town of Vail. Many families who have been long time property owners in Vail and who have worked hard and sacrificed much to make this a quality place are against huge developments such as that proposed by the Marriott. It is these property owners that will bear the blight of this mistake long after the temporary and the transient folks are long gone. 4. Mr. Tom Braun's review and apparent favoring of the Marriott Resort's projec irn his April 9, 1990'memo to the Planning Commission should be rejected. A project this large and with as many far reaching effects as this one should not be analized by a "temporary staff member ". He is neither a property owner in Vail or a permanent full - time citizen, and he certainly will not live with the consequences of not addressing the current needs and wants of the community, and the long term effects to the Town in this memo when he is back in Boston. 5. There has been no statistical proof (using professionally accum- ulated, unbiased figures) presented that this amount of dwelling space • is needed. In fact the Town currently has one major hotel project in Chapter 11 due to inadequate occupancy, the WESTIN, and another, The Vail Athletic Club, with it's doors locked. Not enough research has been done to prove the need for large amounts of additional "bed space" in Vail. Greed is certainly no indication of need. Page 2 6. This massive transgression of zoning is but the tip of the ice- berg. To grant this increased density and massiveness will generate a "me to" effect that will ripple throughout the commercial hotels and the yet to be developed properties. This town and Vail mountain can not hold the extra bodies generated by another five or sk hundred units, which will be the effect of this increased zoning. The city services, especially the sewage plant which stinks now when the town is only moderately full, certainly can not handle another big building. 7. The numbers of skiers on Vail mountain are at their maximum most of the year now, to allow more massive developments will deteriorate the quality of the "Vail Experience" and jeapordize skiing safety. Tourists and others that spend a great deal of time on the ski mountain will confirm this. If the commission members are like most other residents they do not ski on the peak days and really aren't exposed to the enormous crowds we have on the hill. 8. Time -share units are not desireable for Vail. They are notoriously seen as a rip -off. When the idea is mentioned to a community minded person they are very opposed to the idea. The county tax roles are filled by abandoned "shares ", which then become a nonrevenue producing element and a burden on all property taxpayers. In many communities time -share is referred to as the soup can and cracker box crowd. To think they are going to flock to the fine resturants in Vail nightly is a poor assumption. As far a business being generated for the resturants, hotel rooms and bed and breakfast establishments would be more productive. • 9. As stated by the "Marriott Corporation representatives" at one PEC meeting "they can pull out any time ". They are but a contract organization on this project. If they can pack their bags and leave anytime, who will be responsible for the promises they made? The Marriott's already established poor track record of keeping promises to the Town, the community and the neighborhood has already been documented. The landscaping they were to do to the berm they created on Gore Creek the last time they built, about ten years ago, is still a thistled, weedy mess with huge blue plastic pipes and metal culverts sticking out. Their use of amplified sound systems all summer long is very irritating and disruptive to the neighbors across the creek. Even with citations and complaints they continue to blast these unwanted noises. Now with the proposed removal of the tennis court in this project,an even larger area, closer to the creek and the homes on the creek could be used for parties, meetings and such, creating an acoustical nightmare. We, and other homeowners on west Forest Road are not selfish,as some others that you may hear from are. We have not tried to make any back door deals Just to benefit a few, and the rest of the community be dammed. We have all sacrificed much' for the good of our community, and feel that this is an issue that effects us all. We have spent many a sleepless night as the snow cats roar by our houses, which results in a perfectly groomed ski mountain for all to enjoy. We paid the bill to spray the tall pines along Gore Creek on the Town property when they would not. Many of us were origional owners in Vail, long before a building was ever built Page 3 in Lionshead. We have shown you pictures of the once grassy and beautiful banks of Gore Creek. And as the massive concrete . buildings have sprung up on its banks,cutting away at it's openess and beauty perhaps we have been too complaisant. But complaisant we are no longer. We realize now the time has come to preserve what little is left for all who own property in Vail, their families and the next generations who will own homes here. Let us all heod the lessons taught by the over development of places like Aspen, Cancun and Waikiki Beach, Hawaii, and not let over development and greed ruin what so many have worked so hard to create in Vail. Most of the twenty -three west Forest Road homeowners have written or called members of the Planning Commission and the Town Council, attached are but a few of their letters. All express that this project must not be approved. The far reaching effects of this one zoning change will open the flood gates to an overdevelopment of Vail,that will tdin it. Sitrm ly ndy Jacob son Vail • . 14 Hutton # 1 Aurora, CO 80045 April 29, 1990 Tom and Cindy Jacobson 1777 Ala Moana Blvd, Ilikai #1130 Honolulu, Hi 96815 Dear Tom and Cindy: This letter is in to Mr.. peter- .f ayoar' s letter to the West Forest Road homeowners, in which he stated that he did not believe that the addition of the Marriott's sixty plus time- -share high rise would "not have...a negative effect on your property ". Mrs. Deevy's letter very clearly expresses her feelings that there will be a negative impact, not only on the Forest Road neighborhood, but all of Lionshead as well. For the Community Development Department to lead the Marriott Corporation into believing that their massive building will be approved in some form, is giving the clear message to all that the Town of Vail zoning rules are for sale;to large corporations, and • only apply to those who cannot afford their price. h Many cases can be documented of small property owners being emphatically told that the zoning rules cannot be changed nor circumvented even for very small projects, and yet, this massive transgression of zoning regulations by a large corporation does not seem to bother some of the members of the Commission in the least! Your support for this unsightly project which goes against all the aspirations of the residents of Vail to keep our beautiful Valley from becoming another Manhattan or Cancun, with money making high rise structures as the only hallowed mausoleums, will certainly not go unnoticed by your constituents, most of whom are not in the line of fire now, but are smart enough to know where your allegiance might lie when their turn comes. Please call Gretta Parks and hear her concerns; she is also most anxious to have your input. Her number in Denver is (303) 773--- 3079, and in Vail, (303) 476 -3671. Our phone numbers are (303) 367- -4367 at home, and (303) 361 -8575 during the day. Si cerely, Roger V. and Sally M. Cadol • Vail address: 725 Forest Road S. Robert Contiguglla, M.D. Melvyn H. Klein, M.D. Jeffrey L. Mishell, M.D. 0 01orado Kidney r N~ y. Associates, P.C. April 25, 1990 Dear Sirs: We would like to strongly protest any plans for the development of a new Marriott high -rise, timeshare property across from West Forest Road. We have been Vail property owners for over 10 years and our property at 736 Forest Road looks out directly over the proposed site. There is no question in our minds that building such an edifice would not only obstruct our view of the Vail valley but also affect the value of our property. We have been great supporters of the Town Council and its movement toward increasing open space and recreational facilities in the Vail valley. Approval of this project would be contradictory to that movement. We would appreciate it if you would consider asking the Marriott to modify the structure of its building, perhaps making it fewer stories in elevation, and attempt to make the facade attractive to us homeowners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, __I/&4s S. Robert Contiguglia, M.D. Jef r y L. Mishell, M.D. Melvyn Klei , M.D. SRC /dml cc: Vail Town. Council members Planning and Environment Commission members Design and Review Board members 4545 East 9th Avenue - Suite 150 Denver, Colorado 80224 (303) 320.2911 0 736 Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 1 Littleridge Lane Englewood, CO 80110 February 5, 1990 Mr. Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. Planning Development Analysis Research Vail National Bank Building, Suite 308 108 So. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 • Mr. Jamar: In response to your recent correspondence, I must confess it has been my hope for some 15 years that something would happen to the Marriott, allowing for a decent looking building to take its place. Since I have become a West Forest Road resident, I feel even more strongly about this, the singularly least attractive and ill maintained (landscaped) structure in town. The news that there were plans to ea-pand rather than bulldoze came as a shock to say the least. The fact that the Town. of Vail would consider changing zoning laws to allow an unattractive time share structure on its natural resources in such a visible area makes me wonder. Is no one minding the store? Sincerely, Caryn Deevy cc: Vail Associates: George Gillette West Forest Road Homeowners Association Vail Town Council: Rondail Phillips, Town Manager • SERV! CES w. January 19, 1990 4275 6=u&vr ,:Squau ,&& Soo CA L -nirty O %X, 92037 Mr. Peter Patten Town of Vail Planning Director 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Patten: I have a residence at 536 West Forest Road and it has come to my attention that it is Marriott's intention to get the approval, of the town of Vail's planning staff to build an enormous six story time share building with sixty -seven units which would be built right on Gore Creek. It is also my understanding that this building would violate all zoning codes for the area. The Marriott is already built out to their maximum and this density was even over the original allotment for the area. They were able to get it through by getting a special-district approval, of which none the homeowners on Forest Road were given notification. We can not believe that they are at the Town's door again asking for more special favors. I bought this property for its privacy and seclusion and I do not want to wish for the further encroachment that this building represents. I believe this addition to the Marriott will create a "New York City" effect along Gore Creek and in our neighborhood. We also believe that if this encroachment were to be allowed it would create an obvious "me too" opportunity for all major development in Vail. Please do not allow this project. Very truly yours, H. Lindley r bbs . HLG:xer O` . ( 346 -29z6 Cat ( 9SO c (6i9) 433 - ,;Yoms (619) 739-19S9 ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR. ONE FINANCIAL PLACE SUITE 916 CHICAGO, IL. 60605 , TEL.: (312) 663 -7086 January 4, 1990 n U Mr., Peter Patten, Town of Vail Planning Director T5 Frontage Rodd Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Patten: Twenty -five years ago we built our res6dence at 6S5 West Forest Road and, as long term residents of Vail, ve want to register a strong objection to the proposed zoning vaxiati.ons requested by the ldarriot Hotel. I support fully all the objections raised in the letter you have received from Cindy Jacobson. Sincerely, S. , Sr. RSE /msh C.C. Ms. Diana Donovan - p.0. Box 601, Vail Colorado 81658 Mr. Charles Crist - p.0. Box 1482, Vail Colorado 81658 0 r � January 2,1990 Mr. Jim Shearer 5109 Black Gore Drive Vail, Co. 81657 Dear Mr. Shearer: Mr. & Mrs. Tom Jacobson have sent a letter to Peter Patton and members of Vail's Planning and Environmental Commission in which they give reasons for objecting to the construction, by the Marriott, of a Six Story Time Share Building which will be directly across Gore Creek from my residence. I certainly endorse and support the Jacobsons and other owners in our neighborhood in objecting to the construction of this high rise building in an already concentrated and crowded core area of Lionshead. In addition to all the objectionable factors such as view blockage, zoning violation, noise, failure to fulfill past commitments, grid lock traffic which strain all the community services and infrastructure, the fundamental question must be asked— how big and how crowded do you want Vail to be? • A short selling skiing, special beauty, and vil distance from the proposed project site property is for multi million dollars, In addition to excellent the reason for this high value is that Vail is and unique in retaining village charm, culture, status, and a controlled balance between expansion Lage style living objectives. Evidently Marriott recognizes this value and wants to cash in on the past control, risk taking, and investment of others by jamming a high density type structure into this high value core area. The construction of this high rise project will be a giant step in the direction of too big and too crowded. It will hurt Vail and all property owners by cancelling some of the charm, status, past hard work, and value of Vail. Opinions, judgement, and feelings are formed by different exposures. Unfortunately, my residence in located next to a high density rooming house where Marriott houses a number of men and women employees during the summer. I understand they are part of a management training program. They also raise a lot of hell with frequent very loud parties lasting well into the morning and individuals getting so high on something they scream into the night darkness. Phone calls asking for noise reduction after normal sleeping hours resulted in defiant increases in intensity. I finally had to call the police to r get a reduction in a continuous mind numbing sound system. . I don't know what happened to the famed clean cut, consideration for others, work ethic, philosophy of the . Page 2 Marriott Corporation but based on personal exposure, my feeling is Marriott doesn't give a damn about it's neighbors, the neighborhood, or preserving the long term value of Vail. I am a property owner and a taxpayer intensely interested in maintaining Vail as a unique and special place. I ask for your action and support by defeating further consideration of this project. Very truly yours, Clinton G. Ames 725B Forest Road Vail, Co. 81657 r 1 M • , . Action VaAInC. FRIENDS-- OPEN -SPACE OR 0. Box 1426 Vail, Colorado 81658 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 June 11, 1990 Dear Madam Chairman and Commission Members: Action Vail, Friends of Open Space would like to express the concerns of its members with regards to the unresolved issues associated with the amendments being proposed to Special Development District Seven, The Marriott Mark Resort. Because of the need for greater detailed research several of our concerns, which have been left unresolved by The Marriott Mark Resort application and staff review, are still under study. Among our concerns are the following: 1. It appears to us that there are no unique and • specific conditions which sets the proposed expansion of The Marriott Mark Resort apart from other properties having similar conditions in the community. 2. it is our opinion that there are several other properties in the community that would be eligible for rezoning and density increases, through the variance or Special Development District approval procedures, based upon the conditions identified by the staff as favorable reasons for granting The Marriott Mark Resort application. 3. Undoubtedly the specific conditions that exist for The Marriott Mark application demonstrates, if approved, that the method of approval and the degree of density increase granted will establish a precedent that could be emulated by other properties throughout the community. 4. It is apparent that no extraordinary contributions to the community, other than those that would be expected of any similar development application in the community or which would not be considered as normal and expected maintenance, has been made in the Marriott Mark application. 5. We believe that insufficient actions have been taken to preserve, protect, and correct the maintenance deficiencies of the public and private open space which occurs in association with The Marriott Mark Resort. • Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission The Marriott Mark Resort Amendment Application June 11, 1990 Page Two It is the position of our organization that until sufficient independent investigation and information is available from the Town of Vail with regards to the foregoing unresolved concerns, it is inappropriate and impossible to adequately evaluated the merits of The Marriott Mark Resort application. We find that no exceptional conditions exist or that extraordinary community benefits are acquired within the scope of the present application. Approval of The Marriott Mark Resort applications is premature and unwarranted at this time. Sincerely, Action Vail, Inc. Friends of Open -Space • Ll 4 , i s 9 .tune 11, 1990 Susan & Neal Erickson 716 Forest Road (East) Vail, CO 81657 Town of Vail Planning & Zoning 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81757 Re: Proposed Addition to Marriott's Mark Resort Planning & zoning: The purpose of this letter is to support the proposed addition to Marriott's Mark Resort at 715 Lionshead Circle. As a seven year vacation resident of West Forest Road T believe that this addition will upgrade the view from my home without impacting the character of the neighborhood. At the present time we are looking at two parking lots. The proposed structure would cover the existing garage resulting in a perceptible improvement to the entire area. Sincerely, Neal D. Erickson 0 • • • A 0 l � u ,may � �itc3iJ /d�Cr %p �LiPi /�e.b ✓_�5 �� Como �e �u Dom✓ �i� ll c � b C // hG // // � / � ✓cd�7"uYlrtS �LIC�j �S //�� �r� .S�rir�. ---- -- l iTl�l� S`io %Ord �r Of 7a�/ dcff c .6te llzc/� f��Si� - Ae d✓ f:o �f' �.s bl�ier2 ��o r .O Srr� / .�r� - ! rte l � u ,may � �itc3iJ /d�Cr %p �LiPi /�e.b ✓_�5 �� Como �e �u Dom✓ �i� ll c � b C // hG // // � / � ✓cd�7"uYlrtS �LIC�j �S //�� �r� .S�rir�. ---- -- l iTl�l� S`io %Ord �r Of 7a�/ dcff c .6te llzc/� f��Si� - Ae r Al a - f i .. , t IA\ AA- TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, 2754A Basingdale. Applicant: Catherine S. Cheney I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail with certain criteria. The definition given in that ordinance states that "A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use." A Bed and Breakfast may short term rent separately up to 3 bedrooms or a maximum of 900 square feet of the dwelling unit. is Ms. Cheney has applied for a conditional use permit to allow her to use one bedroom in her home in a Primary /Secondary zone district for a Bed and Breakfast rental. The bedroom contains 210 sq. ft. Two guests could stay in the bedroom. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. 0 1 . 2. The effect of the use on light and air distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities needs. Two guests can be accommodated at one time and it is unlikely that there would be more than one guest vehicle. There is a bus stop one block away. It is felt that the impact on the use of parks and recreation facilities and on transportation facilities would be minimal. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and _control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. It is likely there would be one additional vehicle driving to the Cheney residence in Intermountain. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the ro osed use is to be located —including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast-O may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast operations shall be sub to the following requirements: a. Off - street designated parking shall be required as follows:_ One s ace for the owner/proprietor plus one space for the first bedroom rented plus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom rented._ The Cheney property contains more than the required 2 parking spaces. • 2 • b. Enclosed trash facilities and reaular aarbaao removal service shall be-Provided. Ms. Cheney does have trash facilities in covered containers in her garage and regular garbage removal service. C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged. There will be no removal of landscaping. d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name plate sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code. Ms. Cheney is not applying for a name plate sign at this time. e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use property or facilities owned in common or iointly with other property owners such as parking-spaces or a driveway in duplex subdivisions by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other • property owner, owners or applicable owners' association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a use permit. Not applicable. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Comm ission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for a Bed and Breakfast -operation: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 0 3 • IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff recommends approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met. n U • 4 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 RE: A request for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit in order to add 868 sq. ft. to the daycare facility at 149 N. Frontage Road, an unplatted site commonly referred to as the Mountain Bell site north of I -70 and west of the Main Vail I -70 interchange. Applicant: ABC School I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The ABC School is a private, non - profit child -care center located on the Town of Vail parcel known as the Mountain Bell site. The parcel is a 25 acre site which currently contains the Mountain Bell microwave facility, the Learning Tree and the ABC School. The parcel is zoned Agricultural and Open Space. In this zone district, schools are allowed as a conditional use. The original lease for the school, {initiated in 1978 and recently renewed through 2002}, stipulates that any buildings or other improvements will become the property of the Town of Vail upon expiration of termination of the lease. The existing building is approximately 1740 sq. ft. The proposed expansion entails the addition of approximately 868 sq. ft. on both the north and south sides of the building. The addition will provide additional administrative area, a reception room, an additional classroom and increased storage area. The expansion will allow the school to add 7- 8 students to their program. No staff increases are anticipated as a result of the expansion. The proposal also includes the paving of the parking area and the provision of 5 designated short term loading /parking spaces. The existing building, as well as the proposed expansion, are shown to be in a moderate rock fall zone as depicted by the original Town of Vail geologic hazard maps. A site specific study has been conducted by Nicholas, Lampiris, Ph.D. He has determined that no mitigation for rock fall will be required for construction of this addition. However, Mr. Lampiris does state that the existing building, the proposed addition, and playground area are in a debris flow area which is not identified by the Town's Debris Flow Study by Art Mears, 1984. He prescribes "extending and perhaps adding to the existing low, linear rocky hillside, northwest of the school which was formed by previous debris flow decades ago." The berm is located northwest of the building approximately 6 feet in height running north and 0 1 • south. The length has would then be forced to Mountain Bell facility. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS yet to be determined_ A debris flow flow between the ABC School and the Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Community Development Department believes that the ability to provide quality daycare is a benefit to the citizens and guests of the Town of Vail. We feel that this use has existed with no negative impacts to the community and that the proposed expansion will present no negative impacts, but will further increase the ability to provide this service to the community. 2. The effect of the use on light an air, distribution of population, facilities utilities schools arks and recreation facilities, and other public-facilities needs. The proposed expansion will enable the school to add 7--8 students to their current program. Any increase in traffic will be facilitated by the proposed parking area improvements. The staff sees no impact on any of the other above criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with pa rticular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety_ and convenience traffic flow and control access maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. As previously stated, the addition will increase the number of students and therefore increase the number of user trips to the school. The proposal includes the asphalting and striping of the parking area which will provide 13 long term spaces and 5 short term spaces. The staff feels that paving and the increase of parking spaces will improve the existing parking /loading situation and will have a positive impact on all of the criteria above. 0 2 4. Effect, upon the character of Me area in wn proposed use is to be located,--including th and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The existing building is located on a 25 acre parcel that is surrounded by open space. The existing structure, along with the addition presents no negative impacts to adjacent properties. The DRB has reviewed the project and is concerned with the impact to the vegetation surrounding the area of the berm. The only foreseeable impact from this project is to the existing Learning Tree preschool which is located immediately adjacent to the ABC School expansion. The ABC School is working with the Learning Tree on this proposal, to date we have received no comment from the Learning Tree. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the • district in which the site is located. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval for the conditional use permit request for the ABC School expansion proposal. We feel that the use involved provides a benefit to the community and the proposed improvements to the property will benefit both the ABC School and the Learning Tree preschool. The staff recommends that the approval be conditioned upon the installation of the debris flow mitigation. The applicant shall be required to submit the design of the debris flow berm to the DRB for approval. the berm shall be included in the building permit plans. A temporary certificate od occupancy may be released only after the mitigation is constructed. The applicant will be required to meet all of the applicable hazard regulations. 0 3 0 Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D, CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0793 VALLEY ROAD CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 4303) W3-WW (24 HOURS) May 28, 1990 C7 Holly Rutherford, Director AEC School 129 N. Frontage Read Vail, CO. 81658 RE: Rockf all Evaluation Dear Ms. Rutherford: I have visited the site of your school and planned expansion on the north side of the structure. The proposed addition is shown cover. noted the area for e >sisting under separate I have also noted the position of the school with respect to the geologic rock:fall hazard mapping that I producers for the Town of Vail in 1984. The school is shown within the category of "moderate rackfall hazard," but on detailed inspection I believe that the line should be amended to show that your school and its proposed addition are not within a rock'fall hazard zone. I submitted an overlay to the Learning Tree school in 1986 which showed a new west boundary of the mapped hazard zone further to the east and therefore not including your school. I do, however, find that there is a debris flow hazard to the school. This can, and sho , be mitigated as we iscussed in the field last week b extendin and erha s existing Low. linear rocky hillside, northwest of the_z_cbtasd� which was formed by a rev' cades ago. The mitigation can be extended to a mint he _ stee p hillside beyond the scho ratection to existing ui l di ng and the proposed addition, or it can e: <ten a de thereb F rvtecting the playground areas beast of the w ell. The.configuration of the germ in either case should be established in the field in concert with your architect, but can be expected to have a finished net vertical relief on its west side- of about 8 to 10 feet. d • In the former case, debris would be (arced to flow around the school and the proposed addition to both sides; in the latter case, all the debris would be forced to flow between the subject property and the Mt. Bell installation to the nest. They are probably aware of the potential hazard because they have built a concrete ditch and deflection system to protect their property, but I am not convinced that what they have constructed will provide adequate protection in the event of a large debris flow emanating from the gully to the north. The two choices for mitigating debris flow hazard at your site that I have described will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights - of -way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. If th�re are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, • Zch U olas La,piris Consulting Geologist • � °*^ . � Nicholas [ampiris, Ph.[}, CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0793 VALLEY ROAD c*neOwo*Ls,coLOnAoO 81623 (xm$m63-3000(2wHOURS) May 20, 1990 Holly Rutherford, Director ABC School 129 N. Frontage Road Vail, CO. B1658 HE: Rockfall Evaluation Dear Ms' Rutherford: OT I have visited the site of your scho and noted the area for planned expansion on the north side df th2 �xisting structure. The propo�ed addition is shown under separate cover. I have also noted the position of the school with respect to the geologic rockfaIl hazard mapping that I produced for the Town of Vail in 1984. The school is shown within the category of "moderate rockfall hazard," but on detailed inspection I believe that the line shouLd be amended to show that your school and its proposed addition are not within a rockfell haz�rd zone. I submitted an overlay to the Learning Tree school in 1986 which showed a new west boundary of the mapped hazard zone further to the east and therefore not including your schGol. I do, however, find that thera; is a debris flow hazard to the school. This can, and sho( d, be t d ed i th hillsida heyond the school protection to tb-E.- V�Xlsting building and the proposed addition, or it can Lie The�(�5nfiguration of the berm in either case should be established in the field in concert with your architect, but can be exoected to have a finished net vertical relief on its west sidg of t 8 t(-- 10feet 0 I -] In the + wrme r,_ case, debris wcy€_€ld be +arced to flow around the school and the proposed addition to lboth sides, in the latter case, all the debris would be +crce*d to flow between the sc, €1,'sj€: "'ct property and ti• Mt, Dell installation to the west. They are probably .aware of the pQtenti al hazard because they have ; e built a concrete ditch and deflection system to protect their property, but l am not convinced that what they have constructed will provide adequate protection in the event o'F a large debr:i. s flow emanating from the gully to the north,. The two choices for miti €: Ming debris glow hazard at your site c: th at T have described will not increase the hazard to other prr:sper• or structures, or to public buildings, rights..- of roads, streets, €:r'asefi'?C_'r;';s, g ilil,:ies or facilities or other properties of any kind. 14 thbr ce are further r questions, please do not hesitate e to contact f13e L h3?.Ghi. - al r t ! a,pir - is Consulting Geologist 0 • TO! Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to Accommodation zone district in order window to a structure located on Lot Village 5th Filing. (Villa Valhala Hanson Ranch Road, Unit #3) Applicant: Harry Davison I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED the Public to construct a bay J1, Block A, Vail Condominiums, 360 The applicant is requesting a variance from the 20' setback requirement on the south side of the building in order to construct a 2 foot deep bay window on the south elevation of the existing building. The purpose of the window is to regain a view of the ski mountain which was lost due to the expansion of the Tivoli Lodge. • The existing nonconforming building encroaches into the 20 foot setback requirement along the entire south elevation of the existing building with the greatest encroachment occurring at the west corner of the building. At this corner, the building encroaches 5.3 feet into the required 20 foot setback. In the area of the proposed bay window, the building currently encroaches 4 feet. With the expansion, the encroachment will be increased to 6 feet. The proposed bay would be approximately 25.5 feet from the edge of pavement. The owner is required to obtain a variance because the window will increase the nonconformity of the building. The proposal does not add any GRFA. The site coverage also remains unchanged because the structure of the bay window addition is 8" above grade. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • The 11 bay window should not create any problems to existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The proposal will not 1 • obstruct any views from adjacent units or properties. No landscaping will be removed due to the window expansion. 2. The decree 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. In this case, the staff finds that the siting of the existing building constitutes a physical hardship. The existing building is nonconforming in regards to the setback requirements, therefore any addition, whether it be at grade or above grade, that increases the degree of encroachment requires a setback variance. If the bay window addition were proposed on a building which did not encroach, under the Town Of Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.58.040 architectural features, the bay window would be allowed to project up to 4' into a required setback area. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation • and traffic facilities, facilities and utilities and public safety. Staff finds the requested variance will have no effect upon any of the above considerations. 111. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in • practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2 • 2. 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. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the requested 2' encroachment into the 20 foot setback requirement. The staff finds that the existing nonconforming building which currently encroaches 4' into the 20' setback requirement in the area of the window constitutes a physical hardship. • 0 r 6" ASPEN V FIRE �� AYORANT Wt ATER Vi C] GREG SKINNER MAY 31, 1990 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E -6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive, Crossroads Condominiums. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The owner of Condominium Unit E -6 is requesting a height variance in order to expand the condominium by 343 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition will be on the east elevation of the building, at the 5th story. The addition will be built over the existing first, second and third floors below and a north facing, false facade would be constructed at the fourth floor level. This facade would wrap around slightly on the east elevation and would architecturally tie the 5th floor addition to the existing floors below. It is possible that at some future date the fourth floor unit would expand and infill the false facade. . The proposed addition will match the appearance of the existing building with both colors and materials. Crossroads is zoned Commercial Service Center which has a maximum height limit of 38 feet. The existing building is in nonconformance with this 38 foot height requirement, as the existing eave line in the area of the proposed expansion is approximately 53 feet above finished grade. The ridge line of the roof above the proposed expansion is approximately 61 feet above finished grade. The proposed expansion will not alter the existing eave line and will not affect the ridge line of the building. The ridge line of the proposed addition would be approximately 58' above finished grade with the eave line at 51' above finished grade. There would be no impact on the Town's parking requirements as a result of this expansion. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Area = 80,025 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA = 32,010 sq. ft. (40 %) Existing GRFA - 22,817 sq. ft Remaining GRFA = 9,193 sq. ft. C 1 . III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the re guested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures_ in the vicinity. The staff's opinion is that the proposed height variance request, if approved, would have no significant impact upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We recognize that much of the existing Crossroads Condominium Building is in nonconformance with the 38' height limit, although Crossroads is the only property in the Town currently zoned Commercial Service Center. Crossroads is adjacent to the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core II and Commercial Core I zone districts. These zone districts allow maximum heights of 48 48' and 43' respectively. • There are no identified "view corridors" that would be affected as a result of this expansion. However, Vail Mountain can currently be viewed from 1 -70 and the North Frontage Road through this area. The proposed addition will eliminate this view. staff believes that the proposed addition's 58' high ridge would help transition the highest ridge of this building, which is at 61' with the lower 44' ridge of the Cinema to the east. This simple transition will give a stepped feel to the roofscape, as viewed from 1 -70 and the South Frontage Road. 2. The strict and literal interpretation of the height regulations for the Crossroads Condominium building would mean that no further changes would . be allowable to the roof or eave lines, due to the existing nonconformance of the project. 2 The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve . The staff believes that there is a physical hardship due to the height of the existing roof. We feel that it is appropriate to support this request because the proposed addition presents no adverse impacts upon the existing development or upon adjacent properties. This request is also consistent with a similar height variance that was approved in 1989 to add a dormer on the east side of Crossroads (above Burger King) for an office remodel. The Enzian or L'Ostello was also granted a height variance to allow for the expansion of several lodge units. Because this request does not alter the existing ridge line of the building or in any way effect the overall height of the structure, we feel that there is no grant of special privilege. 3. 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 no impact from this requested variance upon any of the above criteria. IV. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN • The recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan provides general guidelines regarding building heights in the Core. The Plan states that "...it is the goal of this Plan to maintain the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road)." The area of this proposed height variance is categorized in the Vail Village Master Plan as having an acceptable building height range of 5 -6 stories. A building story is defined as 9' of height and no roof is included. This addition is located on the fifth story of the building. The proposal does support the Vail village Master Plan height plan. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a_variance: A. 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. r� LJ . B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this project is for approval. We believe our recommendation to be consistent with recent decisions by the staff and the PEC, which have allowed some flexibility in the height requirements for preexisting, nonconforming buildings, as long as the existing ridge line of the building is not modified and as long as the alteration does not negatively effect any adjacent properties. We believe this request to be consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and not to be a grant of special privilege, and therefore recommend approval. We are, however, concerned with the general appearance of the large rectangular planters located adjacent to the bus route on East Meadow Drive. These timber planters have been in a state of disrepair for some time now and the staff has recommended that the Crossroads Condominium Association pursue the upgrading of these planters. Although legally the staff cannot condition the variance upon renovation of the planters, we feel strongly that the planters should be rebuilt and would encourage the applicant to proceed with the project. • 4 0 • L_J ' Q �9- • - x I ]11 z O a J W C7 Z D J. ml .. - �. ��• � � � � � Jun. 7 1 90 15:20 • June 7, :1990 0000 SUPEP SEER CORPORAFUM TEL 1-303-674-8540 Town ()E Vai I Planning & Knv i.ropmeAtal Commission 75 South F v nn t rgu Kond V01, CO 81657 Attn. Mr, MIN Mol l Lca Sublet_t.: improvement r_nd Redesign of Planter Area Dear Mr. ply, l I i r:n: In Y"p3 y to your reg"cst for information concerning upgrading the wooden planter :I.uent.ed on Crohsro"dB of Vail C on d om i n i um Association property at 141 East. ih1naduw Dylve, this arpa ha7 boon di.scussud at our Association mect.iings for the last three ,year's. Our 1989 improvement plan was to r°eplacc the planter. ThiN was postponed d"e to the f i.nanci& d i fficul t;i.es experienced by JRC Partners, 0d'' who was thn commercial owner at thHo time. Crossroads of Vail. C Assneiat;i on owncrsh i.p is divided into 23 condo- mini",,) unj . The conamefclal unJ.t:, wlai.ch 11::!`3 a 57.3% 'Int:eruNK is now owned by the Bank of New rnghand. The othe=r, 42.7% ;:3 dividad Among the 22 apartment owners, t ownership shares are E-.•5 2.0% and 106 3.21 %. Our by -laws roqu;i,re approval of budget: itoms Icy a majority Of the owns rs- Change affecting r.r onion r *,.nice., usually the exterior or such as the- pl.sAtcr, requirc s approval. PC 85% of the ow "Ors. Yesterday wo d.i.scussad the planter problom with Lowe Associates, Who are the new manngi.ng agents fappointod by the now commercial owner. Lowe Asnaciatcm '.i.nf:armed us that replacement. Of the pl:anl:er is being proposed for this your. in fuct:, •last. week lowe toured r.l"re projOCL with their architect to review the area. We exp"c:t_ the planter rcplanement to be decided yet this year. T, as prr. o i dent of the Condominium Association card as an owner of Unit E--`i, and Q, 11. Will ium " nj rh, jr,, owner of Unit 1, -6, have ~tiupported a redesi Rn of Lh i.5 area. We will ,01 inuc to vote for and recommend the upgrading of the: plant u''' and the area along East Nuadow Dr.iva. very truly Yours, Robert P. Smith . Owner, Uni t: 1`5 H, William `'with Owner, Unit Q(.1 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E -5, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive, Crossroads Condominiums. Applicant: Robert Smith I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The owner of Condominium Unit E -5 is requesting a height variance in order to expand the condominium by 86 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition will be on the south elevation of the building, at the 5th story. It is immediately to the east of a balcony enclosure. The proposed addition will match the appearance of the adjacent balcony enclosure. Crossroads is zoned Commercial Service Center which has a maximum height limit of 38 feet. The existing building is in nonconformance with this 38 foot height requirement, as the existing eave line in the area of the proposed expansion is is approximately 50 feet above finished grade. The ridge line of the roof above the proposed expansion is approximately 58 feet above finished grade. The proposed expansion will not alter the existing eave line and will not affect the ridge line of the building. There would be no impact on the Town's parking requirements as a result of this expansion. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Area = 80,025 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA = 32,010 sq. ft. (40 %) Existing GRFA = 22,817 sq. ft Remaining GRFA = 9,193 sq. ft. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: • 1 • A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff's opinion is that the proposed height variance request, if approved, would have no significant impact upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We recognize that much of the existing Crossroads Condominium Building is in nonconformance with the 38' height limit, although Crossroads is the only property in the Town currently zoned Commercial Service Center. Crossroads is adjacent to the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core II and Commercial Core 2 zone districts. These zone districts allow maximum heights of 48 48' and 43' respectively. 2. 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 strict and literal interpretation of the height regulations for the Crossroads Condominium building would mean that no further changes would be allowable to the roof or eave lines, due to the existing nonconformance of the project. The staff believes that there is a physical hardship due to the height of the existing roof. We feel that it is appropriate to support this request because the proposed addition presents no adverse impacts upon the existing development or upon adjacent properties. This request is also consistent with a similar height variance that was approved in 1989 to add a dormer on the east side of Crossroads (above Burger King) for an office remodel. The Enzian or L'Ostello was also granted a height variance to allow for the expansion of several lodge units. Because this request does not alter the existing ridge line of the building or in any way effect the overall height of the structure, we feel that there is no grant of special privilege. • 2 r1 U 3. 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 no impact from this requested variance upon any of the above criteria. IV. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan provides general guidelines regarding building heights in the Core. The Plan states that "...it is the goal of this Plan to maintain the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road)." The area of this proposed height variance is categorized in the Vail Village Master Plan as having an acceptable building height range of 5 -6 stories. A building story is defined as 9' of height and no roof is included. 0 This addition is located The proposal does support height plan. V. FINDINGS on the fifth story of the building. the Vail Village Master Plan The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary 40 circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3 • 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this project is for approval. We believe our recommendation to be consistent with recent decisions by the staff and the PEC, which have allowed some flexibility in the height requirements for pre- existing, nonconforming buildings, as long as the existing ridge line of the building is not modified and as long as the alteration does not negatively effect any adjacent properties. We believe this request to be consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and not to be a grant of special privilege, and therefore recommend approval. We are, however, concerned with the general appearance of the large rectangular planters located adjacent to the bus route on East Meadow Drive. These timber planters have been in a state of disrepair for some time now and the staff has . recommended that the Crossroads Condominium Association pursue the upgrading of these planters. Robert Smith, applicant for this variance request and president of the Association, has verbally committed to the staff that he will spearhead an effort to obtain the required 85% vote of the Association necessary for the upgrade project. Although legally the staff cannot condition the variance upon renovation of the planters, we feel strongly that the planters should be rebuilt and would encourage the applicant to proceed with the project. U 4 Ak LLI .� . L-" F �-_'4 oil! ^ r- I Jun. 7 'TO 15:20 * %.0 000 UPEP SEER Ci;<<:PCRATI# N TEL 1-303-674-8540 .�r r1 L_J June 7, 1990 Town K V a i l Planning & Environmeotal Commission 7 South Frontugc Kond V(1-1 I., CO 11657 At"tn: Mr, Mike Mc ?l Elsa Subject:: Improvement raped Redesign of pla. uey Area Dear Mr. Mol:l.i.t_a: In rop:l.y to ypur rec uc:st f information con tjerning upgrading the wooden planter :located on Crossroads of Vail t;tsnci «sr�ini t =m Association property at J41 East MQad Dr:ivo, this arra her been discussed at our Association meetings for the 1ssC three years. Our J 989 improvement p.l un. was to replace the planter, This was postponed W to tho financial difficulties experienced by JRC Partners, who was the commercial owner at that t:ima- crnssrovd ; of Vail Qndomi.nium Assnciat; ion owncrNhip is divided into 23 condo - mi ni lm units. The commercial unit, which has a 57. Interest, is now awned by the Bank of New rn8land. The other 42.7% is divided among the 22 apartments owners. Our ownership sharer: are E - 5 2.0% and V--6 3.21 %. Our ley --laws require approval of budget_ KOM by a ma jority of the owners. ChnDge ;affecting common space, usuca.11y the cxtwrior such as the planter, requires approval, o f 85% of the owners. yc=st:erday we discussed the plant or problem with Lowe Associates, who are the new managing agent;., appointod by the now commercial ow Lowe A informed us that replracemc:nt o f tho planter is being proposed for this year. In fact:, 'bast: week 1,owe toured the project: with their architect to review the area. We cxp"c_t_ the planter replacement to be decided yei this year. T, as pr. cis i dent of the Condominium Association and as an owner of Unit E--5, and Mr. H. William Smith, Jr., owner of Unit -b, have supported a rcdesiRn of this arc a. We will cont t vote for and recommend ommend the upgrading of the planter and the area along East Mctadow Drive. Very truly your , Robert. P. Swi_th Owner, Unit: H -5. H, William Smith owner, Unit E-0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 11, 1990 SUBJECT: A major amendment to Special Development District No. 4- Cascade Village, Area C, Section 18.46.100, Paragraph C: deletion of the following sentence "No residential lot shall contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon subdivision covenants ", which amends the GRFA requirement to conform to the Primary /Secondary zone district, Section 18.13.080, Density Control. Applicant: Greg Amsden for 75% of the property owners. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. The request is to delete the requirement which states "No residential Lot shall contain more than 4200 sq. ft. of GRFA per the Glen Lyon Subdivision covenants." The amended code will read "GRFA shall be calculated for each lot per Section 18.13.080, Density Control A and B for the primary /secondary • district of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. With the deletion of this restriction, the density controls for duplex Lots 1 -38 and 40 -52 of Area C will be governed by Section 18.13.080 of the Vail Municipal Code. Because of the lot sizes, the amendment will allow 40 of the 51 duplex lots to increase their GRFA over what is currently allowed by the SDD No. 4 density requirements. However, these lots will not be granted more than what is allowed under the Town's density control for Primary /Secondary lots. The applicant is not requesting any other changes to the development standards. II. BACKGROUND At the time that SDD #4 was adopted, the GRFA definition was in the process of revision. By putting a maximum GRFA in the density requirement for the SDD, the developer's intent was to lock in a specified GRFA allowed for the lots. This was intended to protect against future changes in the interpretations of GRFA. The ceiling, however, became a restriction for the Glen Lyon property owners, as the GRFA requirements did not become more restrictive (as the developer had anticipated). Jim Rubin, the Community Development Department director at the time of the original adoption, confirms that the GRFA maximum was initiated by the developer to guarantee the GRFA for Glen Lyon lots. 0 1 The applicant has received signatures from 76.07% of the property owners approving the change in the GRFA requirement. The amendment will not include Lot 53 (Coldstream). The amendment will only affect duplex lots located in this Area C. Also, the amendment will not include Lots 391 and 391I. Under resolution #10, Series of 1982, these lots were subdivided and zoned Single Family Residential with a height restriction of 25 feet and a maximum GRFA of 3100 square feet per lot. III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA Section 18.40.080 of the zoning code sets forth the following design criteria to be used in evaluating the merits of a Special Development District. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards or demonstrate that one or more are not applicable or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale-bulk, building height buffer zones identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The granting of the request will allow for an increase of the allowable GRFA for many of the duplex lots located in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Currently the lots are regulated by the density requirements for Primary /Secondary zoning with a maximum allowable GRFA of 4200 square feet. 40 lots in Glen Lyon are restricted by this maximum. It is important to recognize that by deleting the maximum for GRFA, they will only be allowed to build what is allowed under Section 18.13.080 which regulates the GRFA on all Primary /Secondary lots. The mass and bulk of the buildings will increase in comparison to what would be allowed with the 4200 sq. ft. of GRFA maximum due to the increase in allowable GRFA. B. Uses activity and density which provide a compatible efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The request will have no effect on the uses or activities of the area. The application will have no effect on the number of units in the subdivision. It • 2 will increase the mass and bulk of the buildings because the allowable GRFA will be increased. The following is a chart depicting the range of additional GRFA that would be allowed for a number of lots: # of Lots Additional GRFA 11 0 18 1--250 10 250 -500 5 500 --750 6 750+ C. Compliance with parking and loading r outlined in Chapter 18.52. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. eguirements as off- street parking shall be provided as stated in the SDD Ordinance. This would require dwelling units with up to 2,000 square feet of GRFA to provide 2 parking spaces, and dwelling units over 2,000 square feet to provide 2.5 spaces per unit. These are the standard Town of Vail parking requirements. . D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The application does not request any additional GRFA other than that which is allowed on other comparable Primary /Secondary lots in the Town of Vail. There are no planning studies that relate directly to this request. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or g eologic hazards that affect the property-on which the special development is proposed. Geologic hazards will be identified and mitigated as required by Section 18.69 Hazard Regulations of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space p rovisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic cuality of the community._ The only element of the above criteria that will be affected by this request is building design. By 0 3 deleting the 4200 square foot maximum, the mass and bulk will be increased over what is currently allowed in the subdivision. However, the mass and bulk of the structures will be no more than what is allowed on other comparable Primary /Secondary lots in other areas of Vail. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and oedetrians� addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. There will be no change to the circulation system. Since there will be no increase in density, there are no expected increases in use that would require a change to the circulation system. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There will be no change to the existing landscaping and open space plan. Individual lots will be required to landscape 60% of lots as per the Section 18.46.170 - Landscaping of SDD #4. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a . workable functional and efficient relationshx throughout the development of the special development district. There will be no effect on the phasing or subdivision plan. 23 of the 50 lots involved have either existing homes or are under construction. No additional lots are proposed with this application. IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All development standards for SDD# 4 are very site specific. For Area C, development standards including height, setbacks, site coverage, parking and landscaping are in accordance with the requirements for the Primary /Secondary zone district. This request would allow the Area C density control (GRFA) to be in accordance with Section 18.13.080 of the Vail Municipal Code. • 4 • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to delete the statement that "No residential lot shall contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon Subdivision covenants" as stated in Section 18.76.100 of SDD #4 Ordinance #10, Series of 1990 as applicable to Lots 1 -38 and 40 -52. The staff feels that this restriction was used as a means of guaranteeing GRFA to the Glen Lyon lots and instead, the maximum became a restriction. We feel that the deletion of the maximum will have no negative impacts on the surrounding properties. The amendment will allow the above lots to be controlled under the density requirements that are used for all other Primary /Secondary lots. There will be no change in the density requirements for Lots 391 and 3911 which are controlled by Resolution No, 10, series of 1982. • 0 5 • Z ,J • 2 3 54 , • �� ` TRACT. iC VALLI �S�P GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION HI 40 N V vn he Y6 Y flwr5&vtt the" 5�, �• W7-0 �. Cv[24�h1 t 1MU� e. \ CASCADE STRUCTURE VILLAGE \ MANSFIEL6 14a� CONDOMINIUMS ' 43 42 - B.L.M. OUNT MILLR / MILLRACE I PHASE I C ASCAD E 45 EL LOD MILLRACE 38 46 '� 4, SCALE ll s 200_' COLDSTREAM PHASE I PL. y 47 2R0' o IDd god 53 . _ r 48 ._....... _. _. 49 J !fy'_. 52 51 50 G J J aY :I 31 -EAGLE COU TY 341Y.t ,ra 30 UNPLATTED UNPLATTE I TRACT B I�]h �•hti "n' lc�S G� tx ti� a o U ill) J. vO1�' ZD . � z 4 6 `5 \ ' O C7 ` NO \ 4 j c {'f O • Z ,J • .7 Town of Vail Planning Department Attn: Shelley Mello 75 So. Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Shelley, May 11, 1990 In accordance with Paragraph #18 of the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, 750 of the property owners of the privately -owned land included within the boundaries of Glen Lyon have given their written consent to amend the said Covenants (Recorded 5/2/90 in Book 528, Page 154. A copy of recorded document is attached). The amendment deletes Paragraph #17 of the covenants. This paragraph establis ed a ceiling of 4200 square feet on each lot within the subdivision. It was the developer's intent at time of recording the original covenants to "lock in" a specified amount of GRFA to protect against any future downward trends in interpretations of GRFA. As it turned out, this limitation actually had a negative effect . on allowable GRFA in relation to other property owners within the Vail Valley. The implementation of this ceiling on GRFA into the Special Development District and Town of Vail Ordinances was done to accomodate the Protective Covenants and property owners of Glen Lyon. The applicant asks the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council to consider and approve the following admendment to the existing Special Development District No. 4, Area C, as defined in Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, Section 18.46.100, Paragraph C: Deletion of the following sentence: "No residential lot shall contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon subdivision covenants ". If any members of the Planning and Environment Commission or the Town Council have any questions regarding the proposed amendment, please contact Greg Amsden at 476 -7990 or Andy Norris at 476- 6602. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this mattAr. /) S . T rr y Amsden GA /meb Glen Lyon - Lot Sizes and GRFA r� L_J Lot size (Acres) 0.4272 0.4026 0.4827 0.5131 0.4607 0.4574 0.4684 0.4628 0.5381 0.7851 0.7056 0.7698 0.8085 0.7418 0.5626 0.5123 0.5448 0.4536 0.4730 0.4920 0.5011 0.5092 0.5175 0.4374 0.4634 0.7087 0.5244 0.6598 0.6171 0.6237 0.5770 0.5078 0.4289 0.4250 0.4416 0.4467 0.4268 0.4609 1.2353 1.2500 0.8584 1.0494 0.4914 0.5706 0.4111 0.4761 0.4350 0.4534 0.4489 0.5105 0.5009 0.4474 0.4826 4.2121 1.7477 Status of Lot r • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 *38 *39A B 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 * *53 * * *54 35.9192 * Single Family Residence Lots not included in amendment. * *Coldstream ** *Glen Lyon commercial Building *NOTE *: Built means built or under construction. Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built GRFA Under Existing New Additional GRFA Amendment GR1'A Available (sq. ft.) (Sq. ft.) with amendment 4111 4111 unchanged 4004 4004 unchanged 4200 4353 153 4200 4485 285 4200 4256 56 4200 4242 42 4200 4290 90 4200 4266 66 4200._ 4594 394 4200 5210 1010 4200 5037 837 4200 5177 977 4200 5261 61 4200 5116 916 4200 4701 501 4200 4482 282 4200 4623 423 4200 4226 26 4200 4310 110 4200 4393 193 4200 4432 232 4200 4468 268 4200 4504 304 4155 4155 unchanged 4200 4269 69 4200 5044 844 4200 4534 334 4200 4935 735 4200 4844 644 4200 4858 658 4200 4757 557 4200 4462 262 4118 4118 unchanged 4101 4101 unchanged 4174 4174 unchanged 4196 4196 unchanged 4109 4109 unchanged 4200 4258 58 3100 n/a n/a 3100 n/a n/a 4200 5370 1170 4200 5786 1586 4200 4391 191 4200 4474 274 4040 4040 unchanged 4200 4324 124 4200 4225 25 4200 4205 5 4200 4200 unchanged 4200 4736 536 4200 4431 231 4199 4199 unchanged 4200 4352 152 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Status of Lot r • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 *38 *39A B 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 * *53 * * *54 35.9192 * Single Family Residence Lots not included in amendment. * *Coldstream ** *Glen Lyon commercial Building *NOTE *: Built means built or under construction. Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built Built f` • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the side and front setback requirement of the two - family residential zone district for Lot 7, Block 3 of Vail Village 9th Filing (898 Red Sandstone Circle) Applicant: Paul Testwuide I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED This request is for a garage and storage addition to the west side of an existing residence. The garage has a total area of 644 sq. ft and will encroach a maximum of 3 ft. into the 15 foot side setback requirement and 6 ft. into the 20 foot front setback requirement. With the exception of this variance request, all other development standards will be met. The site is currently occupied by a single family structure located in the duplex zone district. The building has a • GRFA of 1990 sq. ft. with an allowed GRFA of 3212 sq. ft. and a total site area of 12,850 sq. ft. The applicant's request will add 44 sq. ft. of additional GRFA to the unit because the proposed garage exceeds the applicable 600 sq. ft. garage credit. The current 1108 sq. ft. of site coverage will be increased to 1822 sq. ft. with the proposal. It is allowed a total of 2470 sq. ft. of site coverage. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The addition of the garage should not create any problems to existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The property most likely to be affected would be a single family . home on Lot 8 to the west of the proposed garage. 1 !` The residence on Lot 8 does not conform to the setback requirements. The proposed garage would be approximately 12 feet from the west property line. No trees or shrubs will be removed to accommodate the addition. 2. The decree to which reli 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 ob'ectives of this title without grant of special_ privilege._ The staff recognizes that the siting of the existing building does constitute a physical hardship. The staff is not supportive of the variance and feels that the encroachment should be minimal. The applicant has adjusted the location and size of the proposed garage, but the staff maintains that the encroachment is excessive. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff finds that the requested variance will have a positive effect upon public safety, transportation and traffic facilities by providing enclosed parking that is out of the public right - of -way. The proposal will have no significant effect upon any of the other above issues. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. r 1 LJ 2 i C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff feels that the addition of enclosed parking will • improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. The garage has been located so the encroachment to the side setback is minimized and 2 vehicles may be parked behind the garage. However, the staff finds that the size of the garage (24'x29 could be decreased to minimize the front setback encroachment. Staff is recommending denial of this request. However, we would be supportive of a request for a 3 ft. side setback encroachment and a one or two foot front setback encroachment with the condition that the applicant remove and landscape the excess paved parking area to the east of the garage. 0 r 1 LJ a u T4 L Y o � \ a _o m IL l � 1 ° a g c� r � � Q q Y s z � � A a • . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 11 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the minimum lot size on a parcel of land described as that unplatted plat of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, of the Principal Meridian, lying northerly of the Lion's Ridge Loop as shown of the recorded plat of the Lion's Ridge Subdivision recorded July 25, 1969, in Case 2, Drawer L, and Book 215 at Page 649. This parcel is located to the north of the Lions Mane Condominiums and above Sandstone Drive. Applicant: A.L. Shapiro & Co., A Colorado Nominee General Partnership. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED Abe Shapiro is requesting a variance from the minimum lot size to allow for the construction of a single family • residence with a secondary, caretaker unit, on the above named unplatted site. Mr. Shapiro's parcel is 6.844 acres in size and has a current zoning designation of Agricultural and Open Space. This zone district has a minimum lot area requirement of thirty -five acres with a minimum of one acre of "buildable area" per dwelling unit. The Shapiro parcel has 1.39 acres of "buildable area" as certified by Eagle Valley Surveying. The applicant's variance request is from Section 18.32.050 of the Town's zoning code, which reads as follows: 11 18.32.050 - Lot Area and Site Dimensions The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty -five acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area per dwelling unit." Mr. Shapiro is requesting that two dwelling units be allowed on the parcel. Under the Agricultural and Open Space zoning this would require a parcel of 70 acres in size. The applicant's parcel is 6.844 acres in size, and so the total lot size variance request is for a shortage of 63.156 acres. Also, the applicant's parcel is 0.61 acres short of the two acres of "buildable area" which is required for two dwelling units. • 01 . II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship-of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff strongly believes that approval of this variance request would only affect the Sandstone neighborhood in a negative manner. Because the applicant's parcel is so highly visible from the immediate neighborhood, as well as other areas of Town (i.e. I -70, North and South Frontage Roads, etc.), any cutting into the site to create a building site or access road would likely leave a very visible scar. According to the Town's geologic hazard maps, this parcel is located in a "high hazard debris flow" area and a "high severity rockfall" zone. At this time, no geologic reports have been submitted by the applicant. The staff certainly questions whether geologic hazards can be properly mitigated on -site or whether construction on this parcel will increase the hazard to other properties or structures in the area. Staff has identified the following other concerns: What is the availability of utilities to this parcel? Will additional trenching be necessary to provide the site with electric power, water and sewer, gas etc.? The parcel appears to have limited access for fire protection and may not meet the minimum requirements of Article 10, Section 207 of the Uniform Fire Code. The Agricultural and Open Space zone district only limits building bulk and mass by height and site coverage restrictions. The maximum allowable height is 33 feet and the maximum allowable site coverage is 5 percent of the total site area. There is no GRFA . restriction in this zone district. The 2 • maximum site coverage for this parcel would allow a residence to cover 14,906 sq. ft. of the parcel. By pushing the building to three stories, or 33 the residence could be approximately 45,000 sq. ft. in size. 2. The degree to whic relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amon sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilegg. In our review of this variance request, staff has been unable to identify a physical hardship and believes that the granting of this variance could only be a grant of special privilege. The Town's records do not indicate any previous requests for lot size variances in the Agricultural and Open Space zone districts. The owner bought the property with the existing Agricultural Open Space zoning in place. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population transportation and traffic facilities Public facilities and utilities and ipublic. safety. The staff is of the opinion that the requested lot size variance, if approved, would negatively affect transportation and traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. Staff is very concerned about the negative impacts of providing access to this parcel. Currently, the parcel is landlocked. Schedule B -2 of the owner's title report states that there is a "lack of access to or from a public road or highway ". Even if access can somehow be secured, the staff questions the steepness of such an access road and the extent of regrading necessary to reach a possible building site, and the appearance of retaining walls. ZII. RELATED POLICIES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL'S LAND USE PLAN A. The Town's Land Use Plan has identified this parcel's potential use as Open Space, and the Plan defines Open Space as follows: "Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainageways are the types of areas in • this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 400 are also included within this area. These hillside 3 . areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning." B. The applicable Land Use Plan goals /policies are listed as follows: 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. This proposal conflicts with the above Land Use Policies. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the • following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. C7 4 3. 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 recommendation is for denial of the requested lot size variance. We believe that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege and that the variance would not be in compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan, as stated above in Section III of this memo. We also feel that approval of this request would set a dangerous precedent for future lot size variance requests and therefore believe that the request should not be approved. • 0 5 a ' Si PARCEL A L1H' BT E * 962 ry r ANDSTONE 0 Y 1034 PARK 980 BROOKTTREE TRACT .A y ` § , ms s ,sii,, A3 1079 933 9i1 LION'S RIDGE AZ FILING NO. 4 P09 1115 HITE RIVER AI A A g 5-' MANE SAN EEK L3 3: CLLR ACT 91 !MOVAL O w67 1139 J. A Km S ©1020 9 27 9 91b 1136 )REST 9 � HOM TAKE 923 a. ` 840 7 146 SO Q R 1149 y °yAa�46s 1w 106, L1 I IDG O.I 919 A� 1489 14 AB 1471 1464 O 159 !ISO 15 ®II • J ��. N g LION 905 5 1179 4 I 12 1040 911 4 1473 pig ASOLAR/ II69 2 121 1023 993 I RIDGE aja _ u R/ VAIL A B1 � SNOW B3 9or u vE A RE USOIVISION OF LOS ;175 um R E TELEMARK 1030 BREAKAWAY 903 RY AT VAIL 1 4421-1 11 AS,&A9,LIONS'RIDG 2 IOB3 WEST a (..` 481 d 1462 FILING NO.I 81160 963 gg 6 it PHASE II • wa7 4 A li30 ABB II70 Ad j TRACT 611 , Abe VAIL RUN iGER 1000 4 6 1450 A8 E A8 C1 CHALET 2 1 �AAg'4ff G'NE wee 1410 G3 5 / }6 tiy t0 IaeO 5G 1370 a • 141A PHASE Z PHASE II 148 25 1330 I TRAC7 8 4 UNPLATTEO P 4 35 BRIAR 2 Poo 923 •` 1452 141 I 445 PAW G4 PHASE Stx 2 1 r �) 1390 X131 953 • TRACT D 14 u L`1 SMOA RUN VO TER 1451 1100 Nu S 934 • !03 1 GLIFFSIDE A f'o,", of FICE 86 D AMOCO 2 1478 C 54 GLEN 4 3 1535 O 1000 s 15rs x555 � TRACT K TIM R A ,`� ` 0 80 GLEN L N SUBDIVISION 3 ING O f ` ING 2 .� a O J 0. G \ 40 J O C 200 VAIL POST OFFICE �` PARKING 41 z 1300 CAS CA C STRUCTURE txOT wrr,wvcteul 1210 E z A VIL 1285 �y4. MANSFIELD w S O CONDOMINIUMS a # 1275 ... /� 43 42 I* of PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 25, 1990 10:30 Site Visits 12:30 A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village 1st Filing. (Site Visit #1) Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. 1:30 A request for a work session for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance, a landscape variance and a floodplain modification for the Covered Bridge Building, located on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5 -B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. 2:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from June 4, 1990 and June 11, 1990 meetings. 4 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and 1/2 of 5, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, 1119 E. Ptarmigan Road. Applicant: Monie S. Beal 6 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition, 5198 Gore Circle. Applicant: John and Paula Canning 3 4. A request for a conditional use permit for a construction staging area, located just uphill of the Golden Peak snowmaking pumphouse, Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. - 5. A request for a side and front setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing, 898 Red Sandstone Circle. Applicant: Paul Testwuide 7 6. A request for a front setback variance and a creek setback variance for Lot 6, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, 1755 West Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey 8 7. A request for a conditional use permit and a height variance in order to construct an antenna at the Vail Municipal building, 75 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Police Department 5 8. A request for a side yard setback variance at 4247 Columbine Drive, Unit #20, Bighorn Terrace. Applicant: John Nilsson 9. A request for an amendment to SDD No. 23, Vail National Bank, Part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 108 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corp. -- 10. A request for an amendment to the Town's zoning code to add "Television Station" as a first floor, or street level floor, conditional use in the Commercial Core II zone district, Section 18.26.040 Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network. WITHDRAWN 11. A request for a conditional use permit for a deck expansion at the Sweet Basil restaurant, located on Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Kevin Claire /Chuck Rosenquist 12. Scheduling for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II, for the following properties (60 to 90 day study period): 2 A. Covered Bridge Building - A request for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance, a landscape variance and a floodplain modification on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5 -B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. - B. Montaneros - Lot 8, Block 1, Vail - Lionshead 3rd Filing, 641 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc. • TABLED 13. A request for a variance from the wall height UNTIL 7/9/90 requirement on Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch; 845 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola TABLED 14. A request for an exterior alteration and a UNTIL 7/9/90 landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant El PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Members Absent Connie Knight Staf f Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Penny Perry in the interest of time, work sessions were held prior to the public hearing beginning at 12:40 p.m. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp redevelopment and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail road, Part_of Lot L, Block 5 -Ez_ Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc_. Kristan Pritz explained that the request was for the redevelopment of the Sonnenalp property and a proposed Special Development District. She gave a brief summary of the request and reviewed the zoning analysis. She reviewed those items related to the project found within the Vail Village Master Plan including Sub -Area #1 -3, emphasizing Goals & Policies, and Illustrative Plans. She also provided corresponding preliminary staff comments. Kristan then relayed comments made by the Fire Department and Public Works. This was a work session, so no recommendation was made. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they were before the board on a preliminary basis and simply wanted comments and suggestions so they could move ahead with the design process. Irene Westby, manager of the Talisman, explained that the owners had discussed the proposal, though not in depth, regarding coordination with the Sonnenalp on landscape and parking. As the manager, she would encourage the board to move faster. They do have concerns with parking, landscape and fire access. Jay explained that he had met with the president of the association and the Sonnenalp had offered access through the Sonnenalp structure. Marilyn Fletcher, a Talisman condominium owner, felt the proposal was very nice looking. She was concerned about the setbacks and ingress /egress. 1 Kent Rose, speaking for himself as a Council Member, felt that the zoning analysis found within the memo was well prepared. In the future, he would like to see a comparison of the SDD with the Village Master Plan as well. He suggested to Kristan to add this comparison to the present chart. He stated that the additional comparison could help him lean more favorable toward the project. As it was currently depicted, the project looked too large. Larry Eskwith explained that he would prefer that the Council members not participate in the PEC meeting. The Council is a quasi- judicial board and he felt their participation could cause legal problems. Diana asked if they could speak in a general sense or at a minimum ask questions, and Larry said "yes." Mery Lapin felt that page 2 of the memo was the key. When an SDD is proposed, there should be trade -offs. He wanted to know what these trade-offs were. He felt that staff presented the trade- offs in respect to the Marriott project well. Regarding the Marriott project, he felt that too much time was spent comparing the original application to the current proposal. Mery agreed with Larry Eskwith, that the Council's comments should be limited at this point. The Council was in a quasi - judicial role. Kristan explained that the Planning Commission simply wanted general comments and issues that the Council felt needed to be addressed. Lynn Fritzlen asked if staff could restate the purpose of applying underlying zoning and Kristan explained that there were basically two reasons. The first was to identify the uses possible on the site and the second was used to compare the proposal with the underlying zoning requirements which PEC and Council always request staff to do. Jay Peterson addressed the trade -off issue. He stated that the Sonnenalp building could meet the PA criteria, however, the building design would become a terrible bulky mass in the middle of the lot. He also felt that the proposed use of 99% hotel rooms was a trade -off. Also, the proposal was not far over GRFA. The current proposal was at 32 units per acre compared to the 25 units per acre called for under PA zoning. Peggy Osterfoss stated that it would be helpful if all parties concerned had a copy of the Vail Village Master Plan. Jim Shearer felt it was extremely important for the Sonnenalp to work with the Talisman regarding parking and landscaping. He was concerned about the Ludwig deck and its impact on the creek area. He also wanted to see the employee housing issue addressed. He was very concerned about the height creating a crowded feeling on 2 Meadow Drive. He understood Jay's comments regarding the bulk in the middle of the lot, but felt that the mass could be pulled off of Meadow Drive and a more attractive walk created. He felt the approach would create more interest for the retail area. Jim also felt a phasing plan was needed. Jim liked the increase in lodging units, underground parking, and felt that the Faesslers were good managers. He had some concern about the amount of retail space and density. He prefered the tower as an architectural feature as opposed to a "building" providing living area in the tower. Kathy Warren asked if the staff could total all the sq. footage calculations (GRFA, Accessory etc..) on the charts in the future. From what she could quickly calculate, the proposal was over PA zoning by 25 %. Kathy felt she could not support setback variances for Vail Road, Meadow Drive or the Stream and she felt that the heights called for by the Master Plan should be adhered to. Though slightly under on site coverage and over on landscaping, the landscaped area is private and should be opened up and more inviting to the public. Creek access is important. Kathy felt employee housing was necessary and would like to see it on site. The Talisman parking should also be addressed. No variances on parking should be given. Lodge use is very good. She is looking for the public good in respect to the project. Kathy felt that, because it was a hotel, she was not as concerned with units per acre as she was with GRFA. She did not see much in the way of benefits for the Town. Jay, in response to the employee housing issue, stated that the Faesslers own 24 units in solar Vail as well as some units in Bighorn. Chuck Crist stated that he had always wanted to see the site developed. He had concerns about the tower. He stated that he was not as concerned with setbacks with the exception of Meadow drive. The mass on Meadow Drive needs to be broken up. The loss of landscaping is a problem. He also would like to see employee housing incorporated into the project on site. He felt that the Town would be losing green space and the stream would be blocked from the public and he liked the amount of retail space proposed. He liked the underground parking. Dalton was very concerned with the setbacks as they related to the transfer of open space from public areas to private areas. The 20 foot setback must be maintained. The berm, per the Vail Village Master Plan, should be kept. He felt that the building, along Meadow Drive, should be stepped back in order to avoid a "canyon" affect. He did not feel he could approve the requested setback variances. The parking for the entire project including Talisman and Swiss House must be addressed. • 3 0 Dalton continued by quoting the Vail Village Master Plan Sub -Area #1 -5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway as stating: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site." Dalton felt that the ingress /egress should be on the east side of the Sonnenalp by Village Center (Swiss House) and the planter along Meadow Drive must stay. Dalton also felt that the building should be pulled back to buffer noise from bus traffic. He felt that the gate should be moved east and felt that the mass and bulk was not compatible with East Meadow Drive. Dalton felt that the 48 foot height requirement should be strictly adhered to, a loll tower was out of the question and the King Ludwig deck should be stepped down towards the creek. The deck creates too much of a wall. Dalton felt that the employee housing should be on -site and that the proposal was taking open space and landscaping away from the public. The applicant should put in public spaces, like a stream walk. He commended the Faesslers for being excellent hoteliers. Ludwig complimented the Faesslers for running a "class operation." Ludwig Kurz felt the proposal needed a comprehensive parking plan as well as an access study. He felt he could give some leeway with the height and mass, however, the building still needed work. Ludwig felt that the walkway and loading area were in conflict and need a better interface. Jay stated that the loading area was located by default. Ludwig also felt that the internal open space was maximized at the sacrifice of areas along Meadow Dr. and Vail Road. Diana stated that the proposal disregarded the Vail Village Master Plan. She questioned whether parking for commercial would be accessible and reserved for commercial. Jay said space would be made available to customers. She felt that the building was beautiful but would be more appropriate on large acreage. Diana felt that a streamwalk should be proposed and the parking situation concerned her. Jay explained that he felt the parking regulations pertained to smaller hotel rooms. The proposed parking would work similar to Crossroads and the gate would be relocated. Diana felt that the loading needed to be either moved away from the creek or improved. Parking for Swiss House and Talisman needs to be figured out. The role of the Talisman also needs to be defined. Employee housing must be addressed - perhaps permanently restrict what Sonnenalp already has for employee units. She felt it was important to know what the Talisman's intentions were soon and what would be done. Diana also had concerns regarding the setbacks along Meadow Drive and Vail Road. She didn't have a 4 problem with a variance for an architectural statement, howevor, the height in general must be reduced. Diana was concerned whether an SDD was realy necessary. She questioned the benefit of the project to the public and stated more general public improvements were needed. Kathy Warren felt that and that the applicant pedestrian level. She needed to be addressed felt the commercial sq housing demand. the trash situation needed to be addressed needed to soften the approach at the also felt that new employee housing units in addition to those already owned. She care footage also contributed to employee Jay felt that an additional employee unit requirement would be penalizing the applicant for having the foresight to purchase the units. The applicant purchased the Solar Crest units with the intention of completing the redevelopment currently proposed. Tom Steinberg commented that he felt the proposal was going in the correct direction. He also agreed with Diana that he was not sure an SDD would be needed. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration a site coverage variance, a height variance a landscape variance and a floodplain modification for the Covered Bridge Building, located on Lot C and Lot D and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B all in Block 5 -B Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. Mike Mollica explained that the applicants were proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. The proposal called for major modifications to the front entrance of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces, infill on the north and northwest sections of the existing structure, the addition of an elevator, and the addition of two upper floors. The request .involved 5 separate applications, an exterior alteration request, a site coverage variance request, a height variance request, a landscape variance request, and a floodplain modification request. Mike reviewed the applicable zoning considerations and gave preliminary staff comments. Since this was a work session, no staff recommendations were made. Kathy Warren asked what the allowed GRFA was and Mike explained that the survey was not finished and therefore calculations were not made with regard to GRFA. Ned Gwathmey, project architect, felt that they would be within what was allowed. Ned explained the changes that were made since the staff memo was written. The only issue he felt that the PEC might be concerned about was the height of the new roof line. The new proposal did, however, eliminate the flat roof design. He explained that the 5 S adjacent properties were built prior to the enactment of the height restrictions and most were above the height of the present Covered Bridge Building. Ned stated that the proposal would be in line with the surrounding properties, and that the design did not negatively affect adjacent properties. In fact the proposal could enhance the adjacent properties, for example, the new roof would screen "Pepi's wall." Tom Steinberg, sitting in the audience, said he felt he would have no objections to the height variance due to the fact that the roof would screen Pepi's wall. Dalton Williams encouraged working with the pocket park and extending the stream walk down to the end of the property line, if at all possible, so that it could be continued in the future. Chuck Crist asked if they would be increasing common space and Ned answered "no." However, there would be no decrease in common space either. Chuck asked how the height related to the grade found on Bridge Street and Ned answered that Bridge Street is 6' higher than the grade used to calculate height. Ned also wanted Chuck to bear in mind that the building was stepped back, hence the highest point would be 50' off of the street. Chuck explained that he liked the proposal. He would like to see more flower boxes and perhaps a more Tyrolean look. Ludwig Kurz felt the project looked good. He questioned whether there was any opposition to the project and Mike explained that the proposal had not formally been published since this was simply a work session. Mike explained that he did have one letter at that time from Rod Slifer in favor of the proposal. Kathy Warren asked, if they removed the building area by the park, highlighted in yellow on the plans, including the rear stair, if the project would be in compliance with site coverage. She also stated that she was not comfortable with the height variance but if the Town could end up with a more usable public park she could consider the height variance. She was not comfortable with the site coverage variance. Kathy felt she could not object to the exterior alteration, it was a much needed improvement. Kathy questioned whether the pocket park was identified in the Vail Village Master Plan and Mike explained that it was not addressed. Kathy was concerned about the Bridge Street access to the park and wanted to see more detail. Jim Shearer felt the project was good looking. He liked the roof lines and would like to see more planter boxes. He stated that the reason behind a variance is to improve the property. He would like to see improvements to the streamwalk and to see all evergreens saved or 4 put in for the 2 taken out. He felt there 6 • might be a problem with the floodplain modification. He was concerned with the elevator shaft and water seopago. He had no problem with the height. He would rather have an attractive roof line. He was satisfied with the looks of the proposal. He felt the staff and board needed to look at the view corridor. He liked the way the proposal tiered back from the street with the height. Diana Donovan felt it would be wonderful to get a walkway to Gore Creek Plaza. She felt it would be nice to have jogs, and bay windows on the north side of the building. She felt the access to the park needed to be more enticing. She was not sure about the height. Trade -offs and other considerations such as screening Pepi's building would be a help. She would have a hard time supporting the proposal if the evergreen trees were removed. Mike explained that the Town Landscape Architect felt the trees were -very healthy and would last many years. Diana suggested the use of pavers rather than asphalt in front of the building. Chuck Crist asked about the aluminum siding that was originally proposed and Ned explained that the siding had been changed to wood. The Public Hearing was called to order at 3:10 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Connie Knight was absent. In the interest of time, the board skipped to Item No. 4. The applicants for Items No. 2 & 3 were not present. Item No. 4: A re uest for a conditional use permit for a construction staging area, located Just uphill of the Golden Peak snowmaking um house Tract B Vail Villa e 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Shelly Mello explained that Vail Associates was requesting a conditional use permit for a summer seasonal staging area at the Golden Peak base area for the construction of the Far East Restaurant. The area was located in the Ski Base Recreation zone district. In this zone district, "Summer Outdoor Storage for Mountain Equipment" is an allowed conditional use. The proposed use would be for an office trailer, 12 employee parking spaces for the summer of 1990 and 25 parking spaces for 1991. A limited amount of construction materials would also be located at the staging area. The construction trailer and the building materials would be removed by November 15th of each year. Shelly • 7 • explained that staff was concerned about parking being located on the site and suggested the possibility of located the parking uphill on county land or an alternate area such as the West Day Lot. The staff recommendation was for approval with conditions as found within the memo. Joe Macy explained that the req construct a 500 seat restaurant Vail Associates had received at permits and had no complaints. away from the public by parking areas. The new Village Parking shortage. nest was made in order to at the Far East. He stated that least 2 other conditional use They did not want to take parking their employees in public parking Structure had created a parking Jack Hunn explained that part of the goal was to have visibility for delivery trucks. The other reason was to have a collecting place for employees in order to limit the number of vehicles on the mountain. The applicant had originally looked at using the West Day Lot. However, when the Town of Vail decided to go forth with the parking structure expansion, it was felt that this lot would be needed for public parking. Joe Macy clarified that the staging area was actually downhill of the pumphouse. Kristan Pritz noted that the proposal had stated specifically that the staging would be uphill. i Ludwig Kurz asked if any of the area would be fenced or screened and Jack Hunn explained that the storage area would not be screened. Ludwig saw no problems with having both the storage area and parking on the site. He understood the hardship of staging from two areas. Diana Donovan asked why Vail Associates did not wish to use the Eagle County area uphill since it was already graveled and graded. Dalton Williams had no problem with delivery and staging but wanted the parking hidden. He also wanted to know why the staff conditions of approval included revegetating after the first year. He felt it would be a waste of time and money, for the area would be used for skiing in the winter and reused for staging the next year. He felt it would be sufficient to revegetate in the fall of 1991. Jim Shearer asked why the request was for 12 cars in 1990 and 25 in 1991 and Joe Macy explained that the finish construction which would be done in the second year required more employees. Jim commented that the biggest problem would be how the site would look from I -70. • 8 Diana Donavan felt that if the area was screened she could support the parking of 12 vehicles. She was still unsure about 25 vehicles. Diana also felt that the "dust prevention" statement should state from the "Vista- Bahn ". She commented that she would rather see approval for the staging site come through the Vail board than to deny the request and be proposed to Eagle County and have no control. A motion to approval the requested conditional use permit with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. Conditions: 1. That the staging site be used for construction from June 1, 1990- November 15, 1990 and the -end of the ski season to November 15 1991• and 2. All areas impacted by the construction staging have straw laid at the by November 30, 1990 and be completely reve etated by November 30 1991• and 3. No more than 12 vehicles at any one time, screened in a manner improved by staff in 1990 and no more than 5 vehicles at any 1 time be parked on site in 1991• and 4. A 30' setback be maintained from Mill Creek; and 5. That the applicant treat the road from the Vista Bahn to the staging area to limit the amount of road dust that would result from the increased use of the access road. VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 5: A request for a side and front setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village 9th Filing, 898 Red Sandstone Circle. Applicant: Paul Testwuide Shelly Mello explained that the request was for a garage and entry addition to the north and west sides of the existing residence. The proposed garage had a total area of 526 sq. ft. and would encroach a maximum of 3 ft. into the 15 foot side setback requirement and 2 ft. into the 20 foot front setback requirement. With the exception of the requested variance, all other development standards would be met. The staff recommendation was for approval,of the request with the condition that the easternmost 10' of the existing paved parking area be removed and landscaped. The variance would not be a grant of special privilege and did not impact adjacent properties in a 9 negative manner. The staff felt that the addition of enclosed parking would improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. Galen stated that he had significantly reduced the garage per the board's request at the last meeting. They were simply asking to keep the asphalt. The proposal did add a significant amount of landscaping. They wished to leave the asphalt as a place for the kids to play. Galen also asked to have a little leeway with the setback (inches) in order to avoid having extensive survey work. Kathy Warren asked why the additional 10' of asphalt was needed and Mrs. Testwuide explained that without the additional asphalt they would have no guest parking. Guests would not want to park in front of the garage, therefore blocking the garage. Jim Shearer questioned the landscaping as it was portrayed on the plan. He felt if the 10' area was left, it would look strange. Mrs. Testwuide explained the existing rock wall which framed the portion being spoken of and how the landscape features were planned around the asphalt. Kathy Warren stated that she understood the staff's concerns. However, she could also sympathize with Mrs. Testwuide's concerns. • Chuck Crist, Dalton Williams, and Ludwig Kurz had no concerns. Diana Donovan suggested the applicant reduce the asphalt on the west side of the driveway. A motion to approve the re uested 3' side setback and 2' front setback variances with condition as follows was made by Kathy Warren and Seconded by Jim Shearer per findings C-- 1--- topography. C -2 and C -3.._ conditions: 1. The Design Review Board be asked to look at _eliminating asphalt on the West side of the driveway and landscaping._ VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 6: A request for a front setback variance and a creek setback variance for Lot 6 Vail Village West Filing No 2, 1755 West Gore Creek Drive_ Applicant: Dan and Karen Fore Mike Mollica explained that the applicants were requesting variances from the front setback and the stream setback. They were proposing a major remodel of the existing two - family home 10 which included an attached two -car garage with a secondary, rental unit located above the garage which is required to be restricted per the Town's zoning code. Mike also explained that the lot was severely constrained by the limitations of the setbacks and the remaining buildable area was limited. The lot was also constrained by the existing topography; the average slope beneath the parking area and the proposed garage site was approximately 31 %. The slope did allow the owners to construct a garage in the front setback without a variance. The variance was required due to the proposed secondary unit located above the garage. The staff recommendation was for approval. Staff believed the lot to be encumbered with a physical hardship and believed the siting of the garage had been designed in the most sensitive manner possible. John Perkins, representing the applicant, explained that the home was purchased with the intent of remodeling. The plan was to convert the duplex into one unit and add the garage and caretaker unit. He felt the key points were that the applicant was proposing to upgrade a property and add a much needed employee unit. Kathy Warren felt that the parking asphalt should be decreased to 40' compared to the proposed 50' width. Chuck Crist commented that he liked the plan as presented. Ludwig Kurz also liked the proposal. Jim Shearer agreed with Kathy that the driveway could be decreased in width and John Perkins felt he could adjust the width but felt 40' may be too small. Jim commented that it was part of the job as a Planning commissioner to encourage upgrading, employee housing and covered parking. He could not see any negative impacts and therefore could support the proposal. Diana Donovan concurred with the board. In general, she felt that the PEC was beginning to be too easy with lots that had physical constraints. The zoning regulations were written to address the matters and should be adhered to. to maintain as close to a 40' as possible, was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR • 11 Item No. 7: A re nest for a conditional use permit and a height variance in order to construct an antenna at the Vail Municipal Building, 75 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Police Department C7 • Andy Knudtsen explained that the Police Department proposed to build a tower for a new antenna and microwave dish as part of an improvement to the Emergency Services Communication System. The tower would be 40 feet tall with a 10 foot antenna on top for a total of 50 feet in height. The staff felt that the proposal would have minimal negative impacts and that the overall project would improve the character of the area. The staff recommendation was for approval with conditions as stated in the memo. Kathy Warren felt that the mechanical equipment referred to in the recommended conditions of approval was already supposed to have been removed. Ken Hughy agreed and apologized that it had not already been done. He assured Kathy that it would be done. Dalton Williams was concerned about the proposed height of the tower and Ken explained that he had looked into alternatives; however, cost and the lack of cooperation from the U.S. West building attributed to the proposed location. Ken commented that the long range plans were to relocate the police station and hopefully the move would include moving all the equipment. Kristan wanted the board to understand that the reason staff was recommending approval of the request was because the building was located in the Public Use district, not because the applicant was the Town of Vail. Ludwig stated that he had concerns, however, in light of the safety issues he felt he could support the project. Jim Shearer asked if responded "no." Jim Police Department ads explained that there future. Jim pointed issue for the Design there would be any guide wires and Ken then asked what the chances were of the ling other dishes in the future and Ken were no plans for additions in the near out that the paint color was an important Review Board to consider. Kathy Warren had no comments. Diana felt that the big trees salvaged from the parking structure renovation would be too big and would attract attention rather than divert attention to the tower. She would prefer to see aspens but felt it was a matter better left for the Design Review Board to review. 12 A motion to approve the conditional use permit par the staff memo and staff conditions as follows was made_by_Ludwia Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer. Conditions: 1. Remove unnecessary mechanical eauipment on the roof; and 2. Repair the damaged fence on the northern property line; and 3. Buffer the tower by lantin 3 -5 trees; and 4. Paint the tower, dish, and antenna with a non - reflective, environmentally sensitive paint color Per the Design Review Board approval. VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 8: A request for a side yard setback variance at 4247 . Columbine Drive Unit 20 Bighorn Terrace. Applicant: John Nilsson Shelly Mello explained that the applicant was requesting a variance from the 20 ft. side and rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 101.25 sq. ft. addition on the north side of the building. The variance request was for an 11 ft. encroachment into the 20 ft. rear setback and a 15 €t. encroachment into the 20 ft. side yard setback. Bighorn Terrace is a nonconforming subdivision because it was annexed into the Town and zoned MDMF after it was established. The imposed setbacks greatly limit the locations of possible additions which would not require setback variances. The staff recommendation was for denial of the request. Staff acknowledged that other properties in the Bighorn Terrace subdivision had received setback variances and therefore the variance request was not a grant of special privilege and that although there were exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to the lot which did not generally apply to their properties in the same zone district, a minimum setback should be maintained in order to guarantee a minimum distance between buildings to insure public health , safety, and welfare as well as the fair treatment of all property owners within Bighorn Terrace. If the PEC were to approve the variance request, staff recommended the applicant be required to underground the electrical service from the service pole. • 13 John Nilsson explained that he needed the space to make the home more habitable. He felt the "distance between buildings" rule was unfair since there were many homes much closer together. He felt the addition would improve the area by ridding the junk on his porch. Ludwig Kurz didn't feel the addition impacted neighboring properties in a negative way. He could not see denying the request with the amendment of the code still outstanding. Dalton Williams was also concerned about denying the request without formal policies being in force. He asked where the pole and lines were. He felt it was unreasonable to ask the applicant to underground the wires when it had not been asked in the past. Kristan and Shelly emphasized that when a variance is granted, many times there is a trade -off. In this case, the undergrounding of wires must begin somewhere. Dalton was not in favor of requiring the applicant to underground the wires. He felt he could support a condition that required the applicant to underground the wires at the time that 50% of the residents whose lines were located on the same pole undergrounded their wires. Chuck Crist had no problem supporting the variance requests. He was not in favor of requiring the applicant to underground the is wires. He would rather see increased landscaping. Kathy Warren clarified that the addition would be where the existing deck was located. Because the deck was already there, she would be comfortable with the addition. She would also like to see the undergrounding of utilities. Jim Shearer asked how close the house was to the west and Shelly explained that the distance was 17' staggered but the deck enclosure would not increase the distance. Jim shared Dalton's feeling regarding the undergrounding of utilities though he did agree that the Town should get some type of trade -off in return for a variance. Diana agreed with Kathy Warren in that the utilities needed to be undergrounded. John Nilsson felt it was unfair to require him to underground the utilities until done by all. He explained that, within the last 6 months, there was a committee formed to try and have the lines undergrounded. The committee was unsuccessful. During his activity on the committee, the information he received was contrary. He understood one line at a time could not be • 14 undergrounded. It would have to be a mass project. He stated he would be happy to get bids on the cost, reopen conversation with the association regarding the undergrounding of the utilities, and be willing to spend up to $400.00 to underground the individual utility lines to his unit. A motion to approve the reggested setback variances with conditions as follows per findings A, B, C-1, and C -3 was made by Chuck Grist and seconded by Jim Shearer. Conditions: 1. The applicant obtain 3 bids and agrees to underground utilities if the cost of under rounding was-$400.00 or less. 2. if the cost is over $400.00, the applicant agrees to underground the utilities when the rest of the association does. 3. The applicant agrees to head a committee for Buildings A B, and C in order to approach Holy Cross _Electric and the Town to address the under grounding of the utilities for the prolect as a whole. 0 VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 9: A request for an amendment to SDD No. 23 Vial National Bank Part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 108 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corp. Mike Mollica explained that the application involved two elements, an amendment to the approved development plan to allow for the enclosure of two decks on the third floor of the structure and an amendment to the parking standards of SDD No. 23 in order to provide parking for this proposed addition within the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center. The proposal constitutes a major amendment to an existing SDD. The Planning Commissions action is advisory, and final decisions are made by the Town Council. The staff was supportive of the Vail National Bank's request. Staff was comfortable with the timing of the request and the Modification Agreement and Irrevocable Letter of Credit. Staff felt that the joint -use parking arrangement was very reasonable. The staff recommendation carried conditions as found within the memo. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that the applicant had waited for the Medical Center to get approval for the additional spaces and begin construction before they returned . to the PEC. He felt the timing was now right. 15 • • Kathy Warren agreed the timing was right and Jim Shearer agreed. Dalton Williams questioned, since the applicant was purchasing extra spaces, if the board could require them to delete a space that he felt was unsafe located on the front lot. Discussion centered around the issue and it was decided that the board did not have the authority to require the removal of the space. A motion to approve the re uests Rer staff memo and conditions as follows was made by Ludwig Kurz and seconded by Dalton Williams. Conditions: 1. The Town of Vail will not issue a Temporary Certificate of occupancy to the Vail National Bank for the enclosure of the two balconies), until, such time as the Medical Center receives a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the parking structure. 2. If for some unforeseen reason the Medical Center's parking structure is not completed, the newly constructed deck enclosure shall only be allowed to be used for common storage. The owner shall be required to submit a written agreement addressing this condition on the use of the space for the Town Attorney's review and this shall be recorded, on the land records, at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR • Item No. 10• W m floor, or street level conditional use in the Commercial Core II zone district Section 18.26.040. Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network._ Mike Mollica explained that the applicant was requesting to amend Section 18.26,040 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code in order to add "Television Stations" as a first floor level, conditional use in the Commercial Core II zone district. The current zoning code did not specifically address television stations, however the position of the planning staff had been that television stations fall under the category of professional offices. Professional offices are currently not allowed as permitted or conditional uses on first floor or street level. The staff recommended denial of the applicant's request to modify the Town's Zoning Code. Staff did not support the proposed change in the zoning 16 • code as they felt that the applicant's request was not consistent with the purpose section of the Commercial Core Il zone district. Although staff believed that television stations should be allowable uses in Commercial Core II at basement or second floor levels, staff strongly felt that the proposed use on the first floor was inappropriate. Bill Perkins, President of Vail /Beaver Creek T.V., disagreed with the staff's assumption that a Television Station should fall into the same category as a professional office. First, a television station needed high ceilings. The nature of the business was to cater to and attract the guests of the valley. An open frontage is also very important. He stated that the merchants in the area were very supportive. Bill elaborated that the area they were considering was an area that had been unsuccessful for retail use in the past. Chuck stated that due to the nature of Vail and this proposed T.V. Station, he would tend to support the proposal. However, he was afraid of creating a precedent for other professional offices. Kathy Warren asked staff how the proposal would be handled since T.V. Stations were not directly dealt with in the code and Kristan explained that the staff made the assumption T.V. stations would fall into the same category as professional offices due to similar uses and impacts. Kathy felt she could not support the proposal. Jim Shearer felt he could be supportive of anything that would build clientele in the area but didn't feel a T.V. Station would bring sales tax revenue to the Town. Bill Perkins stated that he understood the board's concerns. However, he needed a temporary solution until the Sunbird was rebuilt. He asked if the board would be supportive if he could make the station first floor without frontage on the mall. It would be difficult for him to operate but felt it could be managed. Kristan felt that it would still be considered first floor level even without the frontage on the mall. Diana commented that it was not appropriate to change zoning for a single applicant. Ludwig Kurz felt that the board was hung up on the definition of street level and stated that the proposed site was, without a doubt, first floor and a T.V. Station should be considered a professional office. He felt the board could not afford to set a precedent. Is 17 i Dalton Williams commented that he had the chance in the past to operate a T.V. Station. He felt the board was missing the point of traffic. If done correctly, a T.V. Station could increase sales tax in excess of what could be generated by a retail store located in the same space. He felt this was the exact kind of conditional use that should be permitted Chuck Crist asked staff if a permanent condition could be put on a conditional use and Diana stated an example from pg 346 of the code, Barber and Beauty Shops, which stated the use would be allowed as long as there was no exterior frontage. Discussion then centered around the possibility of adding T.V. Stations under the same conditions as the Beauty Shops and whether it would be feasible for the applicant. • Kristan commented that if the use was allowed under the Beauty Shop conditions, the space would be taken away from other viable retail shops. A motion to deny the request to amend the zoning code per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. It was requested by the board that the vote be passed on to the Town Council with comments from the board as follows: Chuck Crist - questions whether the proposed use will really draw pedestrians to the area. However, he feels that due to the general resort nature of the Town of Vail and the proposed T.V. station he tends to support the request. - questions whether a conditional use permit process would be more appropriate if the proposal had absolutely no frontage on a pedestrian mall or street. - generally felt that the proposed use was a viable use on first floor in CCII. • Kathy Warren - generally not comfortable with the request. - she believes that the requested use would be better suited to a basement or second floor level and suggested that the applicant pursue an amendment to the zoning code regarding Section 18.24.030(C -6) regarding permitted uses on first floor or street level within a structure, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, where the use does not have any exterior frontage on _a p ublic way, street walkway or mall area. 18 • Jim Shearer - Is in favor of building up the commercial areas in Lionshead, but believes that limited sales tax would be generated by this proposal. - believes that an upper floor location would be more appropriate and feels that an upper floor would provide a better backdrop of the ski area for the T.V. studio. - believes that the proposed use does have marketable value for the Town of Vail but feels that we must guard against setting a precedent with this proposed use. - agrees with Kathy Warren regarding section 18.24.030(C -6) and stressed the need to protect against setting a precedent and feels that he was voting strictly as a Planning Commission member and not with his emotions. Diana Donovan - believes that once this use is listed as a conditional use it would be very difficult to deny a request for such a conditional use. - agrees with Kathy Warren and Chuck Crist regarding Section 18.24.030 (C -6). Ludwig Kurz - agrees with the staff that we cannot afford to set a precedent with the proposed change and is not in favor of the request. Dalton Williams- believes that this proposed use would produce very heavy pedestrian traffic in Lionshead, which would generate sales and sales tax. - believes that this is exactly what the Town of Vail wants. - believes that people will show up for this proposed use. Feels that this is a "dynamite" idea. - believes that this is a proper conditional use. VOTE: 4 -2 WITH DALTON WILLIAMS AND CHUCK CRIST OPPOSED TO THE DENIAL • 19 0 Item No. 11: A request for a conditional use permit for a deck expansion at the Sweet Basil restaurant, located on Tract A,_ Block 5B Vail Village 1st Filing, 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Kevin Clair /Chuck Rosenquist This item was withdrawn, no action was taken. Item No. 12: Scheduling for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II, for the following p roperties 60 -90 day study period): A. Covered Bridge Building - A request for an exterior alteration, a site coverage_ variance and a floodplain modification on Lot C_and Lot D. and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot-B- all in Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. B. Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc. Mike Mollica explained that the request was to schedule a review period. Staff recommended a 90 day review period for the Covered Bridge Building and a 60 day review period for the Montaneros. A motion to set the review periods as recommended by staff was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 13: A request for a variance from the wall height requirement on Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch 805 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola Item No. 14: A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive Part of Tract A Block 5B Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant A motion to table Item No.s 13 and 14 to July 9. 1990 was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR 0 20 Item No. 1: Approval-of minutes from June 4 1990 and June 11 1990 meetings. A motion to a rove the minutes from the June 4 1990 minutes as written was made . by Jim Shearer and seconded by Ludwi Kurz. VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Chuck Crist stated that on page 13 of the 6/11/90 minutes the vote should be adjusted to show that he had abstained. Kathy Warren also had changes to be made on the 6/11/90 minutes and asked if she could make them later and have the minutes resubmitted for approval at the next meeting. Item No. 2: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and 1/2 - Block 5 Vail Villa e Seventh Filing, 1119 Ptarmi an Road. Applicant Monie S. Beal. There were no public comments and the applicant was not present • VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 3• Subdivision 5th Addition 5198 Gore Circle. A licant: John and Paula Cannin There were no public comments and the applicant was not present VOTE: 6 -0 IN FAVOR The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M. 0 21 TO: Planning and Environmental commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp redevelopment and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village 1st Filing. (Site Visit #1, 10:30 a.m.) Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Below is a summary of the request: Establish SDD with underlying Public Accommodation Zoning. Please see attached zoning analysis for comparison of SDD to PA requirements. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 128 units. " Decrease 10 dwelling units to 1 dwelling unit. " Increase commercial space from 5,396 sq. ft. to 14,287 sq. ft. Maintain all units as lodge units except for 1 dwelling unit. Underground all parking. Access to structure will be from Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Existing control gate on east end of Meadow Drive will be moved to the west to allow access. Surface loading will remain on southwest corner of property. " Addition of spa, conservatory and pool amenities inside courtyard. Construct sidewalk along east side of Vail Road. No wood- burning fireplaces are requested except for one lobby fireplace. 0 II. "WING ANALYSI The project departs from the PA standards highlighted in bold type. SONNENALP UNDERLYING ZONING EXISTING PUBLIC ACCOMODATION PROJECT* Site Area: 2.024 acres or 88,165.44 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides Height: 45 ft. mansard roof 48 ft. sloping roof GRFA: 70,532 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 50 units for the site. Site Coverage: 55% of site or 48,491 sq. ft. Landscaping: 30% of site or 26,450 sq. ft. Parking and Per Town of Vail Loading: .parking standards Accessory: 10% of total GRFA Retail, or 7,053 sq. ft. Eating,Drinking, Rea., sq. ft. Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA or 14,106 sq. ft. Same N= Meadow Dr: 20 ft. W =Vail Road: 13 ft. S =Gore Creek: 4.2 ft. E= Talisman: 0 ft. * * ** 30,122 sq. ft. 46 units (72 a.u. & 10 d.u.) 17,984 sq. ft. or 20 % * * ** Required: 105 Provided: 101 5,396 PROPOSED SDD* — Same N = 0 ft. W = 0 ft. S = 0 ft. E = 0 ft. 102 ft. Maximum 72,716 sq. ft. 65 units (128 a.u. & 1 d.u.) 45,685 sq. ft. or 52 � • * * ** Req.: 211 ** or 207 * ** Prop.: 159 spaces 37 valet 196 Total 14,287 20% or 37% or 13,862 sq. ft. 26,163 sq. ft. * All existing and proposed calculations will need to be verified by staff. ** Required parking includes 5% credit for mixed use development per Town of Vail parking Code Section 18.52.120. * ** Allows for non - conforming parking credit. * * ** Information unavailable at this time. 2 III. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN A. Sub-Area _ #1 3. • Sub -Area #1 -3 states: "Commercial infill development with second floor residential /lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and /or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site." Preliminary.-Staff Comments Sub -Area 1 -3: The heights of the building along Vail Road and particularly East Meadow Drive need to be reduced to allow for a more reasonable enclosure of the street. The quality of the pedestrian experience is not enhanced by the proposal due to the lack of landscaping on East Meadow Drive, 0 setback for the building and roof overhang on Town of Vail property, lack of interface with the VVI plaza areas, shade impacts, and concern for snow shedding on pedestrian ways. Simply stated, the mass and bulk of the building overwhelms the smaller scale pedestrian areas on Meadow Drive. More sensitivity to public spaces by using plazas, landscaping, and seating areas is necessary. Although the arcade concept is mentioned in this sub- area, the proposed design creates a barrier to pedestrians trying to reach the commercial areas along East Meadow Drive. It is very positive that the proposal calls for undergrounding all of the surface parking. Staff would like to see all required parking provided on site. Additional loading docks are appropriate as well as more screening and landscaping for loading areas. • 3 More coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and Talisman is necessary. At this time, the Talisman has not submitted a proposal for formal review for any of the access and landscape improvements shown on the Sonnenalp plans. Staff encourages the two owners to work together to address these issues in a comprehensive manner. B . The pedestrianized area of East Meadow Drive will be negatively impacted by moving the control gate to the west to allow for access to the parking structure from the Talisman. Staff realizes the Talisman has an access easement located in the center of East Meadow Drive. However, it is felt that Talisman access can be improved without moving the gate As .far west as is presently proposed. Other options should also be studied which would avoid decreasing the size of the pedestrian mall. This project has the potential to be an exceptional redevelopment that will improve the existing pedestrian experience along East Meadow Drive. However, the reduction of building mass and bulk and more sensitivity to public spaces and landscaping needs are essential to the projects "fitting into" the character of the surrounding area. Emphasized Goal$„ &„ Policies. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2.3 Qbj egtive Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.4 ect' Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 4 . 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5.1 Objective_ Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Preliminary Staff Comments Goals & Object The physical public improvements to the project need to The sidewalk along Vail Road is a be more significant. very good idea. It also appears that a sculpture is proposed on the northwest elevation. More design work is needed to create public spaces. 99% of the units will be lodge units which is very positive. This approach is in concert with objective 2.3. The mix of lodging and commercial is also appropriate and supports Objective 2.4. Staff believes it is appropriate to request that the owner address the employee housing issue by describing employee demand and including employee units within the project (Objective 2.6). Physical improvements to pedestrian ways and landscaping are lacking in this proposal. "Accessible green space areas, including pocket parks, and stream access" per objective 3,4 and 4.1 should be included in the plan. Parking and loading requirements should be met on site (5.1 and 6.1). 5 C. Illustratiye Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. b. South side of sitg, "Medium/High Density R The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to i small amounts of "accessory retail." 2. Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buff @r" is designated on north and west side of site. b. !'Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail. Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to VVI sculpture plaza. c. '!Open Space" is designated along stream corridor. 3. Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a bus route, and Gore Creek Corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. 6 0 4. Building Height Plan: • a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft.) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. (All heights exclude roof forms.) Please note PA zoning also allows a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. Preliminary Staff Comments, Illustrative Plans:. The uses proposed support the Land Use Plan and will add to the vitality of the area. As stated before, additional improvements are necessary to comply with the open space plan. The building must be pulled back form the property to allow for plaza and green space areas, particularly along East Meadow Drive as well as Vail Road. Access to the creek should be studied. The King Ludwig Deck and private pool should be pulled back from the property line along Gore Creek. At present the improvements are within 4 ft. of the property line. In respect to the Building Height Plan, reductions in height are absolutely necessary before staff could consider supporting this proposal. A 102 ft. high tower anywhere on this site is unacceptable and out of character with the surrounding area. Heights must also be lowered along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Heights should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. IV. SDD CRITERIA Rather than go through all of the criteria for the SDD, staff would simply reiterate that many of the concerns raised through the Vail Village Master Plan analysis directly tie to the design criteria used for any Special Development District. Another item that was not addressed by the Vail Village Master Plan is phasing for the project. We are requesting that the applicant submit a phasing plan and a construction management plan so that it can be determined if a "workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District will be maintained. 11 0 7 V. Vi. ,LA ND SE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment. HER 1. Fire Department: There is inadequate fire access to the Sonnenalp and Talisman given this plan. " The entire parcel will need to have fire sprinklers including the Talisman Condominiums due to the proposal. " Water mains in the vicinity will need to be increased in size to handle the project. " Phasing and coordination of Talisman parking needs to be defined and shown in detail. " Existing construction will require fire sprinkling. " Under the existing proposal there is no access to the highest portions of the new building for fire protection. The East Meadow Drive road width should not be reduced to allow for emergency vehicle and bus access. 2. Public Works: " Traffic analysis will be required for access points, Vail Road, and the Four way Stop. " More study is needed concerning Talisman access and impacts on East Meadow Drive. Talisman access and parking plan is required. Building is too close to East Meadow Drive for several reasons: -out of scale with pedestrian area -not sufficient room for landscaping- -trees will grow up against building - canyon effect will be created - severe icing problems 8 • • • " Drainage will have to be addressed Concern about feasibility of excessive valet parking " Sonnenalp will be required to maintain all landscaping to edge of East Meadow Drive via license agreement. " Streamwalk- -Creek access should be considered. VII. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sun /Shade Analysis on East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. 2. Traffic Analysis. 3. Employee Housing Demand Analysis and Proposed Employee Housing. 4. Written statement listing reasons why SDD is necessary and depart from PA zone district requirements. Zoning analysis for SDD compared to PA standards. 5. Written statement comparing proposal to Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies, Sub - Areas, and Illustrative Plans. 6. Written statement addressing phasing for the project and construction management. 7. Revised plans excluding Talisman improvements unless proposal from Talisman is to be reviewed simultaneously. 8. A vicinity plan showing all adjacent properties and buildings particularly VVI, Vail National Bank, Ski Museum Site and Intersection, Talisman, Gore Creek, and Chapel at a minimum scale of 1 50 9. Additional view analyses from: a. Ski Museum pocket park looking toward project (SE) b. Meadow Drive looking East from fire station /bank area to project. C. Bank entry looking east to project. 10. A more detailed landscape plan indicating trees removed, added landscaping, any landscaping on Town of Vail property, water features, artwork, paths, plazas etc. per Section 18.40.050 9 11. EIR should address 18.56.040 requirements below: a. Drainage and any improvements along Creek. b. Air Quality C, Visual Conditions (per request in # 9 of staff list) d. Land Use Plan e. Circulation Pedestrian and Vehicular f. Population densities (per request in # 3 of staff list). 12. Survey should indicate 50 ft. creek setback and creek centerline. 13. Height Analysis using roof plan on survey indicating roof elevations and existing and finished grades. Base elevations must be verified by a surveyor. Existing and finished grades must be indicated on elevation drawings. 14. Site Coverage Analysis for existing and proposed development completed by red - lining survey and proposed site plan. 15. Indicate 20 ft. setbacks on all sides of property on site plan. 16. Square footage - redlined drawings for GRFA, retail, accessory and back of house uses. 17. South elevation drawing and interior courtyard elevations. 18. Identify public benefits resulting from Project. 19. 8 -1/2 "X11" drawings are required for PEC and Town Council. 20. Title report showing ownership and easements. 21. Application fee of $500.00 22. Outside consultant shall be required per section 18.40.130, fees for this project. Jeff Winston will work with the staff on the SDD. The specific amount for the consultant fee will be determined by staff. 10 0 • • • P-1 0 H m ro I 0 w a x w x H 0 0 z 0 0 a w H • ' h- L+ l - •-�,'� „ et a w 0 ;4 t ? . #' : i� d s - � t t -� t P � y F j l 4m } + t x y , y k ` / ■Ir Lo OF ' -1 s Y' gam. � } t rF` ,. = 4r �f :k w3 4 4b.5.: t 2 yy s' a 1 0 f' �3 .s h y , - 4' '14 _ e fi64 �3 .s h y , - 4' 5 '"k�,ii $� � �• 1, ,�"k � - ^y�F y N 5 t Y:i r: Zf 5 •� �i 4 7-1 A A6 :lq 49 �YS �� •t � � t � �i; k Ik ` , J 51.E -.�� . , O r fi AV k N\ 3S T.4R F , i i 54, it s fl y A, i iki �7 r M a: ;, v s.f,. F .:: ,s a i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a work session for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance, a landscape variance and a floodplain modification on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5 -B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street. The proposal calls for major modifications to the front entrance of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces which would be accessible from two stairs directly on Bridge Street, infill on the north and northwest sections of the existing structure, the addition of an elevator at the northwest corner of the building, and • the addition of two upper floors, predominantly located along the west section of the structure. The owner of the Covered Bridge Building has made the following applications with regards to the redevelopment: 1. An exterior alteration request; 2. A site coverage variance request; 3. A height variance request; 4. A landscape variance request; and 5. A floodplain modification request. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following is a preliminary summary of the proposed redevelopment for the Covered Bridge Building. It should be pointed out that these are preliminary figures only, and are subject to verification from a registered surveyor and the planning staff. 1. Site Coverage: Existing = 84% Allowable = 80% • Proposed = 92% 1 • 2. Building Heights: Existing Y 36 ft. Proposed 48 ft. Allowable = 60% of the building may be up to 33' and up to 40% of the building may be higher than 33 but no higher than 43 3. GRFA: Existing = 0 sq. ft. Proposed = 3,740 sq. ft. 4. Flood Plain: The existing 100 -year flood plain, as indicated by FEMA is currently 7.2 inches vertically above the existing grade along the north elevation of the existing building wall. Approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA shall be required. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL 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 ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. IV. PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS The staff has reviewed the applicant's submittal materials and we have the following concerns regarding the application: 1. The removal of the two large evergreen trees adjacent to the north elevation of the building. 2. Encroachment into the 100 -year floodplain. 3. Architectural issues: . a. A proposed flat roof design. 2 J • b. The north elevation wall - we believe does not enhance the pedestrian experience in the adjacent pocket park. We feel that this north wall should be stepped back to provide more openness in the pocket park area. C. We have some concerns with the revised front entry and stairs leading to the proposed retail spaces on the basement level. Pedestrian access and views of the retail spaces are diminished. d. The staff feels that the "broken" top dormers of the building need work. We feel that they are more contemporary in look as opposed to the Urban Design Guide Plan's suggested tyrolean style. e. Larger overhangs should be proposed on the building. We also have some concerns with regard to the extent and placement of the glazing on the east elevation. f. The staff is concerned with the proposed aluminum store fronts. We believe the use of aluminum not to be acceptable in the Village and would recommend a change to this proposed material. 4. Improvements on Town of Vail land immediately north of the Covered Bridge Building (pocket park). The applicant is proposing to upgrade this pocket park area and the Planning Department has hired Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates to act as Town Consultant in the redevelopment of this pocket park site. Currently, there is no design for the pocket park. 5. Sun /shade issues- -staff has requested a sun /shade analysis. 6. Building height concerns. Staff prefers to see the height requirements met and encourages the applicant to redesign the roof to avoid the height variance. 7. View Corridors - -the applicant has hired Eagle Valley Engineering to determine whether the proposed structure encroaches into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. 8. In summary, the applicant is requesting three variances and a floodplain modification. Staff strongly encourages the applicant to redesign the proposal in order to avoid the number of requests. is 3 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot 6, Block 5, Vail Village 7th Filing, 1119 E. Ptarmigan Road. Applicant: Monie S. Beal I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail with certain criteria. The definition given in that ordinance states that "A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use." A Bed and Breakfast may short term rent separately up to 3 bedrooms or a maximum of 900 square feet of the dwelling • unit. Ms. Beal has applied for a conditional use permit to allow her to use two bedrooms in her home in a Primary /Secondary zone district for a Bed and Breakfast rental. The bedrooms contain a total of 568 sq. ft. Two guests could stay in each bedroom for a total of 4 guests. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. • 1 • 2. The effect of the use on light and air distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Four guests can be accommodated is unlikely that there would be guest vehicles. There is a bus away. It is felt that the impa. parks and recreation facilities transportation facilities would at one time and it more than two stop 1 1/2 blocks at on the use of and on be minimal. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian_sa_fety__a_nd convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. It is likely there would be two additional vehicles driving to the Beal residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4. 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. The staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail _Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Operations shall be sublect_tothe following requirements_ a. Off- -street designated parking shall be required as follows: one space for the owner/proprietor plus . one space for the first bedroom rented plus 1/2 space for each additional_ bedroom rented. The Beal property contains more than the required 3 parking spaces. 0 2 • b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. Ms. Beal does have enclosed trash facilities with covered containers and regular garbage removal service. C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged. There will be no removal of landscaping. d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name plate sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code. Ms. Beal is not applying for a name plate sign at this time. • e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use Property or facilities owned in common or jointly with other property owners such as parking spaces or a driveway in duplex subdivisions by way of example and not limitation the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a conditional use permit. Not applicable. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional_ use permit for a Bed and Breakfast operation_ A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 0 3 �� IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff recommends approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met. • • 4 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Filing, 5198 Gore Circle. Applicants: John and Paula Canning I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail with certain criteria. The definition given in that ordinance states that "A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use." A Bed and Breakfast may short term rent separately up to 3 bedrooms or a maximum of 900 square feet of the dwelling unit. The Cannings have applied for a conditional use permit to allow them to use two bedrooms in their home in a Single Family zone district for a Bed and Breakfast rental. The bedrooms contain a total of 300 sq. ft. Two guests could stay in each bedroom for a total of 4 guests. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. • 1 . 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities utilities schools parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Four guests can be accommodated is unlikely that there would be guest vehicles. There is a bus away. It is felt that the impa parks and recreation facilities transportation facilities would at one time and it more than two stop one block c:t on the use of and on be minimal. 3. Effect upon traffic with - particular_ reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. It is likely there would be two additional vehicles driving to the Canning residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4. 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. The staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed asa conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Operations shall be subiect to the following requirements: a. Off- street designated parking shall be required as follows: One space for the owner/proprietor plus one space for the first bedroom rented-plus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom rented. The Canning property contains more than the required 3 parking spaces. 0 2 . b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. The Cannings have trash facilities in covered containers in an enclosed trash facility and regular garbage removal service. C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged_ There will be no removal of landscaping. d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name Mate sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code_ The Cannings are not applying for a name plate sign at this time. e . limitation the written approval of the other • property owner, owners or applicable owners' association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a conditional use permit. Not applicable. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for a Bed and Breakfast operation: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. • If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use property or facilities owned in common or • TV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff recommends approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met. LJ 0 4 . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit for a construction staging area, located just uphill of the Golden Peak snowmaking pumphouse, Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Vail Associates is requesting a conditional use permit for a summer seasonal staging area at the Golden Peak base area for the construction of the Far East Restaurant. The area is located in the Ski Base Recreation zone district. In this zone district, "Summer Outdoor Storage for Mountain Equipment" is an allowed conditional use. The construction will take place between June 1 and November 15, during the summers of 1990 and 91. The staging area will be located just uphill of the existing snowmaking pumphouse at Golden Peak near the Town of Vail and Eagle County boundaries. Access will be on the an existing service road which crosses • under the Vista Bahn. An office trailer will be located temporarily on the site; 12 employee parking spaces have been requested for the summers of 1990 and 25 for 1991; and a limited amount of construction materials will be located at the staging area. No helicopters will be used. The construction trailer and the building materials will be removed by November 15th of each year that the permit is issued for. All disturbed area will be revegetated as needed. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The site will be used for a staging area for the expansion of the Far East restaurant. This project was identified in Vail Associates' Master 0 1 . Plan for Vail Mountain. The Town took part in this planning process with both VA and the Forest Service. The Town encourages and supports the improvements of the on- mountain facilities which contribute to the overall experience of the Vail visitor. No construction or staging will take place at the Golden Peak base area. 2. The effect of the use on liaht and air distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The staff finds that the request to park vehicles at the staging area will have negative visual impacts. We feel employee parking is an inappropriate use for this recreation area. The proposed parking area is visible from the Gold Peak and Mill Creek Circle residential /lodging areas and the upper floors of the Mountain Haus. The staff finds two options available to the applicant. First, they may provide employee parking in an existing Vail Associates employee parking area, (i.e. the North Day Lot, West Day Lot, etc.). In staff's opinion, this approach could be used without taking away public parking for this summer when the Village Structure is under construction. Employees could then be carpooled in a van to Far East. It is our understanding that whether employees park at the proposed Gold Peak site or another outlying lot, V.A.'s intention is to bus the employees up to Far East each day. This in turn would limit the number of vehicles needing access to the mountain area and would also limit the visual and environmental impacts that would result from the high use of this area. Second, the applicant may use the area to south of the proposed staging area for parking. A flat gravel area already exists. This area is located in unincorporated Eagle County and Vail Associates would need to get the proper approvals from them concerning this use. This area is less visible from the Town and is better suited for parking. if this area is uses, we would strongly recommend that V.A. treat this parking area for dust control. • 2 . There will be no effect upon any of the other factors named above. All access will be taken from an existing service road located below the Vista Bahn. Regardless of the parking solution, the staff recommends that the applicant treat the road surface to limit the amount of road dust that will result from the use of this road. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control access maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The staff feels that the request for a staging area is appropriate. However, we do not support the request for 12 -25 on -site parking spaces. We feel that there are other viable options available to the applicant that would satisfy the parking needs for this project. In addition, the staff is concerned with the permanent environmental impacts in regards to soil contamination that may result from parked vehicles that are leaking fluids. • This site is also a recognized trail area for both mountain bikers and hikers. We feel that it is important to the safety of the users to limit the number of vehicles that will be located on site. With the limited vehicular access, there will be no impact on any of the other above factors. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the Rroposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed staging area is located uphill from the existing pumphouse. The area is somewhat screened from the Gold Peak and the Mill Creek Circle neighborhoods by existing topography and vegetation and will not be visible from the Vail Village area. However, the staff finds that the use of area to park 12-25 vehicles would have negative visual and environmental impacts upon the character of the area. • 3 • IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental_ Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. That the staging site be used for construction from June 1- November 15, 1990 and 91; and 40 2. All areas impacted by the construction staging be revegetated by November 30 of each permitted year; and 3. No more than 5 vehicles be parked in the area at any one time; 4. A 30' setback be maintained from Mill Creek; and 5. That the applicant treat the road to limit the amount of road dust that will result from the increased use of the access road. The staff recognizes the importance of an easily accessible staging area for mountain expansion. Staff strongly supports the applicant's intent to improve the on- mountain guest services. In the past, requests dealing with the expansion of the ski area have been supported by the staff and approved by the Planning Commission. However, with the increased numbers of visitors to Vail and the increased use of Vail Mountain during the summer months, the staff feels that it is important to limit the vehicular access and parking for this area. • 4 uu i � �s M I V4 CI I R V4 . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the side and front setback requirement of the two - family residential zone district for Lot 7, Block 3 of Vail Village 9th Filing (898 Red Sandstone Circle) Applicant: Paul Testwuide I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED This request is for a and west sides of the garage has a total ar maximum of 3 ft. into and 2 ft. into the 20 the exception of this development standards garage and entry addition to the north existing residence. The proposed as of 526 sq. ft and will encroach a the 15 foot side setback requirement foot front setback requirement. With variance request, all other will be met. The site is currently occupied by a single family structure located in the duplex zone district. The building has a • GRFA of 1990 sq. ft. with an allowed GRFA of 3212 sq. ft. and a total site area of 12,850 sq. ft. The applicant's request will add 108 sq. ft. of additional GRFA to the unit. The garage has a total are of 526 sq. ft. The current 1108 sq. ft. of site coverage will be increased to 1776 sq. ft. with the proposal. It is allowed a total of 2470 sq. ft. of site coverage. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance is other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity._ The addition problems to structures i likely to be home on Lot • The existing of the garage should not create any existing or potential uses or n the vicinity. The property most affected would be a single family 8 to the west of the proposed garage. residence on Lot 8 is approximately 1 • 15' from the edge of pavement to the north. The proposed garage would be approximately 12 feet from the west property line and 30' from the south edge of pavement. No trees or shrubs will be removed to accommodate the addition. The applicant has proposed additional landscaping. 2. The dearee to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant-of _special _ privilege. The staff recognizes that the siting of the existing building does constitute a physical hardship. Because of the existing location of the house in the upper center of the lot, the applicant would require a setback variance for any garage that is located on the front (north) side of the property. The only way to avoid a variance would be to construct a long driveway to access a garage on the southwest corner of the site. This approach is unreasonable and would have negative impacts on the neighbors on Lot 8. The applicant has adjusted the location and size of the proposed 40 garage to minimize the encroachment necessary into the front setback. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff finds that the requested variance will have a positive effect upon public safety, transportation and traffic facilities by providing enclosed parking that is out of the public right - of -way. The proposal will have no significant effect upon any of the other above issues. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. • 2 • B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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. 0 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the easternmost 10' of the existing paved parking area be removed and landscaped. The variance is not a grant of special privilege and does not impact adjacent properties in a negative manner. We find that there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not generally apply to other properties in this same district. The staff feels that the addition of enclosed parking will improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. With the garage addition, there will be a maximum 5 vehicle parking spaces provided on site. The staff finds that the garage and entry area have been located so that the encroachment to the side and front setback have been minimized. • 3 C - 2.b -0,�L V LOT L J - N. Lo7 '7 �n �� ral LOT 1 SITE PLAN f - 2 - o ' • • rx,1 i�w.n�eM4Y E -v U.'l, Hrj _-- c NORTH ELEVATION AK -o ,ry - ;� • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for a front setback variance and a creek setback variance for Lot 6, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, 1755 West Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicants are the owners of an existing single - family home located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive. The applicants are requesting variances from Section 18.13.060 of the Primary /Secondary Residential zone district with regard to the front setback and from Section 18.58.300 regarding setbacks from a water course, more specifically the 50' setback from the centerline of Gore Creek. The Forey's are proposing a major remodel of the existing single - family home and in addition they are proposing an attached two -car garage with a secondary, or caretaker, rental unit located above the garage. The owners are required to restrict the secondary unit, per Section 18.13.080 (B,10) of the Town's zoning code. The property is zoned Primary /Secondary and as such the setback requirements are 20' from the front property line and 15' from each side property line. Also, the setback requirement from Gore Creek is 50' from the centerline of the creek. The applicant's requests are to allow an 18' encroachment into the front setback and a 9' encroachment into the stream setback. As indicated on the attached site plan, the lot is severely constrained by the limitations of the setbacks and the remaining buildable area is limited to a small triangular site. The property is also constrained by the existing topography; the average slope beneath the parking area and the proposed garage site is approximately 31 %. This slope does allow, however, for the owners to construct a garage in the front setback without a variance. The applicant's desire is to place a secondary, rental unit over the garage. This additional unit requires that a variance be obtained because of the additional GRFA in the front setback. The existing structure currently encroaches into the west side yard setback as well as the stream setback along Gore Creek. Parking for the residence is currently provided by an existing asphalt, surface parking area immediately southeast of the existing home. • 1 • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Area: 11,089 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA: 2,772 sq. ft. Proposed GRFA: 2,641 sq. ft. Site Coverage (15% maximum) Allowable: 1,663 sq. ft. Site Coverage Proposed: 1,659 sq. ft. With the exception of the front setback variance request, the stream setback variance request, and a portion of the surface parking being in the right -of -way (the Town Engineer has approved of this parking), all other development standards for this property have been met. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: • 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Department of Community Development strongly believes that the requested variances will have a positive impact on the immediate neighborhood. We believe that the variance requests are very reasonable in that the existing site is highly constrained by the location of Gore Creek as it parallels the north end of the property. We believe this request to be positive because all the existing vegetation on the site will be preserved. Specifically, all the large evergreen trees located immediately north of the proposed garage and secondary unit structure will be preserved. LJ We believe that the variance and stream not adversely affect adjacent property. requested front setback setback variance request would the privacy or use of any FA . 2. 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._ 0 3. The Town Planning Staff believes that relief from the strict setback requirements are reasonable in order to sensitively place development on this lot, and to provide accessible covered parking for the property. The Town Planning Staff has historically been supportive of requests for the addition of covered parking. In this particular situation, given the present siting of the existing house, the location of the Water Department pump building on the east property line, the steep grades on the site, the locations of existing vegetation and the location of Gore Creek and the 100 -year floodplain, we feel that the requests for the variances are reasonable. The staff believes that the literal enforcement of the zoning code regarding these setbacks would present a hardship upon the applicant. We also feel that the limitations on this property, as noted above, also present a physical hardship. The staff finds no significant impacts with regards to any of the above criteria. The Town of Vail Public Works Department has reviewed this request and has no problems with the location of the proposed garage into the front setback or the parking that encroaches into the right -of -way. III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Section 1.3 of the Town's Land Use Plan states: "The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." The Town Staff believes that the addition of covered parking on this lot certainly supports the upgrading policy. • 3 utilities, and public safety._ IV. FINDINGS • The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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 recommendation, of the requested encroachment into the front setback and the stream setback, is for approval. We believe this lot to be encumbered with a physical hardship, due to the extreme slopes on the site, the location of existing trees and the location of Gore Creek. We believe that the siting of the garage has been designed in the most sensitive manner possible, given the existing site constraints. The staff believes there to be no significant impacts adjacent properties and that due to the physical site constraints, approval of this request would not be a of special privilege. 0 to grant 4 All r t oo r ' r I11 • I' 11 u v y N _ 1 li 1 A w r, - i. S � 5 .1 r� (ti - r { l r [ 1 �L' _ � Y 1 • in 1 TV OAS I�MMNEEM Wliv t� I 0 1 � ��z r ;1 ' 1 p ! 1111 C � S W l � i i • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission is FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit for an antenna and tower to be located at 75 S. Frontage Road, Vail Municipal Building. Applicant: Town of Vail Police Department I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant proposes to build a tower for a new antenna and microwave dish as part of an improvement to the Emergency Services Communication System. The tower will be 40 feet tall with a 10 foot antenna on top for a total of 50 feet in height. There will be one 2 foot diameter microwave dish located at a height of 35 feet. The triangular tower will be mounted on a 4 foot square, cement foundation located 17 feet north of the Council Chambers and 30 feet west of the existing Police Department tower and antenna (see attached site plan). The purpose of this project is to improve the Emergency Services Communication System. The center is currently . housed within the Vail Police Department and provides emergency services to dispatching operations for eastern Eagle County. In order to send and receive signals on numerous frequencies from the center to the outlying transmitter sites, the Town currently uses a combination of antenna and cable connections. The new tower with the microwave dish will improve the system by eliminating much of the cable links. This proposal is a conditional use application because the Town Municipal Building is located in the Public Use zone and public service facilities are only allowed in that zone as a conditional use (See Section 18.36.030, F). The Town of Vail Zoning Code does not provide specific development standards for setbacks, height, site coverage etc. for the Public Use District. As a result, the PEC must use the criteria found in the conditional use section of the code to determine if the proposal is reasonable. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 16.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: 0 1 • A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact_of_ the use on development objectives _of_ the Town. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and general provisions of the Zoning Code Section 18.02.020, B2 concerning safety and the need for emergency communication systems. That section of the code states that: "These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions;" 2. The effect of the use on light and air distribution of population, transportation facilities utilities schools parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Since the tower and new equipment will improve emergency service to eastern Eagle County, the planning staff believes that the use will have a positive effect on the above referenced Town services. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular_ r eference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control access maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. This project will have no affect on any of the above criteria. 4. 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._ The character of the area is automobile oriented as it is surrounded by I -70 to the north, Vail Road to the east, and the South Frontage Road to the south. The antenna will be primarily visible from the interstate and the exit ramp. Staff looked at other options for the tower location during the review. However, a key factor in the • 2 discussions is the minimum height of the microwave dish necessary to align with the microwave dish mounted on Vail Mountain. As a result, this proposed location, which has the highest elevation, results in the shortest tower. The north side of the building is also a good location for the new tower because it is the least visible. It will, however, be visible from both the east and west bound traffic lanes on I -70. In an effort to make this area of the Town Municipal Complex as attractive as possible to drivers on I -70, approval of this project will be contingent upon the Police Department improving the area in three ways. A platform used to measure air quality will be removed since there is now a newer apparatus on the roof for this function. The Police Department will also repair the chainlink fence along the northern boundary of the site. The third improvement to the character of the area will be new trees planted to buffer the area. Staff has discussed a plan for 3 -5 trees to be planted in the State Highway right -of-- way and will work with the Colorado Division of Highways for their approval to use the right --of -- way. is IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 0 3 0 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • The Planning Staff believes that this proposal will have minimal negative impacts and that the overall project will improve the character of the area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit with the following conditions. Prior to operating the newly installed equipment the applicant shall: 1. Remove unnecessary mechanical equipment on the roof; 2. Repair the damaged fence on the norther property line; 3. Buffer the tower by planting 3 -5 trees; 4. Paint the tower, dish, and antenna with a non - reflective paint color. • 0 4 a r C in • D n rri U) 0 D 0 KII (P n r m O C Y n 11 r ar 0 z ID 'O Z O t" O z m rn E � D N z m-4 m z z D 7u 0 70 0 0 C) x rn � o r O -n itT �tT 7u 0 70 0 0 • • rn F9 E rn N m rn T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a side and rear setback variances to the Medium Density Multi- family zone district on Lot 20, Bighorn Terrace (4247 Columbine Way) Applicant: John and Enid Nilsson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is the owner of Unit 20 in the Bighorn Terrace subdivision which is located on Columbine way. The existing duplex unit consists of approximately 706 sq. ft. of GRFA and has an allowed GRFA of 659 sq. ft. under Medium Density Multi - Family (MDMF) zoning. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 20 ft. side and rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 101.25 sq. ft. addition on the north side of the building. The addition will involve adding a 81.25 sq. ft. . dining area and a 20 sq.ft. storage area on the rear of the building. The variance request is for an 11 ft. encroachment into the 20 ft. rear setback and a 15 ft. encroachment in to the 20 ft. side yard setback. II. BACKGROUND Bighorn Terrace is a nonconforming subdivision because it was annexed into the Town and zoned MDMF after it was established. Under the MDMF zoning, 20 ft. setbacks on the front, rear and sides were imposed on the existing lots. Unit 20 currently encroaches 8 ft. into the rear setback and 12 ft. into the side setback at the second level. These imposed setbacks greatly limit the locations of possible additions which would not require setback variances. The applicant has also applied for additional GRFA (250 sq. ft.) under Section 18.71.020 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. • 1 Recently, both the PEC and the Town Council have reviewed a setback request for Unit 7 located in this same subdivision. In addition to the setback variance, the applicant also received approval for an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA as allowed under Section 18.71.020 of the Vail Municipal Code. The staff recommended denial of the variance request on the basis that the variance would be a grant of special privilege in that there are no 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 district. However, the PEC approved the request by a vote of 7 -0 stating that indeed the applied MDMF Zoning was a hardship for this property. The PEC also commented that the addition made sense in this location since 31' would remain between buildings after the addition. The Town council also reviewed this item and approved it by a vote of 6--0 siting again the hardship being the imposed zoning. They directed the Planning Staff to investigate zoning code changes that would take into account the unique situation in relation to the setback in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. This recommendation is based on a review of previous variances and the desire to maintain a reasonable distance between buildings. The staff has not yet amended the code, however we have made a preliminary decision that would allow for 7.5 ft. setback requirements and that would thus insure a minimum distance between buildings of 15 feet. Most of the units already encroach into the setbacks and are situated at various angles on each lot. Each unit normally has a party wall but is actually located on a separate lot. It may also be appropr ate to reduce, if not eliminate, the setback from the inalrtior property line i.e. party wall. Staff believes this approach treat property owners fairly regardless of when they decide to expand and insures a reasonable amount of separation between units. We also discussed the option of requiring a minimum distance between buildings. It was decided that this requirement favored property owners that expanded first and made it difficult for adjacent properties to expand in the future. • 2 0 III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The 101.25 sq. ft. addition in the proposed location should not create any problems to existing or potential uses or structure in the vicinity. The property most likely to be impacted would be Lot 15 to the rear and lot 21 to the west. The existing building encroaches 8' into the 20 ft. rear setback and is approximately 22 ft. from unit 15 to the rear. It encroaches 12 ft. into the side setback at the second level and is approximately 17 ft. from Unit 21 to the west. The requested variance will allow the corner of the proposed first story addition to be within 9 ft. of the rear property line and 5 ft. of the • west property line. The resulting distance between buildings would be 19 ft. between unit 15 and 20. There would be no significant change in the distance between units 21 and 20. 2. The dearee to which reli from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement _ofa 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 lot is greatly limited by the imposed setbacks. However, the staff feels that the proposed addition will not maintain the minimum setback of 7.5 ft. that the staff is recommending as a guideline. Over the past 13 years there have been 9 requests for setback variances in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. Of the 9, 4 have been recommended for denial and all have been subsequently approved by the PEC. The following details the activity in this area: 3 • 4 VARIANCE REQUEST HISTORY OF BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION TYPE OF AMOUNT OF STAFF PEC DATE APPLICANT --- REQUEST VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION ACTION Mar 77 Benysh GRFA 130 sq. ft. Approval Approval Setback 8 ft. Approval Approval May 78 Rowe GRFA 473 sq. ft. Denial Approval Setback 7.5 ft. Denial Approval July 78 Alder GRFA 75 sq. ft. Denial Approval Setback 8 ft. Denial Approval Aug 78 Turnbull Setback 7 ft. Approval Approval Aug 80 Curfman GRFA 177 sq. ft. Denial Approval Aug 82 Odum GRFA 122 sq. ft. Denial Tabled Setback 18 ft. Approval Tabled Sept 82 Odum Setback 18 ft. Approval Approval for airlock Nov 83 Houston GRFA 80 sq. ft. Denial Approval . Setback 16 ft. Denial Approval Feb 85 Sherr GRFA 50 sq. ft. Denial Approval 3 setbacks 3, 11, 13 ft. Approval Approval June 85 Nicholson GRFA 395 sq. ft. Denial Denial* Setback (adding 3rd floor) Approval Approval April 90 Benysh Setback 15 feet rear Denial Approved ** 13 feet side * The applicant modified the application to conform to the requirements of Section 18.71.020 and received an allowance for an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA. ** Received allowance for allowance 250 sq. ft. under Section 18.71.020. • 4 3. 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 finds that the request will not have any significant effect upon any of the above considerations. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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. • 5 • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for denial of the request for a 15 ft. encroachment into the 20 ft. side setback requirement and 11 ft. encroachment into the 20 ft. rear setback requirement. Staff acknowledges that other properties int he Bighorn Terrace Subdivision have received setback variances and therefore this variance request is not a grant of special privilege. The staff feels that although there are exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to Lot 20 which do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district, a minimum setback should be maintained in order to guarantee a minimum distance between buildings to insure public health, safety, and welfare as well as the fair treatment of all property owners within Bighorn Terrace. The proposed addition will encroach 15 ft. into the side setback which is not an acceptable minimum to the staff. If in fact the PEC approves the variance requests, the staff feels it is appropriate to require the applicant to underground their electrical service from the service pole to unit 20. L� • 11 0 ti LLJ C) Ct- LO f-A S 4 0" E 56. 9,3 26.51 30.42 L4DJ, SLOG, -XL Fl- K da 1.9 r te , n. ef" S.P&SETO ()o LO jD Cr ___ f co LWOOD DECK r2 � ASPHAL .P-nGE� - 2,9.87 50 '35 0 w N pR (50) U 6.DMFL Jerf��_r Govr-,gt D 5ZTr_ VkrrjP,e m • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for an amendment Bank, Part of Lot D, Block 108 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Vail National to SDD No. 23, Vail National 2, Vaal. Village 2nd Filing, Bank Building Corp. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REQUEST The current application before the Planning Commission involves two elements: 1. An amendment to the approved development plan to allow for the enclosure of two decks on the third floor of the structure. This will add 1,276 square feet of office space to the building, resulting in a total amount of 23,205 square feet. This request is similar to the plan reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission in February of 1990. • 2. An amendment to the parking standards of SDD No. 23 in order to provide parking for this proposed addition within the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center. If approved, this office expansion would be completed at approximately the same time as the hospital's parking structure. The applicants have agreed that no occupancy of the new office space would occur prior to Vail National Bank's use of its parking spaces located in the Medical Center's parking structure. The anticipated completion date of the Medical Center's parking structure is December 20, 1990. The amount of required parking for the proposed addition is six spaces. The Vail National Bank is purchasing 8 spaces, and has optioned 4 additional spaces, in the Medical Center's parking structure. The Medical Center has a surplus of 12 parking spaces. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1. This property was rezoned to a Special Development District in May of 1989. This rezoning permitted an addition to the existing building of approximately 1,800 square feet, which has been completed. All parking was provided on -site. • 1 • 2. In September of 1989, a minor amendment to the SDD was approved to allow for an addition of 218 square feet to the third floor. This space is to be created by converting an existing common corridor into office space. This new office space will generate the need for one additional parking space and the Vail National Bank proposes to relocate an existing condensing unit, on the southeast corner of the site, and convert the space into a parking stall. To date, this construction has not been done. 3. February 26, 1990 - -A request was presented to the PEC to expand office space by enclosing two third floor decks, as with the current proposal. However, the applicant wished to utilize the office space before the parking was available in the Medical Center's parking structure. An option to lease parking spaces from the Holiday inn was proposed as an interim parking solution. By a vote of 4 -2--1 the PEC recommended approval of the request with conditions as follows: a. 5 parking spaces be designated, rather than 4. b. The Town Attorney shall review the purchase or lease agreement between the Vail National Bank and the Vail Valley Medical Center. 4. March 20, 1990- -The Council voted 6 -1 to deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1990 on first reading. The Council's concerns were limited to the timing of the construction at the bank before the parking spaces would be available at the Medical Center. 5. April 9, 1990- -The PEC, by a unanimous vote of 7--0, approved a Conditional Use Permit to add two new half levels of parking and a Learning Lab to the Vail Valley Medical Center's parking structure. This approval provided a surplus of 12 parking spaces at the Medical Center. III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL This proposal constitutes a major amendment to the existing SDD. In this case, the Planning Commission's action is advisory, and final decisions are made by the Town Council. The criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal are the nine design criteria of the SDD section of the zoning code. These design criteria address a variety of issues, including design compatibility, uses, parking, compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, site planning, etc. As with all SDD's, the specific development standards on this property 0 2 are established by the approved development plan and the ordinance approved by the Council. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that their proposed development plan complies with each of the nine design criteria, or demonstrate that they are not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Desian compatibility and sensiti to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The staff believes this proposed addition of 1,276 sq. ft. of office space to be consistent with all of the above named criteria. The design is compatible with the existing structure, the scale and bulk of the building is not appreciably increased, and the visual integrity of the existing structure will be maintained. B. Uses activity and density which provide a compatible efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed office use of this new space will be consistent with the existing office.uses in the structure, and we believe the request to enclose the two decks and convert them to office space will have no impact on surrounding uses and activities. In the event that the parking structure is not completed for some unusual reason, the space could be used for common storage instead of a use that has a parking demand. Staff prefers this alternative to requiring a letter of credit to remove the space. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. This criteria references the parking section of the zoning code as a basis for evaluating development proposals. The parking section of the code states that all required parking should be located on -site. The Town Council can grant exceptions and allow off site parking if certain criteria are met. In addition, it should be understood that the design criteria can be waived if "a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." 0 3 There is a specific process outlined in the code for I s leasing parking spaces_ This proposal is consistent with this process, and because this property is an SDD, the proponent can establish its own standards for parking. This means that the applicants are within their rights to request approval of the parking solution as proposed. The staff is supportive of the request to locate six spaces within the Medical Center's parking structure. This appears to be a workable situation considering the close proximity of these two sites and the relatively small number of parking spaces involved. The Medical Center's parking structure is currently under construction and according to Dan Feeney, project manager for the parking structure, the construction is currently on schedule for a December 20, 1990 completion. According to Mr. Feeney, this date could move up to the end of November if the weather cooperates. Attached is a Modification Agreement, as well as an irrevocable Letter of Credit from Vail National Bank, which indicates the exercise of the Bank's option to purchase parking spaces in the Medical Center's parking structure. Although the Bank's additional parking requirement is 5 parking spaces, the Bank is purchasing 8 spaces and has optioned 4 additional spaces in the Medical Center's parking structure. In addition, we believe it is positive that the bank purchases two additional spaces beyond what is required by the Town of Vail parking code. The project seems to generate an usually high parking demand even though technically the project meets the code. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The staff believes that the proposal is in conformance with the existing Town of Vail Land Use Plan and we believe the following sections of the Land Use Plan to be applicable to this proposal: 1.1: Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 0 4 1.3: The quality of development should maintained ID and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12: Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). F. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or g eologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the Vail National Bank property. F. Site plan. buildina desian and location and oven space p rovisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic cruality of the community. This proposal constitutes no change to the existing building design, site plan, and open space provisions. G. A circulation system desianed for both vehicles and pedetrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. i Not applicable. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation views and functions. Not applicable. I. throughout the development of the special development district. Not applicable. 0 5 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is supportive of the Vail National Bank's request for an amendment to SDD No. 23. We are now comfortable with the timing of the request and the Modification Agreement and Irrevocable Letter of Credit. We feel that the joint -use parking arrangement is very reasonable, given the close proximity of the neighboring parking structure and the fact that this area has been planned in a manner that integrates the Doubletree, Hospital and Bank sites. The Doubletree has also received approval to locate parking in the hospital structure. The staff recommendation for approval carries the following conditions: - The Town of Vail will not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to the Vail National Bank (for the enclosure of the two balconies), until such time as the Medical Center receives a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the parking structure. - If for some unforeseen reason the Medical Center's parking structure is not completed, the newly constructed deck enclosure shall only be allowed to be used for common storage. The owner shall be required to submit a written agreement addressing this condition on the use of the space for the Town Attorney's review and this shall be recorded, on the land records, at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. • 6 r e ' ' t oo �v VAIL NATIONAL BANK IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT Irrevocable Letter of Credit May 9, 1990 Dumber : 104 Expiration Date: May 9, 1991 Vail Clinic, Inc. 181 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: We hereby open our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor available by draft or drafts at sight drawn on Vail National Bank and any sum or sums not exceeding in total the sum of Ninety Three Thousand seven Hundred Forty Four and no /100. This Letter of Credit is for the account of VNB Building Corporation. The purpose of this Letter of Credit is to guarantee the purchase of eight parking places in the parking structure being constructed. This Letter of Credit may be drawn upon by Vail Clinic, Inc, if Vail. Clinic, Inc. has provided VNB Building Corporation with the following: A. Evidence that its parking structure is completed. B. Delivery of a valid certificate of insurance covering such parking structure. C. A final Certificate of Occupancy for the parking structure. Upon receipt of the above documents, VNB Building Corporation failed to pay the sum of $93,744.00 to the Vail Clinic, Inc. within three (3) business days of receipt of the documents. The draft drawn on Vail National Bank sight shall be endorsed on the reverse side of this Letter of Credit and bear upon its face "Drawn under Letter of Credit Number 104, dated May 9, 1994, of Vail National Bank_" Partial drawings are not permitted. 0 This Letter of Credit shall expire on May 9, 1991. 1',iif N.itiun,il Ei,i liuil�lin}; 10ri Suutlt I r+ +i�lal;r Ro.nl 4V. 1'.1�. fi+�x 2u3t; V,til, Culttr,t+lu81b57 3031.176 - 4600 FAX; 3031.176 - ?666 • Irrevocable Letter of Credit #104 Vail Clinic, Inc. May 9, 1990 Page 2 Vail National Bank agrees with the drawers, endorsers and bonafide holders of draft drawn and negotiated in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit that such draft will be duly honored upon due presentation at the counter of this Bank. Vail National Bank represents and warrants to Vail. Clinic, Inc. that it has the full authority and power to issue this Letter of Credit to Vail Clinic, Inc., in the total amount and for the period of time stated herein; said authority being pursuant to the laws of the United States, or the state or territory which governs the establishment and regulation of Vail National. Bank, and Vail National Bank's charter, by -laws, and other applicable rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Should it be necessary for Vail Clinic, Inc. to file suit in an effort to enforce this Irrevocable Letter of Credit, Vail. National Bank hereby waives all venue rights and submits to the jurisdiction of the District Court in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. All drafts hereunder shall be honored during the term as set forth above. Sincerely, VAIL NATIONAL BANK B if U l 3 Lis M. Dillon, President n s s ... ''i- .._ _ — = r ! �S T' - - I �' i ={ l._ !=' r_ i..l f:- = — r� I F•, .�: F' ., z i - r' OSrEri:•9:l 07 :12 3OZ Z22 187 ` ., m.c •t,.i �� Lb �fu 3 v-.i� 7 ?aq I was e= 1 ry ''r•1'+4 (is.l(..1•"i�'r'�r�� rela . r..� rfu 4G, 411 a f ,-• •~y Structure sr ' „ in Vail n,.. c�U + r Cc =v_ ado and vwB t s �icn 4C Purc u } ----- --� V T � f �- r l ti^ Y Y Y �F w: 1 ,r•J• .L � v � ` � � � � us e- Y} 1 2 / p a r king itML. ~ '?N ? w 3.� 1 µwe Vh �� r i �� p art ies M rY t o nodify the ' tha p W ur s ; '1 M a C w..� N o The 4Mwm Of SW AM f : of LY, -D rsiating to VNB azarnse C2 the option. in GQn v_dpr a x,.? ., h P"m"as contained herein the P � 4.. � 4i. it a. �.�i M �..e w. f ollowing t i r r Ca y .,. ter ac � c �.1 Y �� ec t 4 Of 't>t ) , 2 f e6i.t• "Ro " "T is sntsred a in to b y and Nom, t an � � �,!a�,? '�^�.? �y �p�►c;! ma ...Ye yTn ca�. "ter, a Texas "Hos corpWral i 4n m.c •t,.i �� Lb �fu 3 v-.i� 7 ?aq I was e= 1 ry ''r•1'+4 (is.l(..1•"i�'r'�r�� rela . r..� rfu 4G, 411 a f ,-• •~y Structure sr ' „ in Vail n,.. c�U + r Cc =v_ ado and vwB t s �icn 4C Purc u } ----- --� V T � f �- r l ti^ Y Y Y �F w: 1 ,r•J• .L � v � ` � � � � us e- Y} 1 2 / p a r king itML. ~ '?N ? w 3.� 1 µwe Vh �� r i �� p art ies M rY t o nodify the ' tha p W ur s ; '1 M a C w..� N o The 4Mwm Of SW AM f : of LY, -D rsiating to VNB azarnse C2 the option. in GQn v_dpr a x,.? ., h P"m"as contained herein the P � 4.. � 4i. it a. �.�i M �..e w. f ollowing t i r r Ca y .,. ter ac � c �.1 Y �� ec t 4 Of 't>t ) , 2 f e6i.t• a wag an ma ...Ye yTn NO parting �y,p 1 III, Yarking od in two s to , , toe _ �o .._r -• for slghN secon f Wgr (3 _ 0ces al d he f4) a • �sSif;,�9;Z ©7 is Z 303 322 U12 S H F;, 47� total O r f or s �1 C. vlj 'B h as notifi GXerci z, th, t $ r s t hat it int ends to 5 tays of its option to pawchase the exclusivel OTIVOCAble 11canza tc use eight (8) Parkin in the Parking Modificati Agrcazsot and an jr!'7001ble !attar of cold a. �uL O i the OPtion Y9', 74.. and z'- b 00t L a Ivor Of s i L. s t a t e d in c t . ,, 4 { to O f the g-- eA= �a:��. F��?::re rah or be "re May 7, isgo an , zhe ajc= of credit on bofore may ! 10 10 Ohl!! w ZUlt 1 y t+it� r- +� i. .: J.:�i .'.Qn vL Y Y1 1�"7' Opti (12) parkins w z, D. .7 r .., and only .1., �'�� •?:.�r�7 ��n i ' P" 'cam ? sa ne F .r �, t -� �� it �Z �a of t o USS t he remai f ,, , 4) • dd _ - , _.. - t d r tan business low `ti d n h Park St-ouc: u a, second stag O f the and U. . upon a notional banes., in ! to $45, and ouh> c'" to of Cr d an set f i An b Wo "Sr c_ crldit drawn all Y l f � r S ectio n � I c } C' » the Agreement. F!A ; 1 u � v � . w exe0cw s h, 0scand ate. ;a or the option i n i strict "G"^M91 NQ thg D 1. Geri 1r in the anpIratIo 01 t { N ' v opti t era lv4 Vh ° .Sz f Y Y Y, ; T+1 E. - Of - iddition4i calculated " 0 a � u ,. t: , r s 17 x'ZZC �..� u.. +.....�,.�nC a tJi i.= .a"baGr.t sht3?..in. -.. q'_r'${" to excavating ad acart 4o ;nT`3 S property (the " "ty" d� is r described i n the atta ched E .h ^ b L, T Of steel Piles drivan b },L "r the r:. l.aiau.t t.. be ...ccacpc? fi . t su "fJ"Id by a $' Z as A stes a n ds and anchors latsrally dri 1jaj ...:^. ti ec"ti.'t;;, t MG L ? =tar portion WhiCi7 Wil axtend u nder hs Prc p2°_ty , a sh own in tha IttaWAK Exhibit B. VNR hOYMY giv es : is C :`:7sent rcr Hospital t 1 t ` l the 3 W G T-- - l .l ry t_ L. k tmt 4J : F', ' �.: t -4 £: rods and anchors-in cOnstr ion project and regMiramen rs s ys tem a the property a nd to laavg th S„ Place aft the Has2itai , S ?arki ja St7ruct_ , zS com ' sted, subAct - "c the following terms M if in th e f u tu re the tt t or 3, f pa rt « ,a s a. +, 'i' a w?:,, �., n,,dS W W r2_,CV d to NOW a ::r sh er C' 6 . 5 .v a opm of the Property ar to c`.repl, 'th rK,j, �A��>ti s` y ►e, ., 1 Hosp t•. { 11 /y .. va.�. Ti y w08 tg � ��f" � � .C'•' `� fc: and J !? A removal. In he "O val W the steel a.Ks and anchors it � g e �yr "±a �� i a v L�S.r the oil removal conjunction of any p . fii'.h futur . C .. XYa } irk' ion A he rn r y eit her f o r N t t .. s ca and jJr.p38 for further daysj of hay yore ar ty cr 2or rk :'a .. c „n other undarground facili v W 1 , hoar? n k of ra=ti•.t,. {. f Suci removal. . 5. T- he yew WV ..w, 0n5 o t i MQ d_wlr..".Ut C n a"1.groS.nnnt 4 (ii' y3Ozwita agre to mold V NZ harniess and inde i j �w tr wl a.i- « �� U J for any da; j7z to 2 st n n d., can •i•n i.+,�l� faci on t he a r :;s y "ter• .t � In c l ud i ng ,...,� 'J.. 101 t ad Out n t ♦ .� , 1t t .. s ca and jJr.p38 for . 5. T- he yew WV ..w, 0n5 o t i MQ d_wlr..".Ut C n a"1.groS.nnnt 4 = C_.f !.4 E= T_1 1. �2 7 P 9, I t_ P t -t 1 IR 1 - ' . _ shal be d3smad t o amen the r� nv • s'w���c��• �. sx�e�,...:, ,�.nyo the extent ssly Stated herein n e the ''4C.citic and as nacassary to ! is �rTr�w .. � 'S fM i. C1 "� �. i 0:1 •..il�� �� : e �'�5 „� w �� Af::. C�'r'r++lEi?�+d".s :l rry t � th �: s: Agreement � �; , .. � y�ris of "Mon - .� �.: �d ix:cr `�c�sa the tarm Of thQ WSW or am by and eff,,t. A VISMent Vail Main in full f orce Y � `�r �NQC,ry', , , , wy z r t he Part Z Agreement r d.. � ��vu a�� this .n hs } T SB BUILDING f`rORID. , A Nevad cci noratio fr G r ATUST : I 5 STATE OF COLORADO 0 - COrNTY C7 DENIVER Z: r-A L-: P - � T%w f !dim 9 ducunank �-nd- s to -'-twerem-3 this 7th - day Q ----/ 1-750 1 by Pau W, Powe r s Vice Prnsident of VK2 Building cc=p. Yy commise±cn explynz 08-06-90 t 1- 1 L • Notary - 7. Zz C=NIC te. d/ 7AIL VALMnY NWICAL _C2 6 (SEAL) F' ; U i- F. S F, ATTEST: • S'TA'112 OF COUNTY OF Tha 'fly o-ycj Wzs do n this day of me 19 9 C2-2 by o f MY cormission expirzs 1- 1 L Notary (SISAL) VAIL CLINIC, XMC. d/h/a VATL VAJ - u MDICAL • R I L-1 9 09 05/07/90 07:17 2 30Z 322 3872 Er"i 7: B I T A e 1 & H PC LOT 2, A "SUBDIVISIM OF LOT D VAIL V11MM SECOND VZONG AND TIACT D, vain / McNswwt SnCONO FILING TOWN OF VOIL, ZAGLE CCUNTY, C=nAao m . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for an amendment to the Town's zoning code to add "Television Stations" as a first floor, or street level floor, conditional use in the Commercial Core II zone district, Section 18.26.040 Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE The applicants are requesting to amend Section 18.26.040 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code in order to add "Television Stations" as a first floor level, conditional use in the Commercial Core II zone district. The current zoning code does not specifically address television stations, however, the position of the planning staff has been that television stations fall under the category of professional offices. As such, professional offices are currently not allowed as permitted or conditional uses on first floor or street level. Professional offices are allowed as a use by right in basement or garden level and second floor levels, as well as above second level with an approved conditional use . permit. This request, if approved, would specifically separate television stations from professional offices. This modification to the code would allow for television stations to occur in Commercial Core II on first floor or street level with an approved conditional use permit. 11. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST A. Suitability of Existing zoning. The purpose section of the Town's zoning code states: Section 18.26.010, Purpose "The Commercial Core II district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards ". 0 1 • It is the staff's opinion that this request to amend the zoning code would not be in conformance with the intent of the purpose section of the Commercial Core II zone district as stated above. The staff believes that television stations as a first floor or street level operation in Commercial Core II would not provide the pedestrian vitality and excitement currently generated by retail commercial uses. We recognize the mixed -use nature of the Commercial Core II zone district, however, we believe that the fabric of the existing horizontal zoning controls would be damaged with the allowance of television stations to occur on the first floor. We also believe that a dangerous precedent would be set by the allowance of television stations as a first floor use. The staff would certainly not support other professional office use requests for similar zoning code amendments to allow for professional offices on first floor level. B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among _land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The staff is comfortable with the Commercial Core II zone district standards regarding parking, landscaping • and access which would ensure that any proposed television station use would meet the development standards of the zone district. We also feel that the conditional use permit criteria are more than adequate to address potential impacts associated with television station use. The conditional use permit criteria include: 1. The relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of use on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreation facilities and other public facilities. 3. 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 streets. 4. The 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. • 2 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Planning Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use if an Environmental Impact Report is required. The Planning Staff believes that the above criteria will address any of the primary concerns relating to a television station use in the Commercial Core II zone district. We believe the most important issue is related to the effect of this proposal upon the character of the area. C. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable_ community.? The staff's opinion is that television stations on the first floor level of the Commercial Core II zone district would not be a positive use which would benefit the orderly growth and viability of the Vail Community. We do not believe television studios on the first floor to be a major guest attraction, and we believe that television studios, as well as any other professional office use, are more appropriately suited • for either basement level or 2nd floor and above levels, which is prescribed in the zoning code. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicants request to modify the Town's Zoning Code. We do not support the proposed change in the zoning code as we feel that the applicant's request is not consistent with the purpose section of the Commercial Core II zone district. Although we believe that television stations should be allowable uses in Commercial Core II at basement or second floor levels, we strongly feel that their proposed use on the first floor is inappropriate. • 3 i 1 1 rz 4 J'E ti c 0 4 9 � 0 rAo ¢ 0 ocu� o W)i eud oC� 3 g O 0 v o g ° ° tv ts 0> C , 0 O °' o ff' °, v w �•b �n cCSd04 v 0 0 253 . a� - E 0 Eb -s o o o ado y �c $U Lys U to O N Cs 'r7� bU wo '04 o �C�L vo�M) 2U�',�a o 3 Ecnc a�� ° oo p au �� ° o O j. .$ C m a K •d p O - E 8 O N °n rA o, ■�.� ��an�� a�.�oc� s3a O, au ra _ N , to C C � �•� C p a$a.: a � a „. ❑ >Q U O O . 0 - bjD ig � •� LC c� C7 eoZS. 3 °'`' : w 8'4) a�ia�,`"" ~.fad off' �s WSW 91 JP ti Q ;.mss as R� W a� 2 LL 'a L o. A , F+ C y O N C+ y O > .. •3 Sl 3 a -S Erg . 49 . °a�w go T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: Air Quality Research I. BACKGROUND As the air quality project has progressed there have been many aspects of Vail's overall air picture examined. These research areas have ranged from past sampling history, woodburning surveys, carbon monoxide studies, current sampling and discussion of future sampling, possibilities for control measures and comparative research. At this stage, research has been ongoing to determine what type of control measures have been developed in other communities, in similar settings or with similar problems. I have contacted several communities to obtain copies of existing ordinances and also to gather information to define the process which led to the development of the ordinances. Staff is scheduling a work session on this memo for July 9th with the PEC. The memo has been included in your packet to • give the PEC some additional time to consider the research. II. COMMUNITIES WITH NO REGULATIONS Several of the communities contacted do not have control measures in place at present: 1) Jackson Hole, Wyoming Research is currently underway similar to what Vail is doing. They are gathering information on control measures currently in place in other communities. Although it is perceived that Jackson Hole has a potential problem because of long term inversions which occur during the winter season, they do not have any PM10 violations to their knowledge. They are unaware of any current PM 10 monitoring although the State may currently be conducting this sampling. It is hard to gain support for the development of control measures without any violations. However, people are concerned about solving the problem before it gets worse. 40 1 • 2) Pocatello, Idaho Independent research has been done by private individuals based on health concerns -- asthma and allergies. The information has been presented to the city government, but no action has been taken to date. Monitoring for PM10 and other gaseous species has been set up and will run from February 1990- January 1991. The information will then be analyzed to determine which sources need to be controlled. 3) Park City, Utah Although the issue has been raised several times and control measures discussed, to date nothing has been developed. To date it is not perceived that there is a sufficient problem to warrant the development of any control measures. 4) Summit County, Colorado There are no control measures currently in place in Summit County except for the Town of Breckenridge. According to Jim Rada, Environmental health Officer for Summit County, the issue will probably be researched in the next year or so. 5) Pagosa Springs, Colorado The State of Colorado conducted a study in Pagosa Springs 2 -3 years ago to determine the sources of PM10. They believed woodburning to be a major contributor, but their study found the source to be the unpaved roads not woodburning. According to the City Attorney, the city did not develop any control measures for woodburning as a result of the study. 6) Fort Collins, Colorado Although there are no limitations placed on the number of solid fuel devices per dwelling in the city, there are limitations placed on type of fuel to be burned - -no coal and to the type of woodstove which can be installed. The woodstove, free standing or insert, must meet Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulations. The city has also established opacity standards for the smoke coming out of chimney flues. 7) Eagle County, Colorado The county is currently researching air quality plans in other communities. This background information is to allow for the development of a plan for presentation to the board of County Commissioners by the end of the year. 2 i 111. COMMUNITIES WITH REGULATIONS IN PLACE: Several of the communities with ordinances in place include: 8) Castle Rock, Colorado The City of Castle Rock has been determined to be a part of the Denver metro area air shed although they are located 25 miles south of the city. Based on the air studies conducted in the metro area and the support of several council members, it was determined to take strong action to limit the increased deterioration of the air quality in the Plum Creek Basin. Effective December 31, 1989 the City of Castle Rock prohibited the construction of any new solid fuel burning devices. At present the ordinance allows only for the installation of gas appliances - -no installation of any type of unit which can be converted to solid fuel burning. The ordinance does not allow for the installation of "clean- burning" stoves, but does have a provision which will allow for review of the Phase III stove technology when it becomes available. The limits were imposed when Castle Rock had approximately 3500 units constructed of a possible 50,000 dwelling units. The ordinance was devised as a result of the visible particulate pollution. It was felt that wood burning was a major cause of the pollution and as a result was the only contributor dealt with for reduction /control of the pollution problem. Castle Rock does not currently sample for PM10, but feels the state may run some monitors in their area. At last report the city is in compliance with state and federal air quality limits. 9) Crested Butte, Colorado Crested Butte was in a rather unique position several year ago to receive help with their air quality situation from the Wood Heating Alliance. In an effort to alleviate the visual effect on the air in the Town of Crested Butte, an ordinance was developed where by all solid fuel burning units had to be replaced over a 3 year period with either gas appliances, certified wood stoves or fireplace inserts or removed altogether. Given the 3 year compliance period, 95% of those who complied did so within the last 30 days of the time frame. According to Bill Cranke, 25% of the units are still not in compliance. • 3 . A cooperative effort was made with the Wood Heating Alliance to offer stoves and inserts at wholesale prices. This still involved an expenditure on the part of residents of $1000 -$2000 for the units. This created ill feeling on the part of some residents, but prior to any implementation of the program or ordinance, a survey was done to gather a feel for people's perception of the air quality problem. 86% of those surveyed felt there was a problem and were willing to do something about it. The decision to implement the ordinance was based on past TSP (total suspended particulate) violations, but no additional studies had been completed to determine source apportionment of contributing sources of particulates. PM10 monitoring is ongoing with Crested Butte currently being in compliance with state and federal emission standards. A reduction in the visibility problem has been achieved and an approximate reduction of 80 -90% in emissions. Their staff recommended requiring non - catalytic stoves and cautions against problems related to retrofitting or changing old units. 10) Breckenridge, Colorado Although Breckenridge has not done extensive monitoring or studying of their emissions picture, their Planning Commission and political entities made the move to place limitations on the number of solid fuel burning devices in their jurisdiction. This was brought about by a desire not to have the air quality problems seen in other mountain communities. They took the steps to initiate their present ordinance because of the visual impacts created in other communities by the development of large multi - family developments. There is a significant potential for Breckenridge to expand by the construction of large multi - family developments. The response to the ordinance has been very favorable and has received the support of the elected officials. Although there is a variance process incorporated into the ordinance, no variances have been granted. The original ordinance was drafted by the Planning Commission and made more restrictive by the Town Council. The original ordinance has been in place for over 5 years, but the current restrictions were imposed as the result of revisions to the Development Code in the summer of 1988. • 4 The ordinance permits one woodburning appliance per dwelling unit for single family residential, unless larger than 4,000 sq. ft. in which case there may be 2. In duplex or townhouse residential , if units are 1,500 sq. ft. or larger they may have one appliance per unit. If the units are smaller than 1,500 sq. ft. of internal heated floor area, they are not allowed a wood burning appliance. The ordinance was based on square footage as a means to set limits without scientific basis. It was a fairly arbitrarily drawn point of reference. In multi -unit residential buildings, one woodburning appliance is allowed in the lobby area if over 1,000 sq. ft. in size. No woodburning appliances are allowed in dwelling units. If development occurs which would wish to provide additional fireplaces to those which are permitted they may do so by the use of gas, electricity or similar means. 11) Telluride, Colorado During the late summer /early fall of 1985, the Town of Telluride initiated a registration program for all solid fuel burning devices and issued permits for the registered units. The ordinance also called for the prohibition of construction of new solid fuel burning devices unless they met strict emissions standards and permitted only one per unit - -no open burning fireplaces are permitted unless they are located on restaurants, bars or commercial lobbies. The ordinance also incorporated a rebate program over a 3 year period to encourage people to install alternate forms of heat or to upgrade their existing wood burners. All open fireplaces in residential units had to be equipped with fireplace inserts. The rebate program was funded through the town's real estate transfer tax and offered: 1st & 2nd year $750 for alternate form of heat $200 for certified woodburning unit 3rd year $250 for alternate form of heat $100 for certified woodburning unit These actions were taken in Telluride based on the supposition that Telluride would be in violation of PM10 standards based on historical TSP data. However, no professional air quality comprehensive study was completed before the ordinance was enacted. There was also a great deal of visual evidence supporting the • 5 . premise of an air quality problem. The Town of Telluride continues to do PM10 monitoring today and is currently in compliance with state and federal standards. The public was generally unhappy with the ordinance and registration program when it was initially introduced. There was one lawsuit against the Town which was dismissed and talk of a citizens initiative to change the parameters of the ordinance, but it never got off the ground. At this time, they have achieved compliance with a solid fuel burning units. 12) Steamboat Springs, Colorado In early 1987 the town of Steamboat Springs passed an ordinance which required the registration of all solid fuel burning devices within a 6 month period of final passage of the ordinance. Reports from the planning office and environmental health office indicate that the registration program has not been overly successful. The lack of success is based on the mail- - out type of registration they conducted - -not a great deal of return of surveys. The ordinance placed limitations on the number of solid fuel burning devices allowed in residential units. in • single family, duplex and two family homes one solid fuel burning advice is allowed per dwelling unit. In multi.- family buildings, there is a limitation of one approved solid fuel burning device allowed per building. The ordinance also required the elimination of non- conforming solid fuel burning devices in existing dwelling units and specified time frames for completion of this project. The non - conforming units had to be eliminated, but could be replaced with approved solid fuel devices. The ordinance also requires the elimination of solid fuel burning devices which are non - conforming in commercial buildings and permits the installation of only one approved device per building after the effective date of the ordinance. The controls were imposed and developed as the result of an air quality advisory committee. The basis for the initial control measures was a public perception that there was an air quality problem. Steamboat Springs has historically violated TSP limits and has recently - winter 1 89 - 1 90 -- violated PM10 limits. The committee in Steamboat is reorganizing to address the issue of number of units in multi - family buildings and also the issue of retrofitting existing units. • 6 • Public response to control measures for future construction has been great. IV. SUMMARY This is a very preliminary outline of the research I am conducting. it is not being presented in final format at this time but will be when research is complete on July 23rd unless PEC wished to see more substantial information. This is being presented for your review and consideration as background for developing control measures for the Town of Vail. It is evident from this research that several communities around the state have implemented ordinances and control measures based on various levels of research. Some communities have ordinances developed as a result of public perception of a problem, preliminary interpretation of historical data, and similar considerations. Based on this research and the information which has been gathered in the past, the staff position is that it is time for Vail to take a proactive stance and move forward with the development of an air quality plan. At the minimum this should include revision of the existing fireplace ordinance • to address number and type of solid fuel devices and also the issue of removal of units when units are combined. 0 7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 9, 1990 1. 2:00 Work session on air quality research - Susan Scanlan 1:15 Site Visits 2:15 A work session on the View Corridor Ordinance amendment and establishment of a new view corridor in Vail Village at the southern portion of the Red Lion Building at 304 Bridge Street. (Site visit to Village) Applicant: Town of Vail 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from June 11, 1990 and June 25, 1990 meetings. 2. Appointment of PEC member and alternate to DRB for the months of July, August, and September. 2 3. A request for an exterior alteration on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail - Lionshead 3rd Filing, Montaneros - 641 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc. 1 4. A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.090 (B) density, 18.46.100 (B) floor area, 18.46.220 employee housing and 18.46.230 time requirements to convert existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. 5. A work session on the proposed Shrine Pass Cemetery. Applicant: Chuck Ogilby 6. A request for an amendment to Section 18.13.080 (A), Density Control, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Correction of a typographical error in the Primary /Secondary zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 7. A request for a variance from the wall height JULY 23RD requirement on Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch; 805 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola TABLED UNTIL S. A request for an exterior alteration and a JULY 23RD landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant TABLED UNTIL 9. A request for a major subdivision, to approve JULY 23RD the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. • • I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JULY 9, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Jill Kammerer Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry Susan Scanlan In the interest of time, work sessions were held prior to the public hearing. Jim Shearer and Chuck Crist were not present for the work sessions. A work session on air auality research - Susan Scanlan Susan Scanlan presented the research to date. In respect to the issue of combining units and the number of fireplaces allowed, Scott, from Intratect, stated that the two clients are combining units and that there was no gas available at the Scorpio. They could not convert to gas to keep both fireplaces. It presented a physical hardship to have to remove a fireplace. He felt that they would only be using one fireplace at a time and thereby actually reduce the amount of particulate pollution. These fireplaces would only be used certain times of the year. Scott would hope to have an ordinance to cover situations of this type. Susan stated that she was asking the board to look at this particular part of the ordinance. Dalton felt that when two units were being combined, one of the fireplaces should be closed or both converted to gas. He felt that perhaps the Town of Vail should ask the gas company to make gas available. Kathy stated that gas is available all over town. Diana however, added, that sometimes it is expensive to connect gas. Dalton felt that both of the fireplaces should be gas logs or one gas log and one gas appliance for combined units. He felt that the Town should not put a cap on the number of gas logs or appliances but that only gas should be allowed with no wood burning at all. 1 Ludwig asked what classified as a gas appliance and Susan • answered that a fully enclosed U.L listed appliance with a B vent was a "gas appliance." Ludwig felt that if the units are combined, one fireplace should be closed and he agreed with Dalton that the Town of Vail should try to make gas available at a reasonable cost. Regarding the Air Quality Plan, Rudy felt that the Town could expect a certain amount of opposition but that the plan was a positive way to go. He felt that Telluride did not go about this in the right way. They legislated first and had much opposition to their plan. Ludwig asked for information on elevation, geography, weather and population for each community. Kristan stated that it was important to have good base data. She felt that the study was necessary so that they would have something to base their recommendations on if a no woodburning policy is requested. Acceptable base data will be important in justifying the request to the public. Diana felt that studies are needed to sell the Ordinance. She felt it was a waste of time to do studies, but that the Ordinance would not sell without the research being done. Kristan said that there is something to be said for being proactive and not waiting until the skies are black. • Diana felt that perhaps they should see what other studies have been done in the east and Susan said that she could not find any programs in easter ski communities. She also said that she would like to find out what Aspen based their controls on. She added that Vail would have to take their geography into account. Every community is unique in this respect. Diana stated that she liked the possibility of allowing wood burning in single family and duplex units but being more strict in multi - family units. She also stated that she felt combined units should be treated as one unit. CDOH also needs to be involved by improving road maintenance practices. Diana asked that Susan provide information on gas pollutants. Kathy liked the square footage limit for multi - family as used in Breckenridge. Diana did not like mixing gas and woodburning in units. She did not want to see unlimited wood or gas. 0 2 A work session on the View Corridor Ordinance amendment and establishment of a new view corridor in Vail Village at the southern Portion of the Red Lion Building at 304 Bridge Street. Applicant: Town of Vail This was a preliminary work session and no minutes were taken. The Public Hearing was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Jim Shearer and Chuck Crist arrived during the work sessions. All members were in attendance. Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from June 11, 1990 and June 25, 1990. Connie Knight, regarding the June 11, 1990 minutes asked to have changes made on Page 7 referencing her comment that she felt "that was how the game was played ". She wanted it clear that the comment was not made specifically at the Marriott project. On Page 18, it was noted that Connie had left the meeting and she wanted it on record that she left due to illness. . A motion to approve the minutes of June 11th as corrected was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR Regarding the June 25th minutes, Kathy Warren wanted her comment regarding the density of the project clarified to state "Kathy felt that, because it was a hotel, she was not as concerned with units per acre as she was with GRFA." Kathy also felt that a statement on page six regarding an entry was not clear and felt "pocket park" entry should be inserted. A motion to approve the minutes of June 25th as corrected was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 2 was postponed to the end of the meeting. • 3 Item No. 3: A re uest for an exterior airerati.o Block 1, Vail- Lionshead 3rd Filing W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Montaneros Condo Assoc_ Andy Knudtsen explained that the applicant was requesting approval of an exterior alteration in order to expand the laundry facilities by 207 sq. ft. The second part of the proposal, which the PEC would review on August 13th, was a request to encroach 10 feet into the sideyard setback. Andy reviewed the zoning considerations, compliances with the purpose section of CCII and the Urban Design Guide Plan and Considerations for Lionshead. Staff recommended approval of the request contingent upon the setback variance being approved at the August 13th PEC meeting. Staff believed that the expansion met the review criteria and complied with the Urban Design Guide Plan and Considerations. Staff would prefer to see the window moved to a side elevation and the addition aligned with the elevator shaft. Michael Hazard, Architect representing the applicant, explained that the proposal would essentially match colors, material and style to the existing building. Kathy Warren asked if the window could be moved and Michael Hazard responded "yes." • Connie Knight felt comfortable with the proposal. Chuck Crist quoted the staff memo as stating "No new landscaping is proposed and no landscaping would be removed by the addition." To his knowledge, the proposal would eliminate two flower boxes and he considered that landscaping. Michael Hazard commented that the applicant would be glad to keep the flower boxes and simply relocate them in close proximity. A motion to approve the exterior alteration request with conditions as follows was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. conditions: 1. Window to be moved to a side elevation. 2. Flower boxes be relocated in close proximity. 3. Contingent upon the setback variance being approved at the August 13th PEC meeting VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR 0 4 • Item No. 4! unit, management office: laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen L Subdivision 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. • • Shelly Mello reviewed the proposal explaining that the applicant was requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 4-- Cascade Village. She explained the four Sections proposed to be amended. Shelly explained the background and a discrepancy that was found in the amount of GRFA that was available for the project which was probably due to measuring techniques. The purpose of the work session was to explain this discrepancy and discuss the applicant's proposal as it pertained to this new development. Shelly explained that the staff felt that the addition of an employee unit would have a positive impact while not increasing the mass and bulk on the site because it would be sited within an existing building. The applicant requested that the GRFA of this unit not count towards the total GRFA on -site, however, the staff felt that the employee unit must count towards the total GRFA on the site. Shelly stated that staff had concluded that because of the differences in the previous staff GRFA analysis and the recent staff GRFA check, it was reasonable to allow for a change in the allowable GRFA. The staff found that by increasing the allowable GRFA to 70,829 sq. ft. the applicant would be able to add the proposed employee unit and still have 1032 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining for future additions. The 1032 sq. ft. was the amount of GRFA available using the GRFA numbers that were recorded on the building permit. Discussion centered around the discrepancy in measurement and it was explained that the staff presently used a computerized digitizer and in the past the calculations were measured by hand. There may have also been credits taken in the past that were not presently used. Erich Hill, architect for the proposal, added that there was no explanation found in the file on how the GRFA was counted for this project. Shelly explained that the figure proposed to be increased as remaining GRFA (1032 sq. ft.) was derived by subtracting the old calculation from the allowable per the SDD (63,968 sq. ft. building permit GRFA - 65,000 sq. ft. = 1032 sq. ft.). Erich Hill, Architect representing the applicant, introduced Kevin McTabish, manager of the Coldstream Condominiums. Erich explained that until 10 days prior to the meeting, they had felt they had the remaining GRFA to proceed with the request. He was 5 amend Sections 18.46.090 B density, 18.46.100 also under the impression that the employee unit would not count toward GRFA. He explained that the expansion offered an employee unit, offices, laundry, and owner storage without adding build and mass to the building. All the applicant was asking was that the calculations that had been made historically, remain. Erich emphasized that the employee unit would be permanently restricted. Ludwig Kurz was concerned that the proposed area for providing additional parking was not large enough and Erich explained that he measured the area personally and it happened that the area met the size criteria exactly. Dalton Williams asked why the employee unit was proposed to be so large. Why not design two employee units? Erich explained that he had originally considered two units but the nature and shape of the building made the design process too difficult. Dalton stated that his main concern was parking. He asked Erich if he had measured from the inside or outside of the gutter and Erich answered the "inside ". Dalton was also concerned with the aesthetics of parking spaces on the units immediately adjacent to the proposed area and Kevin Mctabish, the manager, explained that the units in which the spaces would be located already overlook the parking. There would not be a drastic change. Kathy Warren was not comfortable with the proposed parking. She felt the area was presently a nice bermed area. At the time, she 40 was not sure how she felt about the GRFA request. Jim Shearer asked about the paved area in the middle of the property and why it was not considered for the parking and Erich explained that a majority of the area was a no parking zone due to fire regulations. Kevin Mctabish explained that the area was used as a loading zone. Connie Knight had the GRFA discrepancy clarified and stated she felt the addition of an employee unit would be positive. She did not feel comfortable with the additional 1032 sq. ft. since the project was already over allowed GRFA, innocently or not. Dalton asked the staff to present a comparison chart showing existing (SDD) zoning and underlying zoning at the next meeting. Shelly stated that this area had never been zoned by the Town since at the time of annexation it became an SDD. Staff would however, present a comparison of the most reasonable zoning that could be assumed as an underlying zone district. • 6 Diana Donovan stated that she and Kathy had discussed the parking issue while the rest of the board was making the comments. Speaking for both of them, she stated that they would be more comfortable with the parking proposal if the grass and landscape proposed to be removed be replaced elsewhere. Kathy Warren suggested the open area in the middle be restored to greenspace. Diana had no problems with the conversion and the employee unit. She wondered why the applicant needed the large number of offices proposed and asked if the offices counted in the entire Cascade SDD sq. ft. calculations and Mike explained that it would not since only residential floor area counted. Diana felt that the addition would add approximately 500 sq. ft. over and above the 1032 suggested to be allowed by staff. She felt the Town should receive something in return if the board were to allow the addition. Item No. 5, work session on the proposed Shrine Pass Cemetery was postponed to the end of the meeting. Item No. 6: A request for an amendment to Section 18.13.080 A LG11 w711 -. vv.•v.. ++ - - -- - --- Town of Vail. Correction of a tyRograph in the Primary/Secondary zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen explained that the section of the code was last amended June 7, 1988. During that amendment process, text was inadvertently eliminated pertaining to the relative sizes of two dwelling units on a Primary /Secondary lot. By approving this request, the Town would ensure that secondary units would not exceed 40 percent of the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for the lot. The staff recommended approval of the change to the zoning code. omission of the statements was not intentional and replacing them made the code consistent with the standards used in the past for the review of primary /secondary development. The board had no questions regarding the matter. A motion to approve the amendment to Section 18.13.080 (A)L-, Density Control was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR • 7 Item No. 2: Appointment of PEC member and alternate to DEB for the months of July, August, and September. Dalton Williams volunteered for the position and Jim Shearer as alternate. Item No. 7: A request for a variance from the wall height requirement on Lot 29 Block 1 Vail Potato Patch; 805 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola Item No. 8: A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing._ Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant Item No. 9: LJ Discussion centered around the number of times an applicant should be allowed to table an item. it was decided that as long as the applicants were diligently working with staff, as they were, they would be allowed to continue to table. A motion to table Items Nos 7 8, and 9 to the July 23,_ 1990 meeting was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 5: A work session on the proposed Shrine Pass Cemetery. Applicant: Chuck O ilb Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant was unable to make a presentation at the meeting due to conflict in meetings. He would be making the presentation at the Town Council meeting the next day if the Commission members wished to attend. The work session was before the Commission due to a request for comments • 8 for a variance to the maximum percent grade tor a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail--I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle_Creek livery. A licant: George Gillett Jr. made by Eagle County. The proposed property was actually located . in Eagle County and required a Special Use permit. Kristan explained that a list of comments would be written up and submitted to Eagle County for their Commissions review. Kathy Warren, Jim Shearer, and Diana Donovan felt the site would be good for a cemetery. Diana stated that she would be concerned if the area became a large scale commercial operation. She felt the cemetery should be kept private. Jim Shearer stated that, if in fact the site became commercial, it should not be restricted to cremations. Jim Lamont, representing the Town of Red Cliff, stated that they were concerned about the ground water and Chuck Crist agreed with Jim's concerns. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. CJ • 9 C) �€ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: VIEW SECTION A"D VIEW C'ORRI1)PR M AP TO R THE N U.'11l3L h U r' . W V14 W[W [ UQU AND '10 ELIi�1I�iATE MANOR V��w GO���DORS i AKA SETTING y "~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: VIEW SECTION A`�D VIEW CORRIDOR mAP TO REDUCE THE NUMi3LR Vi` %uti oa v I r.w CoIiII f DOES AND TO ELIMINATE MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. WHEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design Guide Plan -- Design Considerations and the View Corridor Map has been under study by staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council for a considerable time.period; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that'preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort; and WHEREAS, the preservation of such views will protect the municipalities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore, enhance and protect its economic vitality. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom- mended adoption of the nine view corridors, one focal point and amendments to the language in the view section to the Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY-THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: s rs Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is hereby amended to read as follows: G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its :• identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by f:? ;;..repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Certain building '... ;,. ,features are also important character features, orientation refer- ences and visual focal points. N . ¢� The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated 4.1. n the View Corridor Map Can el emen t documented l (photos e n file D in� g FFramework Plan) and photography y 'rF s.�he Community Development Department) . However, the view corridors. �, ����� depicted on the maps and in the photographs shourdanttviewsotoodere „ -2- The official photographs and field surveys of the view corridors and focal point contain the area to be protected. No encroachment will be allowed above the top of the black and white line on the .. photographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants:.,: in determining the s cific dimensional restrictions produced by'.',�` the v' Corr rs. Minor modifications to the roofs or structures.. :.. . a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appro ,0'... priate approvals from the Community Development Department are obtained. j demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should. include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the,.'.•., form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch -ups, models, or other simulation.techniques. A means of demonstrating in the field (on site) the impact on views will, also be required by the zoning administrator. As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and, i,, o - mss r , revised.If - a conflict exists between the maximum �h ei h al the view corri or s,__Thp_ -,� -_ �,cti regulation The following is a listing and verbal description of the a opte ill view corridor and focal point: pply • NO. DESCRIPTION 1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center. 2 This is a significant view because it allows one to see the ski slopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the ticket and lift facilities in the Village. 5 This is a view of the Gore Range'from Hanson-Ranch Road gust east of the Mill Creek Bridge and west of the Mill Creek Court B1 jGy This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Bui ding. The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view. PairodAN' o O C-OJ- CC_gy INcr Vi Section 2 -3- \ If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,.sentence, clause- or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 4.., Section 3 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall-not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any iolation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 15 day of , 1983. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the d? day of 1983, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of..th .Town of Vail, Colorado, in The Municipal Building of the Town. Rodney E. lif r, M or ATTEST:' , CAA. � Pamela A, Brandmeye Town Clerk READ AN D APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this d_ l'ale day of , 1983, 7— / �� 0, `D y x � It ik 'f • f �1 �� I _ Y s t _ — t mj� y ' a r • r r� L n 0 O O CS. O O u G O 0. u u ar .� 6) GO cn L+ I r4 u O X 60 p- °a a3i W u •ri .7 • 4 .-i Ln N 7 e-i G ay O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N r- 00 00 00 00 00 r� � ro •H CU O m u a w G ar a► Cd � a (U v 00 N I 1 O ca u � u 44 c0 u o u N rt n �T O --T 00 n u-Nd W 0 o O O -4 r-i -4 N U ri }+ L VS N Vl N V) 00 H q0 W. cn M •4 ri N M Cr1 1._.J 1 � ` z 10 • 1 N H H O a w a� a� 4s Sri I N W O Pa a� N d' 41 � w � G cd rl •ri O O is P.+ P+ 0 W 04 •r4 •r4 $a u I I O a� 4-) vA W 4 O rA +� N Ad �M U1 U •ri H 90 x O +1 O a O O a x (U >4 O W .4 W u A d r-1 013 I~ ro H 4 u, 7�- O •r4 M r-1 .7 rl o o a o 47 O N ,7 N n rn rn n 41 QO G ro H �d - 4 _ N M .7 O vl rl a o o a ►a n rn ON r-4 O 00 00 a% O x N N N M .� • ��2� -- � g � w %- �..` ■�, A N m : [ , �0)? . \ y � �. � : A N m : [ , �0)? . \ y . � �. � : r� u 10 I* O 11 O O+ , O i� •ri � O a 00 4a � as u1 W d act U A fs7 i in u1 � � z v b o a a� � u cn , 4 � o e a o .n a� * > Gl r1 u1 Ln .7 M W O N 00 oO o4 a0. c0 u q •� o O w A P4 A � a� a u 0 w •rl O N > W y 1~ 1 1 1r �tl . 144 ca N ,C O +� _ .H 41 �b0 o o a o 411 , G r 0 to U •rl Sa r 4 mo O ch N N H a4 x x N0 N N F W r. y s' ■o�mn+ �.. � a� +:� -,''F � ryf^ 1. ., �'� '.L Irl • 0 u 0 a G q •rl 0 Q. al ,� pp 4-a -4 .� CA W 0 Lf) 0 1 �D Ft a a z w ' a� 0 a �• G ;> o �, ? +, n `n CN o 00 .o c p ° ° ° o Q. N 00 00 DD 00 00 0D � n -H a) 0 w Pr f_+ G 3 9 L •� N >4 E4 4.-J oD C G i ! L C' 4J w -L i E? pp G _ V H 0 o .�T .CLO fn G' Rf al W �D p 1P) ° �7 ° lfti O 0 y} LF) ° ° o ORDINANCE NO. 16 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13, SERIES OF 1983, IN ORDER TO MODIFY VIEW CORRIDOR NO. 1; AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain view corridors is essential to protect and preserve the unique mountain character of Vail; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983 formally adopted four view corridors; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983 recognized that circumstances affecting view corridors may change necessitating the review and if necessary, the revision of view corridors; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building has been • proposed and said redevelopment is consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and with permitted Commercial Core I building height limits; and WHEREAS, the highest ridge of the redevelopment of the Red Lion building will encroach into View Corridor No. 1; and WHEREAS, the encroachment of the Red Lion Building will remain below the ridge line of the existing Golden Peak House and will not alter views of Vail Mountain or other focal points within Vail Village; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. • The surveyed line delineating View Corridor No. 1 shall be amended to be redrawn directly above the ridge line of the redeveloped Red Lion Building as depicted in plans by Morter it 3. 1990. The realignment of this tin 1 Section 2. 0 The owners and /or developers of the Red Lion redevelopment shall fund and complete the modifications of View Corridor No. 1. This work shall include, but not be limited to resurveying the line depicting View Corridor No. 1 and rephotographing View Corridor No. 1. This work shall be completed after the highest ridge line of the Red Lion Building is constructed, and completed before the issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any . violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or revealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall M Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 17th day of April , 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 17th day of April , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 17th day of April _ _ , 1990. is ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Kent R. Rose, Mayor INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED _.._ this day of , 1990. ATTEST: is Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk c7 t Xi got 7. r_i_ I to- "'INN Tiny mat •+Ff h; ��'. 'tom d L � � - � }e ) " sm + t.�. NN . 1 Own" , s. • gwp i • y TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 9, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail - Lionshead 3rd Filing, Montaneros - 641 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an exterior alteration to the Montaneros Condominium Building. The applicant proposes to expand the laundry facilities by 207 sq. ft. The expansion would be located on the second floor above the west entrance of the building on the western side of the elevator core. Currently there is a deck at this location. The proposal would enclose the space and eliminate the deck. There will be no expansion of the building footprint. A second part of this proposal, which PEC will review on August 13th, is a request to encroach 10 feet into the sideyard setback. Planning staff did not identify this aspect of the proposal until after the deadline for public notice had past. As a result, staff will bring the variance request back to PEC after fulfilling the public notice requirements. Staff has looked at the variance request and believes the variance is warantted because of the existing building's location in the setback and the addition will not create any negative impacts on adjacent properties. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. Zone District: CCII 2. Lot Area: 44,847.5 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage: No Change. 4. Setbacks for proposed addition: 66' front 94' rear 0' north side 147' south side 5. Parking: The parking requirement does not increase since common area does not require parking. 1 u 6. Common Area calculations: sauare feet Site area 44,847 Allowable common floor area 7175 (20% of allowable GRFA) Existing common floor area - 6469 Remaining common area for development 706 706 Area of proposed laundry room 207 Area for future common area expansion 499 III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II This request complies with the purpose of CCII as it is an expansion to a mixed --use building which includes multiple dwellings and commercial establishments. The purpose of CCII is defined in the Vail Municipal Code as follows: • 18.26.010 Purpose: The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD OR VAIL VILLAGE. There are no sub -area concept that relate directly to this proposal. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD. A. Height and Massing: 0 The height of the proposed addition does not exceed the maximum height of 45 feet. The location of the addition could be more compatible with the massing �q pattern of the Montaneros building. The Montaneros • building has several vertical elements containing stairs, service spaces, or elevators. Between these shafts are balconies. The actual mass of the building is setback from the balcony railings. This addition extends beyond the width of the core, breaking the pattern of the building. Staff recommends aligning the addition with the existing vertical elements which would result in a more attractive building. This could be accomplished by reducing the size of the addition or relocating some of the proposed floor area to the opposite side of the existing laundry facility. B. Roofs: The proposed addition would have a flat roof as does the rest of the Montaneros building. C. Facades -- WallslStructures: The existing colors, which will be used on the new addition are compatible with the Lionshead area. D. Facades - Trans arenc : The design guidelines call for transparency on the first level with more privacy and solid walls on upper • stories. In this case, staff believes that the entire elevator core should be a solid, unbroken wall, as are the other shafts. Staff believes that the window should be moved to a side elevation instead of the front elevation. E. Decks and Patios: There will be 209 sq. ft. of addition. It is not a deck used as it not located near the deck will not impact the by guests at Montaneros. F. Accent Elements: deck area removed by this area that is frequently any condominiums. Removing use of the outdoor spaces The trim work that has been done with the horizontal banding around the building will be continued onto this addition. The colors and materials will be consistent with the existing colors and materials. G. Landscape Elements: No new landscaping is proposed and no landscaping will be removed by this addition. • H. Service and Delivery: The proposal will not affect the current service and 3 delivery patterns for the building. • VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this request contingent upon the setback variance being appproved at the August 13th PEC meeting. In staff's analysis, we believe that the expansion meets the review criteria. It complies with the Vail - Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and generally complies with the Vail- Lionshead Design Considerations. Although the staff would prefer to see the window moved to a side elevation and the addition aligned with the elevator shaft, these concerns are not significant enough to deny the request. Given that these two concerns are minor, staff recommends that the commission approve the request with the understanding that the two staff concerns will be passed on to the Design Review Board. • • 4 io t - c i N 85 33' 00" rm ~ ] O.a]' I rmgf.•31.4t ? "• ! A, Q C ` :•) '" i CL :' 6 e Q r_. � :sv;'p7fi.p.• ..1 j.4 A' i3 y ?2� ia�.:k _ A TIC •y ' r —` �n ��sF� \ , .> ,; � *fir °'d Ceti �,'�/�^.,�� ��. +tw�z4] 'V ;•'�1G^'�. L`7.r� i �r tii 4 NdSIyTN5 '- .EIS {�. � 7 � 36.E0 cqt ti 0.40' w 145.0' _. x i S '' v - O F ---— _ - - - -- I G e t . 1 3 v Ur1�Q Pi.rn poi c.5 o. t m � I _ I 5 85" 33' 00'W a 2 70.0L' 0 G � C is 4 « fir , :�R , 1 -�`., � �: � � - ,MSy<<'G Y^' � � lob" t�o oldw MAW N V r M Sim 1 4 , VA rZ t 1i 5 71 r =rte I II 1 A �4 , t•R� � � �` • i J � � � � , !• ' ' ' y `. 0.' 'r 4 1: � � { � _ . t. � ! ! i . i c 11 5 rip r =rte I II 1 A �4 , t•R� � � �` i - • a 'k •'k, A , N 4 4 A t , ` �'� _, '{� >�� J�� xY ? +`` ` t it I 1;T 'F - jw • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 9, 1990 RE: A request for a work session for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4-- Cascade Village, Area B, Amending Sections 18.46.090 Paragraph B - Density, 18.46.100 Paragraph B - Floor Area, Section 18.46.220 - Employee Housing and Section 18.46.230 - Time Requirements, in order to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, on site management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 4 -- Cascade Village. The following is a listing of the Sections to be amended and the applicant's proposal: is 18.46.090 (B) Density - 65 dwelling units:_ PROPOSED - Applicant would reduce the number of allowable units to 46 which includes all existing units and a new employee unit. 18.46.100 (B) Floor Area - 65,_000 sq. ft. GRFA: PROPOSED - Convert the existing racquetball facility into a 1591 sq. ft. employee unit and 750 sq. ft. office for on -site management. They are also requesting 1032 sq. ft. of GRFA in order to allow for future additions. Presently, the GRFA for the project is 68,206 sq. ft. The request would increase total GRFA to 70,829. The maximum GRFA approved by the SDD is 65,000 sq. ft. (Please see background section on GRFA calculations). This results in an increase of 2,623 sq. ft. of GRFA (including the employee unit) . 18.46.220 Employee Housing - no mention made of Area C_ PROPOSED -One employee unit; Applicant does not want GRFA of unit to be counted towards total allowable GRFA 0 for project. • 18.46.230 Time Requirements: PROPOSED - Applicant would restrict employee unit permanently as per Town requirements. Unit would be used for on -site manager. There is no request to amend the allowable site coverage. The existing site coverage is 34,878 sq. ft. The maximum site coverage allowed for the project is 64,216 sq. ft. The applicant has also proposed to add the required 5 parking spaces (2 for the employee unit and 3 for the office area) for the proposed additions, (50% covered parking required). II. BACKGROUND Upon application, the staff researched the available GRFA for Area B-- Coldstream Condominiums. According to the existing available information from building permits, the project appeared to have a total GRFA of 63,968 sq. ft. which includes the existing 45 units and subsequent additions to 2 units that were approved by staff using the building permit numbers for GRFA. With a new GRFA check as of June 28, 1990, it was determined that the existing GRFA on site is 68,206 sq. ft. Because the staff calculations from the initial GRFA check are not available, we can only speculate the reason for the differences. One reason may be the measuring policies. For example, staff currently includes the area of the walls between units as GRFA. This area may not have been included in the original GRFA calculations. (See chart for GRFA calculations and GRFA requests). GRFA Check June 28 1990 Unit type 4 of units Sa. ft of unit Total UNIT A 6@ 2153.5 12,921 sq. ft. UNIT B 11@ 1768.5 19,453.5 UNIT C 8@ 1409.5 11,276 UNIT C1 3@ 1377.5 4132.5 UNIT C+ 6@ 1427.5 8565 UNIT D 5@ 1161 5805 UNIT E 5@ 726 3630 Special 1@ 994 994 Total 45 units 66,777 GRFA GRFA of Interior Walls 1308 TOTAL 68,085 GRFA Additions to units previously approved 121 EXISTING GRFA FOR PROJECT 68,206 GRFA Proposed additions to GRFA Employee Unit 1,591 • Additional GRFA Pro osed 1 Total 70,829 . STAFF POSITION The staff feels that the addition of an employee unit to the project will have a positive impact while not increasing the mass and bulk on the site. However, the staff feels that the employee unit must count towards the total amount of GRFA on the site. The staff has concluded that because of the differences in the previous staff GRFA analysis and the recent staff GRFA check, it is reasonable to allow for a change in the allowable GRFA in this project. The staff finds that by increasing the allowable GRFA to 70,829 sq. ft. the applicant would be able to add the proposed employee unit and still have 1032 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining for future additions. The 1032 sq. ft. is the difference between the previous building permit GRFA and the approved GRFA. (63,968 sq. ft. building permit GRFA - 65,000 sq. ft. = 1,032 sq. ft.). Attached please find the applicant's proposal that further outlines the request. • • PARADIGM DESIGN ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS • • Ms. Shelly Mello Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Co. 81658 July 2, 1990 RE: Coldstream Racquet Facility Remodel Dear Shelly: This letter will address several issues involved in amending the SDD for Cascade Village, specifically the Coldstream Condominiums. 1. GRFA The project is allowed 65,000 s.f. TOV FILE 44 units 62,853 Small D unit 994 TOTAL 63 Additions to date 121 TOTAL . 63',968 STAFF CHECK 67,091 994 68,085 12 1 68,206 2. PROPOSED REMODEL AND ADDITIONS An existing racquet facility will be remodeled into a 1591 s.f. GRFA employee housing unit and 750 s.f. of office. The employee housing unit will be permanently deed restricted. The office will be used for the internal management only of Cascade Village Properties. Also included in the office portion of the remodel are owner storage, housekeeping, and laundry facilities. We are asking that this 1591 s.f. employee unit not be counted as GRFA since it is a permanently deeded employee condominium unit. In unit 26, a 110 s.f. GRFA bedroom expansion is proposed. In unit 1, a dining room addition of 38 s.f. GRFA is proposed. With this remodel and two additions, the total GRFA for the project would be 64,116 s.f. using the numbers in the TOV file. We also propose that the allowed number of dwelling units be reduced to 46. In the current SDD the allowable number of units is 65. This results in a density'decrease of 19 units. P.O. BOX 731 VAIL, COLORADO 81658 (303) 476 -6397 6 3. SITE COVERAGE Allowable for the project Existing for the project TOTAL REMAINING Proposed additions 1. Racquet building 2. Unit 26 3. Unit 1 TOTAL 64,216 34,878 29,338 s.f. 21 141 47 209 s.f. 4. PARKING (see site plan) Four standard parking spaces will be added by placing them in an existing berm. No trees will be removed. One compact parking space will be added by restriping an existing parking area. If you have any further questions please call me at 476 - -6397. Thank you for your consideration, sincerely, s Erich Hill Architect cc Coldstream Condominium Association Ira- TO: FROM: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department DATE: July 9, 1990 RE: A request to repeal and reenact Section 18.13.080 (A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail regarding Density Control for the Primary /Secondary zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND This section of the code was last amended June 7, 1988. During that amendment process, text was inadvertently eliminated pertaining to the relative sizes of two dwelling units on a Primary /Secondary lot. By approving this request, the Town will ensure that secondary units will not exceed 40 percent of the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for the lot. II. DESCRIPTION OF RE UEST The following paragraph would be amended as shown. The text that is in bold is proposed to be added. "Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site, with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than 15,000 sq. ft., and not more than 25 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 sq. ft. of site area for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of site area, plus not more than 10 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area shall be permitted for each 100 sq. ft. of site area over 15,000 sq. ft. not to exceed 30,000 sq. ft. of site area, plus not more than 5 sq. ft of GRFA for each 100 sq. ft. of site area in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. on any site containing two dwelling units, one of the dwelling units shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the total allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). No two family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or those of less than 15,000 sq. ft. shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two - family Primary /Secondary residential dwelling. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this change to the zoning code. Omission of the above bolded statements was not intentional and replacing them makes the code consistent with the standards used in the past for primary /secondary development. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 23, 1990 SITE VISITS - 10:30 A work session for an amendment to Town of Vail Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1983 and Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1987 governing wood - burning fireplaces, gas logs, and gas appliances. Applicant: Town of Vail 11:30 Site Visits 4 1:00 A work session for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. 2 :00 Public Hearing: 1. Approval of minutes from the July 9, 1990 meeting. 1 2. A request for a variance from the wall height requirement on Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch; 805 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola • 2 3. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a single family structure 3 -1/2 feet into the western side yard setback located at Lot 16, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, 1879 Meadow Ridge Road Applicant: Jerry Farquhar 3 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a "Television Station" in the Commercial Core II zone district, located at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Sunbird Lodge, 675 Lionshead Place. Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network. 7 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant 5 6. A request for a landscape variance in order to provide two additional parking spaces on the southern portion of Tract G, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 17 Vail Road.. Applicant: First Bank of Vail TABLED TO 7. A request for a conditional use permit in order to AUGUST 13 expand office space for a magnetic resonance imaging system and a satellite dish at the Vail • Valley Medical Center, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical. Center 8. A request for a side setback variance at Lots 1 -6, Block 5 Vail Village lst Filing, Unit 3B- -Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton 6 9. A request for a site coverage variance at Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 64 Beaver Dam Road. Applicant: H. Ross Perot 10. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code Section 18.04 to add a definition for a brew pub and a request to amend the Commercial Service Center Zone District, Section 18.28, to allow a brew pub as a permitted use. Applicant: Dean Liotta TABLED UNTIL 11. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, AUGUST 13TH Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.090 (B) density, 18.46.100 (B) floor area, 18.46.220 employee housing and 18.46.230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. TABLED UNTIL 12. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. AUGUST 13TH 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2. (The Valley Phase III) Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem 8 13. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance, a landscape variance and a floodplain modification on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5--B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building). Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. 40 • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 23, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Jill Kammerer Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry Susan Scanlan In the interest of time, work sessions were held prior to the public hearing. A work session for an amendment to Town of Vail Ordinance No. 24,_ Series of 1983 and Ordinance No. 28 Series of 1987 governin wood-burning fireplaces, as logs, and gas appliances. A licant: Town of Vail Susan Scanlan presented the proposal as per the staff memo. A work session for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. Tom McCurdy, representing the Amoco Corporation, responded to the issues addressed in the memo explaining that contamination was found on the Gateway site. However, they did not yet know the extent. After talking with staff, Amoco chose the proposed site because it would cause the least hardship for all concerned since any other location deleted parking spaces. Regarding alternate methods, the proposed design was the best for the situation. It was possible they would need larger wells, however, they had already allowed for additional space in the room for an additional air stripper. Amoco originally proposed to use a portable building. He said that staff had communicated concerns that a portable building would not meet design criteria. Regarding the use of the Gateway site rather than the Alpine Standard site, the present owner did not want them to use the basement as was originally planned. The owner had expressed concerns of liability and parking. 1 Chuck Crist asked how noisy the system would be and Tom McCurdy explained that the only noise would be generated by a compressor. The compressor would be within an enclosed building and the impact would be minimal. He felt the noise from the highway would be more obtrusive. Chuck then asked, if the problem was more extensive than originally thought, would Amoco have to build another station else where? From what distance could the wells be pumped? Tom McCurdy explained the wells could pump up to 200 -250 feet away. Dalton and Ludwig had no comments. Diana asked how deep they tested the water and Tom McCurdy explained they test anywhere from 20 to 40' below the ground surface. Diana also asked how much water would be processed in 1 day and Tom McCurdy explained that the system processed 35 gallons per minute. Diana was concerned about how the Water and Sanitation department would handle the situation and how it would affect the Town's water supply. Tom McCurdy explained that the water would be discharged to the Water and Sewer plant and the water plant discharged to the Town's streams. He did not feel that 35 gallons a minute would affect the water supply. Kathy Warren asked Tom Briner, the architect for the project, if they would be able to berm on either side of the building and Tom stated "yes ", on the sides but not the front or rear. Diana felt that the applicant should consider extra insulation to mitigate the noise. She asked Kristan if this would be an opportunity to clean the island /area up and Shelly reminded Diana and the board that there is a possibility of a sidewalk as well. Tom McCurdy explained that there was an unidentified easement and Diana felt that it was an issue that staff could handle and inform the board if it would be a problem at the next meeting. Shelly felt that the Town needed to see the final reports when they came out before making a recommendation and Tom McCurdy didn't feel the final reports would affect the location of the building. He felt the present meeting was to center around the aesthetics, noise etc. Chuck Crist asked how the air discharge was done and if it required stacks. Tom McCurdy explained that vents would be used. Chuck also wanted to know if there would be an odor and Tom McCurdy explained that the odor would be no more than the gas station itself. Bruce Gilly, representing the Holiday House, stated that the owners were worried about the property value going down due to the contamination that appeared to be under the Holiday House building. They would like to see the area cleaned up. They did want to know if there was danger. They didn't want to find gas in their basement. He asked, if they used the existing wells, how the pipes would be laid and Tom McCurdy explained that the pipes would all be undergrounded. Jim Shearer asked if the fumes from the air discharge would be flammable and Tom McCurdy answered "no." Diana Donovan stated that in general she felt the proposal was a "necessary.evil." The Planning and Environmental Commission public meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Since the meeting was running late, Item No. 1 was postponed to the end of the meeting. Item No. 2: A_ request for a variance from the wall height requirement on Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch: 805 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola Mike Mollica explained that the applicants were requesting a variance from a maximum allowable wall height to provide for the construction of a new single family home. The variance requested would allow for wall heights ranging from 3 feet to 10.5 feet in height. The average slope of the lot beneath the proposed residence and driveway was approximately 50 %. In order to access the site, the applicants were proposing a driveway with a maximum grade of 8 %. The staff recommendation was for approval of the variance requested for a maximum wall height of 10.5 feet per the drawings submitted Staff believed the request would not be a grant of special privilege and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The topographic conditions of the site created unique development considerations, and the staff believed that a hardship would be imposed upon the applicant if the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. The findings supporting the variance included IV A, B, and C2. Pam Hopkins, representing the applicant, agreed with the staff presentation. She explained that, as the architect on the project, she tried very hard to avoid asking for a variance. However, extensive soil testing deemed the variance request necessary. Pam explained the type of materials to be used in constructing the wall and showed photographs and examples. She added that the applicant had upgraded the landscaping since the original proposal. 0 3 Chuck Crist asked what color the wall was proposed to be and Pam answered "grey." Connie Knight explained that she had seen Georges Boyer, an adjacent property owner, in the room earlier and asked if he was for or against the proposal and Mike explained that he wanted to make sure the home was proposed solely on the owners' land, that it would not encroach into the open space tract immediately adjacent, which it did not. A motion to approve the requested wall height variance per the staff memo with the condition listed below was made b Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist condition: Landscaping be upgraded to the following: 5 12' -14' Engleman Spruce 2 12' -14' Blue Spruce 6 3 - 4 " caliper Aspen VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 3: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a single family structure 3-1/2 feet into the western side yard setback located at Lot 16, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, 1879 Meadow Ridge Road Applicant: Jerry Farquhar Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal explaining that the applicant proposed to build a sun room on an existing deck in front of his single family residence. The sun room would be 16 feet by 12 feet and would be located in front of the living room of the residence. The existing structure currently encroached 3' - 6" into the west side yard setback and the applicant proposed to align the new addition with the existing house, creating a similar setback encroachment. The staff recommendation was for approval of the requested variance. Because the existing house was in the setback creating a physical hardship, the owner deserved relief from the strict setback requirement. The variance would not be a grant of special privilege as the type of situation was justification for other variances in the past. There would be no negative impacts on adjacent properties. The related finding included IV A, B, C1 and C2. Mark Mueller, a local engineer representing the applicant, explained that the distance from the property line was actually 8.5 feet rather than 11.5 feet. Kristan asked Mark to explain how the inconsistency occurred and Mark explained that, at the time of the application, they were unable to find the improvement survey. They had since located it and found the discrepancy. The distance between the buildings would be the same. Ludwig Kurz asked if any trees would need to be relocated and Jim Farquhar said "yes ", they would be moved to the front of the home. Kristan explained the variance even The staff justifil fact the addition existing building with the request. to the board that staff was still supportive of though the original figures were not correct. nation to support the proposal was due to the would not encroach any further than the and a reasonable setback was still maintained A motion to approve the requested setback variance per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Dalton Williams. Conditions: 1. Any trees removed during construction be replanted on site 2. It be noted that the setback was 8.5 feet from the property line rather than 11.5 feet. VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 4: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a "Television Station" in the Commercial Core II zone district, located at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Sunbird Lodge, 675 Lionshead Place. Applicant: Vail /Seaver Creek Television Network. Mike Mollica presented the proposal for staff explaining that the applicant had proposed to locate a television studio in the Sunbird Lodge which was located within the Commercial Core II zone district. Within the zone district, television stations were an allowable use on first floor with an approved conditional use permit. The use had recently been added to the zoning code by the approval of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1990 by the Town Council on July 17, 1990. The ordinance required that any 0 5 approved television station have a production room /studio which would be visible from the street or pedestrian mall, and that the television station be "cablecast" only. The staff found that the request met the Conditional Use permit criteria and recommended approval of the "cablecast" type of television studio. Bill Perkins, the applicant, agreed with the staff presentation. Chuck Crist asked Mike for clarification on the parking fee requirement. He wondered why had the space not been required to pay a parking fee in the past, if in fact it had not. Mike explained that, in the past, a portion of the space had been considered retail as opposed to office space. Retail space had a different parking fee requirement from office space. Diana asked the applicant what would happen during off - season and Bill Perkins explained that the station would remain on the air. However, the morning show would be deleted for off - season and information that locals would be interested in would continue. Connie Knight asked why satellite dishes were not included in the ordinance and Bill Perkins explained that there were separate guidelines controlling satellite dishes and that T.V. stations should have to go through the same procedures as the rest of the zone district. Connie then asked what was going to happen when the Sunbird Lodge was redeveloped and Bill Perkins explained that the station would need to find a temporary operating space. However, the new plans would be designed to accommodate a T.V. Station. Bill expanded on the issue stating that he would hate to pay a parking fee when he knew that the redevelopment of the Sunbird would include parking facilities. Kathy Warren was concerned that the back portion of the floor plan called for splitting a window with framing and asked if whoever made the motion would make a particular reference that the area be reviewed carefully by the Design Review Board. A motion to approve the conditional use request per.the staff memo with the condition that the Design Review_ Board review the front and back office spaces in order to make the areas more aesthetically Pleasing from the exterior specifically, that the front space on the mall be upgraded (i.e. painted). was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR • 6 Item No. 5: A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Buildin at 201 Gore Creek Drive. Part of Tract., A,_ Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant Shelly Mello presented the proposal for staff explaining that the PEC reviewed a proposal for the Bell Tower Building on February 26, 1990 which included a ground level retail expansion along Gore Creek Promenade and additions to existing residential development on the upper floors. The current proposal to the Bell Tower building involved a ground level restaurant expansion along the Gore Creek Promenade. The nature of the proposal required the review of two separate requests including an exterior alteration request and a request to reduce landscaping. The landscaping variance was necessary because the brick pavers would be removed on the outdoor deck and a portion of a planter because of the deck enclosure. The staff recommendation was for approval of the exterior alteration request with the condition that the landscape variance be approved. The staff recommended that the PEC require the applicant to remove the railing surrounding the patio from November 1 to May 1 of each year. Staff also recommended that the applicant be required to participate in a project involving the property owners and the Town's Public Works Department in an effort to resolve severe drainage problems adjacent to the Bell Tower Building. The staff felt that the proposal had maintained the design elements of both the Bell Tower Building and Gore Creek Promenade which was critical to the streetscape framework of the area. In addition, the staff found that additions of this type along Gore Creek Promenade and in other areas of Town were quite successful in providing enhancement to walking areas throughout the year. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that there were two basic reasons why the applicant was proposing the expansion. The first was that the kitchen needed to be expanded and the second was that the patio had never really worked due to the north exposure. He felt that, in the beginning, no one liked to see a patio space enclosed. However, with the introduction of Rekord doors, a deck could be enclosed with the opportunity to open the area up as weather permitted. He felt the improvements were positive. Ludwig Kurz felt that the staff recommendations were misleading through the use of adjectives and adverbs. He liked the proposal and was in favor of the project. is 7 Dalton Williams agreed he would like to see the railings removed. 10 He also wanted to see snow and debris removed daily. It didn't make sense to him to have the entry door recessed. He felt by bringing the door forward, the applicant could make the area more inviting. He asked staff why the deck was not counted toward a parking fee in the past and Kristan explained that decks did not have a parking fee requirement while enclosed space did. Dalton felt the proposal would be a good improvement and supported the project. Chuck Crist asked the staff to explain the difference between " Hardscape and Living landscape." Kristan explained that, in the code, 20% of landscaping is allowed to be "hardscape", ie pavers, sidewalks, etc. In CCI there was no overall % of landscape required for a site. CCI zoning stated "NO REDUCTION" in landscaping should be allowed without sufficient cause and compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. Chuck asked the applicant if the flat portion of the roof was proposed to be gravel and Hermann Staufer answered that the portion of the roof that is flat would be metal, matching the skylight framing. Chuck then asked about the railings and flower boxes and Hermann stated that he put the flower boxes out every year. Chuck encouraged the continuation of flower boxes, hanging plants and generally supported the proposal. Kathy Warren quoted the zoning code as stating "No Reduction" of landscaping without "sufficient cause." She did not feel there was sufficient cause. She felt the code inferred 20% of the site should be landscape as the site coverage % was 80 %. As far as she could calculate, the area under review was down to 1.7% landscaped area. She commented that, in reviewing minutes from the expansion approval in 1987, every Commissioner had made statements regarding the landscaping. She didn't feel the expansion needed to encroach further. Hermann asked Kathy to imagine the building without planter boxes, hanging baskets etc. The pavers /hardscape was covered up during the winter. The proposal was losing pavers and adding transparency and he felt the transparency would liven up the area year round. Kathy Warren stated that she supported the Master Plan Policy No. 3.3.2 regarding Outdoor Dining as a streetscape feature. However, other examples (i.e. Blu's and Vendettas) were open for lunch and the Lancelot Restaurant was not. • 8 Jim Shearer agreed that the railings should be removed during the winter. He wanted to see the landscaping on the west end improved even though the land was not owned completely by the applicant. Jim Shearer asked Hermann if he was going to consider opening the restaurant for lunch and Hermann replied that the kitchen was too small presently, but that with a larger kitchen he could be open for lunch. Jim then asked what would happen with the gutter and heating with a flat roof and Craig Snowdon responded that the roof was really not flat. It had a slight slope and it was heated. Jim felt that improving the drainage on Gore Creek Promenade should be made a part of the approval. Craig said that the paving system at Lancelot Restaurant was four years old and they had never had any problem with it. All the other buildings on the Gore Creek Promenade had to do below grade drainage. All the buildings in the area would have to participate in the cost to complete the drainage. Kristan felt it did need to be part of the approval and stated the memo included this condition of approval. It was a public /private effort. Hermann replied that he would participate. Jim said that he was in favor of the proposal because the restaurant already used the deck space and because they were using Rekord doors which they could keep open, and it increased the livelihood of the Village. He felt that the increase in transparency was positive and that the western planter should be improved. Connie Knight had no problems with the Lancelot exterior alteration request. However, she felt disillusioned by the buckled pavers and felt that the Lancelot should participate in the restoration of the area. Kristan explained to Connie that it was hard to force the applicant to participate unless all parties in the area agreed. The applicant was agreeing as a condition of approval to participate when the work was done and Craig Snowdon explained that the proposed work would not hinder the improvement of the buckled pavers. Connie wanted to know where the snow would be stored and Kristan explained that the Public Works department would have to lift and truck it out. Diana felt that, in reality, all the applicant would have to do is put Rekord doors at the existing exterior wall. She did not support the staff recommendation. She felt there was not • 9 sufficient cause for a landscape variance. The reasons used to 18 justify the variance were the same that were stated for the addition in 1987. To Diana, this meant the needs should have been met in 1987. She could not support the use of public property for a deck and there was essentially no landscaping. Flower baskets were great in the summer but the building was bare in the winter. She did not believe sufficient cause had been shown to remove the landscaping. Chuck Crist asked if the planter to the west could be expanded to the north and Craig stated it would be possible if the Town would allow the expansion since it was Town property. Kristan wanted to clarify the staff's position. She reiterated that the staff's position was not to allow the landscape variance simply because there was no landscaping on other buildings nearby. The main reasons for supporting the variance are that the project meets the Urban Design Considerations and that the removal of the landscaping had been compensated for by the addition of a tree in the west planter. Dalton liked the idea of Rekord doors and felt that by going out further, onto Town property, they would be left open more often as heat from the building would make the space more useable. He felt the increase of transparency was also a good impact. A motion was made to approve a request for a landscape variance Rer the staff memo with the conditions that the applicant pursue the planting of an evergreen or other year - round tree on the west planted area and that the views of the alley be blocked in some manner by Chuck Crist and seconded by Jim Shearer. Discussion of the motion: It was also recommended that the applicant extend the west planter onto Town of Vail property if the Council would approve the encroachment. Jay felt that pedestrian flow would be blocked by the planter in the winter. Diana stated that the motion was to pursue the possibility, that the applicant needed to work on a solution. Hermann felt if a tree was planted that he would like to wait until after the paver work was done. VOTE: 5-2 IN FAVOR WITH KATHY WARREN AND DIANA DONOVAN AGAINST. . 10 ■ M A motion to approve a reggest for an exterior alteration per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Dalton Williams Conditions: 1. The applicant remove the deck railing between November 1 and May 1 of each year and remove snow from the area on a daily basis. 2. The applicant participate in a project involving the property owners and the Town's Public Works Department in an effort to resolve severe drainage problems adjacent to the Bell Tower Building. VOTE: 5-2 IN FAVOR WITH DIANA DONOVAN AND KATHY WARREN AGAINST. Item No. 6: A request for a landscape variance in order to provide two additional parking spaces on the southern portion of Tract G, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 17 Vail Road. Applicant: First Bank of Vail Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal for staff explaining that the applicant was requesting a variance from the landscape standards to add two compact car spaces to the parking area south of the 1st Bank building. Three aspen and two spruce trees would be relocated and 189 square feet of landscaping would be removed. The staff recommended denial of the request stating that the request would be a grant of special privilege and had a negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Staff recommended the restriping of the south lot and removing the sign adjacent to the parking that stated "Private Parking, Unauthorized vehicles would be towed." Craig Snowdon, representing the applicant, explained that First Bank had a constant short -term parking problem and the proposed location was the only feasible location. Regarding the signage that related to the back parking, he said they could look at signage for the parking and could do the restriping of the parking lot. He felt two additional parking spaces were a positive aspect for the public use and it would also help the First Bank. Dalton was not in favor of restriping. He felt there was just enough space to park now and that standard size cars would try to use the smaller spaces. 0 11 Kathy Warren opposed the decrease of landscaping. She said that 49 striping at an angle would help, then the cars would have to turn around by the dumpsters. Andy stated that the staff suggestion to restripe would result in spaces with 9 foot widths, which would not be substandard. Diana felt she would rather see trees than two more parking spaces. A motion to deny a request for a landscape variance per the staff memo was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Ludwi Kurz VOTE: 6 -0 -1 WITH JIM SHEARER ABSTAINING Item No. 7: A request for a conditional in order to expand office space for a magnetic resonance imaging system and a satellite „dish _at the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Postponed to the end of the meeting to be tabled. Item No. 8: A request for a side setback variance at Lots 1-6, Block 5 Vail Village 1st Filing, Unit 3B- -Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Stewart Colton Staff explained that the applicant did not have condominium approval and requested the item be tabled. Jim Morter addressed the board and stated that they did not want to table the item. He claimed that the condominium declarations state that, if the applicant did not have an answer within 10 days, approval was to be presumed. Jim mentioned two concerns of adjacent property owners. Kristan responded, explaining that the staff received an unsigned letter with two concerns. She said that condominium association approval was very important and a signed letter of approval was critical. Jim Morter said that the adjacent property owner's concern was the third level deck which he offered to remove. • 12 Ross Davis, representing Mr. Watson, an adjacent owner, felt that the plans looked good. He was concerned about scheduling of the construction. Mr. Davis suggested that the applicant was asking for an unnecessary setback variance from a non existent lot line. He further suggested that the lot lines had been vacated via a 1964 condominium map. Kristan stated that she was sorry that the project had been affected but felt that the staff could not ignore the fact that they had not received a letter of approval from the condominium association. Kristan added that she felt this was a civil issue that the owners needed to resolve before the staff reviewed the request. She concluded that the staff wished to table until the August 13th PEC meeting. Andy invited Mr. Davis to present his material for further study prior to the next meeting. She told Jim Morter that he could go to the Design Review Board for a conceptual review on August 1st if he wished. VOTE: 7 -- 0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING Item No. 9: A request for a site coverage variance at Lot 31, Block 7._ Vail village 1st Filing, 64 ,Beaver Dam Road. Applicant: H. Ross Perot Diana asked the applicant if the stakes outlining the footprint of the house were current, and Jim Morter answered "no." Discussion centered around whether the board was comfortable enough to proceed though the stakes were not current and it was decided to proceed. Mike Mollica explained that the applicant was requesting a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a new single family home, with an attached three -car garage. The existing single family home on the site was proposed to be demolished, due to structural concerns with the foundation. Given the steep slopes on the lot, the site coverage requirement of the property was limited to 15 %. Because the slopes exceeded 30%, the applicant was allowed to locate the garage within the front setback area without a setback variance. Mike reviewed the history of the project, the zoning analysis, and the criteria and findings applicable to the project. The staff recommendation was for approval. Staff believed the lot was encumbered with a physical hardship, due to the extreme slopes on the site. Staff Is 13 also believed that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare of properties or persons in the vicinity. For those reasons, staff felt that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the variance request. Jim Morter, the architect representing the applicant, explained that the site had a hardship. Given the opportunity, the applicant would prefer to put the garage under the house. In order to do this, the house would have to be in the front setback. As the detailed planning began with the previous proposal, they found it impractical to remodel. The current proposal met all other requirements. As Mike had stated, they could build a carport and it would not count as site coverage. Jim pointed out tree locations and offered to replace any trees that would not have been removed by the previous plan. Chuck Crist asked if the area across the street would still be revegetated as in the previous proposal and Jim answered "yes." Connie Knight asked why the PEC did not review the 250 request and Kristan explained that the 250 request was not part of the site coverage variance which should be looked at on its own merit. Jim Morter stated that if they were not to receive the 250 request, they would delete a loft bedroom on the top floor and therefore site coverage would not change. i Jim Shearer was concerned about landscaping. He wanted to be sure that the applicant would save as many trees as possible. He felt that the excavation of the home presented a high risk to many of the trees on site. Jim Morter explained to Jim Shearer that they had looked at many different scenarios and the current proposal was the best. The trees to the northeast of the house would have a big impact if removed. Kathy Warren felt that the applicant should be required to extensively landscape due to the loss of mature landscaping and Jim Morter agreed. Ludwig Kurz felt that the applicant should keep all possible trees with the condition that any damaged trees be replaced with mature /substantial trees. A motion to approve a site coverage variance per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. Conditions: 0 14 0 1. The applicant plant mature landscaping throughout the site. 2. The site of the existing structure be taken back to natural grade and landscaped. 3. The area across Beaver Dam Road be revegetated. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR Kristan recommended that trees on the site be photographed and sizes determined before a building permit is released so that if trees die due to construction, there would be agreement on size and type replacement trees. Item No. 10: A rectuest to amend the Vail Municipal Code Section 18.04 to add a definition for a brew pub and a request to amend the Commercial Service Center Zone District, Section 18.28, to allow a brew pub as a permitted use. Applicant: Dean Liotta i Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal for staff explaining that the applicant was proposing to change the zoning code to allow a brew pub as a use by right in the Commercial Service Center zone district. The request was to define the brew pub use in the definition section of the code, list the use as a permitted use in the CSC section of the code, list the use, with limited off site sales, as a conditional use in the CSC section of the code, and include a paragraph, also in the CSC section, regarding operating characteristics. Andy reviewed the background research that had been done and the applicable criteria and findings. The staff recommendation was for approval of the request. Andy, at the request of Larry Eskwith, clarified the difference between on -site consumption, retail sales for off -site consumption, and wholesale sales. Kristan felt it was important for the board to understand that the brew pub use was intended to be accessory to a restaurant. Dean Liotta explained that he was not planning on brewing on a constant basis. He wanted to brew 3 to 5 times per week (Brewing took approximately 75 minutes) and he would like to be able to brew during normal working hours. If it became a problem in the future, he would be happy to change the hours of brewing. He had been given a 1000 barrel a year cap. He stated he would hate to 0 15 be at 1000 barrels on December 15 and be forced to go 2 weeks . without business. He asked what would happen in that situation? Kristan explained to Dean, that if he was that close to his cap, he could come back and request a higher cap. Dean felt that the sale to a restaurant patron that took a 6 -pack home should be considered on -site sales. Kristan stated that, not only restaurant patrons buy beer to take out, but others would use the pub as a liquor store and it would create additional traffic. Diana felt that if the pub was going to have both sales for off - site consumption and wholesales, they should be considered as two separate conditional uses. Dean showed the board pictures of what the equipment looked like and how it would be laid out on the site. Kristan suggested that if the odor was a problem, the staff (T.O.V.) could initiate a code change. Dean agreed that he would comply with future odor control ordinances. Kathy Warren suggested that the issue be discussed when he came to the board for a conditional use permit for off -site sales. A motion to recommend approval to the Town Council per Exhibit A of the staff memo with the following changes was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist 1. The barrel per year cap be increased to 1500 2. Item No. 3, Permitted, Uses - -(G) referencing operating hours be deleted. 3. The Section on Conditional Uses - -(L) be amended so that sales for off -site consumption and wholesales be separate conditional uses. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR Item No. 13: A request for a work session for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance a landsca a variance and a flood lain modification on Lot C and Lot D and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B all in Block 5 -B Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street (Covered Bridge Building). Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. 0 16 Mike Mollica presented the proposal for staff. He explained the is changes that had been made since the last work session including roof height percentages, the adjacent pocket park (Town Council had given permission to proceed with design), the removal of sidewalks to give a more informal access, and modifications to the retaining wall near the Covered Bridge. Dalton suggested that the Town move /dump the snow elsewhere. Mike explained that the staff interpretation of height restrictions would be split 50/50 with the 50% to the east taken off of Bridge Street grade and the 50% to the west taken from the grade from the northwest corner of the building. The interpretation was taken from how past situations were handled. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant, felt that the grade from Bridge Street should be used entirely. The elevation from Bridge Street was clearly the elevation that was important. Regardless, they would still need a variance. Kristan explained that in order to allow the Covered Bridge Building to use the Bridge Street grade for determining height the staff would have to allow the same grade to be used throughout the Village. Doing that would create future problems. Dalton Williams felt that, if the applicant stayed within the height guidelines, the result would be a massive building fronting the road and a big yellow wall (Pepi's Building) visible to the north. Kathy Warren stated that she did not see a physical hardship to justify granting the variance. Ned Gwathmey reviewed the Village Master Plan points which he felt related to the project, stating that the Master Plan called for the stepping down of buildings from the Frontage Road and called for a 3 to 4 story building in the Village. Ned felt that the existing site was a hardship. They were in the floodplain, the building itself was in bad shape, the cost of demolition and redevelopment was a hardship. The existing building did not meet safety concerns. Diana Donovan felt that the floodplain seemed to be the only true physical hardship she could see. She asked what the square footage of the area of the existing building that was within the floodplain and Ned Gwathmey answered 11 60 sq. ft. ". Diana felt she might support a height variance for not encroaching into the floodplain. Diana felt that the other hardships that Ned had listed were self imposed in that the owner was aware of them when he purchased the building. Jim Shearer stated that he had been trying to weigh the pros and 0 17 cons of the project. He felt that, personally, he came up with . more pluses than minuses. He felt that the project would be the chance to ask the Town to find a different location to dump snow. He felt that the building was the first impression of Vail Village and did not feel it was desirable to have the buildings all the same size. He liked the pocket park design and improved safety features. There was no doubt that the proposal was above the allowed height by the difference of grade to the rear. He was in favor of the commercial space downstairs. Connie Knight stated that originally she had thought "not more downtown infill ". However, after walking around the building she realized it did need help. She did feel the project was still too dense. Kathy Warren felt the proposal was for 5 levels not 4 and that the applicant could get closer to the height called for in the code. She did not see a physical hardship. Diana Donovan felt the project was "good and bad ". She needed more reasons before she could support a variance. She felt, if the applicant would drop the creek side elevation down, the project would be closer to receiving her support. Diana asked what percent of the roof was too tall and the memo said 53% and Bruce Amm replied that the greatest percentage of . the roof was an area below 33% and that they were moving that area to the back so that most of the unused volume was toward the back. Diana replied that it was really not the Board's absolute right to trade in this area. Dalton agreed with the staff. He felt the applicant was going to have to live with the rules. Maybe stepping down from Pepi's building would also help the height situation of Pepi's roof. He liked the design of the project. Ludwig asked if there was consistent interpretation of the grades, and Mike replied that there had been and Kristan and Tom Braun had conferred as to what had been done in the past. Ludwig felt that it was an improvement to the building but felt that the height was still a number one concern. Kristan said that a couple of Board members asked if the applicant was going to consider an SDD. She said that it was an option but that it was not an easy process either. Ned replied that underlying zoning would still have to be considered. Kathy said that, with an SDD the applicant could probably use 0 18 Bruce Amm's argument regarding moving the mass of the lower roof is to the front of the building and the mass of the higher roof next to Pepi's. Connie said that she would vote against an SDD. Diana pointed out that under the existing zoning only the height needed mitigation. Mike explained how the surveyor would determine the View Corridor from the demolished parking structure. Bruce Amm felt that they were clearly out of the View Corridor and Mike said that it didn't appear that the project would go into the View Corridor, but that verification was required. Kristan said that she wanted to be sure that Ned knew all of the other options. Ned asked for a definition of "hardship" and Kristan explained the definition. Item No. 7: A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand office space for a magnetic resonance imaging system and a satellite dish at the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center i Item No. 11: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections 18.46.090 (B) density, 18.46.100 (B) floor area, 18.46.220 employee housing and 18.46.230 time requirements to convert an existing racquetball facility into an employee housing unit; management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. Item No. 12: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2. (The Valley Phase III Applicant: Brad & Susan Tjossem A motion to table items NO. 7. 11, and 12 to the August 13, 1990 meeting was made by Kathy Warren and Seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR is 19 Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from the July 9, 1990 meeting. • The following changes were requested: Page 2-- change "Rudy ", twice in the first paragraph to Ludwig. Page 2 -- strike "and second home rental" Page 7- --add "entire Cascade SDD" under the sq. ft. calculations. A motion to approve the minutes from the July 9. 1990 meeting with corrections was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR An informal discussion followed concerning staff memos. • d o 20 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission 4 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: Air Quality Research: Summary & Staff Recommendation I. BACKGROUND Over the past several years the town staff has been conducting various studies, testing programs and research programs related to the topic of air quality. This has been an extension of efforts which began as early as 1978. The effort has included air quality studies such as a woodburning survey (1984), a carbon monoxide study (1987- 88), the present emissions inventory (1988- 1989), in addition to the ongoing PM10 monitoring. Staff has also researched chemical mass balance testing (CMB), regulations in other communities which address the issue of woodburning and other related minor items. • The Town currently experiences periods of reduced visibility during the winter season as a result of various contributing factors. This issue has been addressed in the past by having voluntary no burn weekends requiring the installation of Colorado certified solid fuel burning devices and by limiting the number of fireplaces which can be installed in new construction, both residential and commercial. Although these measures have been in place for a number of years we continue to experience periods of reduced visible air quality. The carbon monoxide study which was conducted during the winter season of 1987 -1988 concluded that carbon monoxide levels are not currently in exceedance of state or federal standards nor is there any indication that this will occur in the foreseeable future. Elevated carbon monoxide levels are related to the amount of vehicular emissions and generally poor air quality conditions such as those which Occur during temperature inversions. Denver experiences some carbon monoxide violations during the winter season because of temperature inversions combined with the large number of vehicles on the road. Vail does not experience problems with carbon monoxide because of the free shuttle bus system, weather patterns and reduced numbers of vehicle trips. The emissions inventory which concluded Vail has two major pollution. These sources wer fireplaces and woodstoves and was completed in May 1989 sources of PM10 or particulate e identified as emissions from resuspended road sanding 0 1 material. The emissions from wood smoke are estimated to contribute 57t of the total picture, road sanding and resuspension 33%, dirt resuspension 7 %, tailpipe emissions 2t and restaurant grills making up the remaining 2t. Based on the results of the inventory, controlling the emissions from wood smoke and addressing the road sanding issue will have the greatest impact on the PM10 emissions. Although there was some imprecision in the data due to its basis on emissions factors from other areas and interpolation for Vail, the overall conclusion remains the same that the major contributing factors to the overall air quality problem are wood smoke and road sanding material resuspension. II. RESEARCH The staff has contacted various communities throughout Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah to gather information concerning fireplace ordinances in other communities. A. Communities with no Regulations: 1. Jackson Hole, Wyoming Research is currently underway similar to what Vail is doing. They are gathering information on control measures currently in place in other 10 communities. Although it is perceived that Jackson Hole has a potential problem because of long term inversions which occur during the winter season, they do not have any PM10 violations to their knowledge. They are unaware of any current PM 10 monitoring although the State may currently be conducting this sampling. It is hard to gain support for the development of control measures without any violations. However, people are concerned about solving the problem before it gets worse. 2. Pocatello, Idaho Independent research has been done by private individuals based on health concerns -- asthma and allergies. The information has been presented to the city government, but no action has been taken to date. Monitoring for PM10 and other gaseous species has been set up and will run from February 1990 - January 1991. The information will then be analyzed to determine which sources need to be controlled. 0 2 • 3. Park City, Utah Although the issue has been raised several times and control measures discussed, to date nothing has been developed. To date it is not perceived that there is a sufficient problem to warrant the development of any control measures. 4. Summit County, Colorado There are no control measures currently in place in Summit County except for the Town of Breckenridge. According to Jim Rada, Environmental health Officer for Summit County, the issue will probably be researched in the next year or so. 5. Pagosa Springs, Colorado The State of Colorado conducted a study in Pagosa Springs 2 -3 years ago to determine the sources of PM10. They believed woodburning to be a major contributor, but their study found the source to be the unpaved roads not woodburning. According to the City Attorney, the city did not develop any • control measures for woodburning as a result of the study. 6. Fort Collins, Colorado Although there are no limitations placed on the number of solid fuel devices per dwelling in the city, there are limitations placed on type of fuel to be burned - -no coal and to the type of woodstove which can be installed. The woodstove, free standing or insert, must meet Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulations. The city has also established opacity standards for the smoke coming out of chimney flues. 7. Eagle County, Colorado The county is currently researching air quality plans in other communities. This background information is to allow for the development of a plan for presentation to the board of County Commissioners by the end of the year. 0 3 B. Communities with Reaulations in glace: 1. Castle Rock, Colorado Elevation: 6,500 ft. Population: 8,500 residents Geography: Gently rolling area with a few ridges, hills. The City of Castle Rock has been determined to be a part of the Denver metro area air shed although they are located 25 miles south of the city. Based on the air studies conducted in the metro area and the support of several council members, it was determined to take strong action to limit the increased deterioration of the air quality in the Plum Creek Basin. Effective December 31, 1989 the City of Castle Rock prohibited the construction of any new solid fuel burning devices. At present the ordinance allows only for the installation of gas appliances - -no installation of any type of unit which can be converted to solid fuel burning. The ordinance does not allow for the installation of "clean- burning" stoves, but does have a provision which will allow for review of the Phase III stove . technology when it becomes available. The limits were imposed when Castle Rock had approximately 3500 units constructed of a possible 50,000 dwelling units. The ordinance was devised as a result of the visible particulate pollution. It was felt that wood burning was a major cause of the pollution and as a result was the only contributor dealt with for reduction /control of the pollution problem. Castle Rock does not currently sample for PM10, but feels the state may run some monitors in their area. At last report the city is in compliance with state and federal air quality limits. 2. Crested Butte, Colorado Elevation: 8,888 ft. Population: 1,000 full time residents Geography: Town located at the upper end of the East River Valley. The valley is very narrow and surrounded on 3 sides by mountains. 0 4 • Crested Butte was in a rather unique position several year ago to receive help with their air quality situation from the Wood Heating Alliance. In an effort to alleviate the visual effect on the air in the Town of Crested Butte, an ordinance was developed where by all solid fuel burning units had to be replaced over a 3 year period with either gas appliances, certified wood stoves or fireplace inserts or removed altogether. Given the 3 year compliance period, 95% of those who complied did so within the last 30 days of the time frame. According to Bill Cranke, 25% of the units are still not in compliance. A cooperative effort was made with the Wood Heating Alliance to offer stoves and inserts at wholesale prices. This still involved an expenditure on the part of residents of $1000- $2000 for the units. This created ill feeling on the part of some residents, but prior to any implementation of the program or ordinance, a survey was done to gather a feel for people's perception of the air quality problem. 86% of those surveyed felt there was a problem and were . willing to do something about it. The decision to implement the ordinance was based on past TSP (total suspended particulate) violations, but no additional studies had been completed to determine source apportionment of contributing sources of particulates. PM10 monitoring is ongoing with Crested Butte currently being in compliance with state and federal emission standards. A reduction in the visibility problem has been achieved and an approximate reduction of 80 -90% in emissions. Their staff recommended requiring non - catalytic stoves and cautions against problems related to retrofitting or changing old units. 3. Breckenridge, Colorado Elevation: 9,600 ft. Population: 1,396 year round residents; 18,860 peak season population Geography: A fairly narrow valley located east of the 10 mile mountain range. 5 Although Breckenridge has not done extensive • monitoring or studying of their emissions picture, their Planning Commission and political entities made the move to place limitations on the number of solid fuel burning devices in their jurisdiction. This was brought about by a desire not to have the air quality problems seen in other mountain communities. They took the steps to initiate their present ordinance because of the visual impacts created in other communities by the development of large multi - family developments. There is a significant potential for Breckenridge to expand by the construction of large multi- family developments. The response to the ordinance has been very favorable and has received the support of the elected officials. Although there is a variance process incorporated into the ordinance, no variances have been granted. The original ordinance was drafted by the Planning Commission and made more restrictive by the Town Council. The original ordinance has been in place for over 5 years, but the current restrictions were imposed as the result of revisions to the Development Code in the summer of 1988. The ordinance permits one woodburning appliance per dwelling unit for single family residential, unless larger than 4,000 sq. ft. in which case there may be 2. In duplex or townhouse residential , if units are 1,500 sq. ft. or larger they may have one appliance per unit. If the units are smaller than 1,500 sq. ft. of internal heated floor area, they are not allowed a wood burning appliance. The ordinance was based on square footage as a means to set limits without scientific basis. It was a fairly arbitrarily drawn point of reference. In multi -unit residential buildings, one woodburning appliance is allowed in the lobby area if over 1,000 sq. ft. in size. No woodburning appliances are allowed in dwelling units. If development occurs which would wish to provide additional fireplaces to those which are permitted they may do so by the use of gas, electricity or similar means. 0 6 4. Telluride, Colorado • Elevation: 8,745 ft. Population: 1,300 year round residents. Geography: Box canyon . The city is located in a valley surrounded on 4 sides by mountains. During the late summer /early fall of 1985, the Town of Telluride initiated a registration program for all solid fuel burning devices and issued permits for the registered units. The ordinance also called for the prohibition of construction of new solid fuel burning devices unless they met strict emissions standards and permitted only one per unit - -no open burning fireplaces are permitted unless they are located on restaurants, bars or commercial lobbies. The ordinance also incorporated a rebate program over a 3 year period to encourage people to install alternate forms of heat or to upgrade their existing wood burners. All open fireplaces in residential units had to be equipped with fireplace inserts. The rebate program was funded through the town's real estate transfer tax and offered: • 1st & 2nd year $750 for alternate form of heat $200 for certified woodburning unit 3rd year $250 for alternate form of heat $100 for certified woodburning unit These actions were taken in Telluride based on the supposition that Telluride would be in violation of PM10 standards based on historical TSP data. However, no professional air quality comprehensive study was completed before the ordinance was enacted. There was also a great deal of visual evidence supporting the premise of an air quality problem. The Town of Telluride continues to do PM10 monitoring today and is currently in compliance with state and federal standards. The public was generally unhappy with the ordinance and registration program when it was initially introduced. There was one lawsuit against the Town which was dismissed and talk of a citizens initiative to change the parameters of the ordinance, but it never got off the ground. At this time, they have achieved compliance with a solid fuel burning units. • 7 5. Steamboat Springs, Colorado • Elevation: 6,700 ft. Population: 6,300 people year round. Geography: A wide valley with rolling mountains on two sides. In early 1987 the town of Steamboat Springs passed an ordinance which required the registration of all solid fuel burning devices within a 6 month period of final passage of the ordinance. Reports from the planning office and environmental health office indicate that the registration program has not been overly successful. The lack of success is based on the mail -out type of registration they conducted- -not a great deal of return of surveys. The ordinance placed limitations on the number of solid fuel burning devices allowed in residential units. In single family, duplex and two family homes one solid fuel burning advice is allowed per dwelling unit. In multi- family buildings, there is a limitation of one approved solid fuel burning device allowed per building. The ordinance also required the elimination of non - conforming solid fuel burning devices in existing dwelling units and specified time frames for completion of this project. The non- conforming units had to be eliminated, but could be replaced with approved solid fuel devices. The ordinance also requires the elimination of solid fuel burning devices which are non - conforming in commercial buildings and permits the installation of only one approved device per building after the effective date of the ordinance. The controls were imposed and developed as the result of an air quality advisory committee. The basis for the initial control measures was a public perception that there was an air quality problem. Steamboat Springs has historically violated TSP limits and has recently- winter '89- '90-- violated PM10 limits. The committee in Steamboat is reorganizing to address the issue of number of units in multi- family buildings and also the issue of retrofitting existing units. Public response to control measures for future construction has been great. • 8 6. Aspen, Colorado Elevation: 7,928 ft. Population: 12,000 year round permanent residents. Geography: Narrow valley with 10,000+ feet peaks on 3 sides of the valley. The valley floor is approximately 1/2 mile wide in town. Aspen has been regulating solid fuel devices since as early as 1973 when the Colorado Department of Health recommended a moratorium against the construction of fireplaces in condominiums and lodges. The first law in 1977, allowed unlimited woodstoves and one fireplace for single family dwellings. In multi - family developments the units had to be over 3,500 sq. ft. to allow separate fireplaces. This 1977 law also allowed for the construction of only one fireplace in the lobby for hotels and motels. In 1983 the 1977 law was modified to require that all stoves installed were certified units. In 1986, the law was further modified to allow the installation of one fireplace or one certified stove per multi - family building. The most recent . revision to the ordinance applies to the metro area which encompasses most of Pitkin County. The current ordinance allows for the installation of one gas log fireplace with a provision for a second device if it is a gas log fireplace or certified stove. This provision is allowed per building and prohibits the installation in individual condos. The ordinance also allows for the installation of an unlimited number of gas appliances per building. As a part of this 1988 ordinance there was also a registration program required which to date has registered 5,200 of 5,500 property owners. The metro area ordinance no longer allows for the construction of wood burning fireplaces unless they are equipped with gas logs. This type of ordinance has been well received by the general public as it relates to new construction or individuals doing additional work to units and does not require removal of existing wood fireplaces as was initially proposed. • 9 Aspen is designated as a Group I PM10 area. In is other words, they have violated PM10 standards and have been required to develop a local implementation plan to bring the community within PM10 limits. Aspen has based their ordinances over the years on results of emissions inventories and updates conducted in 1977, 1982 and 1987. The ordinance developed in 1988 was the product of the emissions inventory and some computer modeling done by the Colorado Department of Health. Aspen has done CMB sampling for the past 2 seasons in conjunction with the State Health Department, but have no results to date. They did purchase meteorological gear to enable them to predict high pollution days and announce no burn alerts, but equipment failure has prevented any alerts. III. CURRENT VAIL ORDINANCE A great deal of the research and studies which have been conducted have been to allow for the well informed development of an overall air quality plan. The plan would address Vail's air quality on a long term basis and encompass a number of different factors which contribute to the overall air quality. In addition to the overall plan the staff would like to recommend changes and revisions to 4P existing fireplace ordinances. These changes would address some of the issues which have been raised related to fireplaces and the current ordinances. The initial purpose for the original fireplace ordinance and the purpose of the proposed recommendations is to protect the air quality of the valley and to reduce the amount of particulate pollution introduced into the air. Each of these recommendations will result in no net increase in the amount of particulate pollution and may result in a decrease by eliminating some particulate. The staff recommendations are: A. Include a provision to the existing ordinance to allow for the construction of 2 masonry fireplaces for the installation of gas logs in new residential dwelling units. If the fireplaces are constructed under this provision of the ordinance, the owner will forfeit the right to burn wood in either fireplace. This provision would also allow for the installation of one gas appliance. 0 10 Research has indicated that the by- products of natural • gas combustion are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and small amounts of smoke under improper operating conditions. These by- products are not released in sufficient quantities to pose any problems from the standpoint of carbon monoxide or particulate levels. At this time there are no standards for levels of hydrocarbons or nitrogen oxides. The overall effect of burning natural gas as opposed to wood in a fireplace is a 85 -99% reduction in the levels of carbon monoxide and particulates released to the atmosphere. Although a 99% reduction in particulates is rather optimistic, research shows the reduction to be over 90 %. B. Change the existing ordinance which allows for the construction of one wood burning fireplace and one certified wood stove or two certified woodstoves per dwelling unit to permit only one fireplace or one certified wood stove per unit. C. Include language which specifically states that if two separate dwelling units are combined to form one larger unit and both previously had fireplaces there are two options: • 1. Both units may remain if both are converted to gas logs or if the fire box and vent are converted to accommodate a gas appliance; or 2. One wood burning fireplace must be removed. D. Include language which states that if units are to be considered separate for the purposes of consideration for 2 wood burning fireplaces they must be completely separate- -must have a complete physical separation between units - -no connecting doors. E. Consideration of a provision to prohibit the installation or construction of wood burning units- - whether fireplaces or stoves - -in units which are employee restricted, caretaker designated, units which cannot be subdivided and sold separately or units under a certain square footage. The staff recommends these changes to the current ordinance to address requests which have been made recently and also to continue to respond in a responsive and yet environmentally sensitive manner to the issue of fireplaces. 0 11 IV. OVERALL AIR QUALITY PLAN At this point in time the next step in the development of an overall air quality plan for Vail is to make a determination of how to proceed. As indicated earlier, the Town currently has historical TSP (total suspended particulate) data, PM10 data (both historical and ongoing), the woodburning survey results, carbon monoxide study findings, emissions inventory findings and research information from actions taken in other communities. The staff has also investigated the costs of conducting a chemical mass balance study to further delineate the percentage contribution of the major particulate pollutants (see attachment from PEC memo 3/19/90). The bulk of the research conducted from other communities has indicated that ordinances and control measure have been developed based on a variety of base data ranging from past TSP violations, PM10 violations, emissions inventories and in several cases public concern over the degradation of the community's visibility or visual air quality. The ordinances cover an extensive range of options in the various communities and their acceptance has also been varied. • At this time, the Planning Commission is asked to consider the next step in the process for the development of an overall air quality plan. There has been some indication on the part of several members that the chemical mass balance analysis should be the next step in collection of background data for a well founded, well based air quality plan. The staff feels at this time that consideration should be given to the length of time required to conduct the CMB study. The study could quite possibly run from the start of the ski season to early spring. There would be a delay experienced in receiving data from this study and there is some concern in putting off the development of control measures until next summer. The staff supports, in theory, the question of a chemical mass balance analysis to provide numerical data for back -up of proposed control measures, but would caution that there is a certain amount of uncertainty and variability inherent even in this type of study. • 12 Conversations with various other communities and experts 0 during the course of this research have caused staff to hesitate on taking a position to advocate conducting a chemical mass balance analysis. We currently do not experience PM10 violations or elevated values which seem to be necessary for an effective chemical mass analysis to be conducted. Prior to implementing a CMB study, the staff would recommend evaluation of existing PM10 by a trained professional to determine the effectiveness of a CMB study in our circumstances. The staff would make this recommendation as a precaution against conducting a study which may not provide any more conclusive data than is already available. The study is also quite expensive. If it can be determined that the CMB will not provide additional relevant data, a great deal of money can be saved and possibly used for a rebate program or other incentives to improve air quality. V. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Vail has strived to be a proactive, environmentally sensitive community and at this point staff would recommend a continuation of this policy. The environment here in Vail is a natural resource which must be preserved and cannot be replaced. A large part of the success of the area is the natural beauty which we must protect. We would recommend development of future control measures in relation to woodburning and road sanding based on the studies conducted to date. These proposed recommendations should be well considered as they will be long term and far reaching. Staff would recommend consideration of the following points: 1. Limit woodburning in multi - family units -- especially for units under a certain square footage. 2. Consider the prohibition of woodburning fireplaces in new construction. 3. Develop cost analysis for utilizing less polluting road sanding materials and improved street cleaning practices. 4. Consider financial incentives to convert from wood to gas. 5. Complete changes to the existing fireplace ordinances on pages 10 and 11. is 13 If the commission advocates CMB tasting, the staff would recommend it be conducted in conjunction with the development of the above control measures. As stated previously, we recommend that a trained professional determine if a CMB study will provide useful data for policy development. In this way the development of the control measures and air quality plan will continue to go forward instead of being on hold for the upcoming ski season and potentially next spring's building season. Monies, if spent, will be used prudently. • • 14 FikOM PEC MEMO OF 3/19/90 II. Chemical Mass Balance Testing The staff has researched this topic from two different sources and have received the following information. Sheila Burns from the Colorado Department of Health Air Pollution Control Division and John Watson of the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada were contacted for information on this topic. At this point, this information is provided to you and hopefully any technical questions can be clarified next week when John Leary is here from the State. A. Sheila Burns - Colorado Department of Health Air Pollution Control Division Sheila indicated that our current PM 10 filters could be used for chemical mass balance analysis, but in order to get an accurate picture, quartz and Teflon filters should be run simultaneously. The cost of Teflon filters is fairly nominal at a few dollars per filter. In order to run the Teflon filters at the same time as the quartz filters, a dichotomous sampler is required. The cost of this type of sampler is approximately $6,500.00. Cost for analysis of each filter is approximately $200.00. Sheila suggested that in order to get a fair sampling of accurate and useable results, the samplers should be run every other day during our peak pollution period. This would involve sampling every other day from at least December 1 to January 31. The cost for this analysis would be 30 samples X $200.00 /sample or approximately $6,000.00. The margin of error for chemical mass balance testing is approximately 20 %. This means 20% of the sample could be unexplained or it could be 20% overexplained. According to Sheila, this is an acceptable margin of error according to EPA standards. B. John Watson - Desert Research Institute If we were able to use our existing PM 10 filters for analysis, a chemical mass balance study could be conducted for approximately $10,000.00. This would require analysis not only of approximately 15 filters, but also 4 source profile samples (road sanding material profiles). • John felt this would give a picture of the contributing factors, but since the contributing sources to the air quality picture vary from day to day it may be difficult to get an accurate picture with the limited sampling. John felt our major contributors would be dirt, woodsmoke and possibly tailpipe exhaust. John also indicated there could be a 15 -25% degree of uncertainty for the chemical mass balance results. The $10,000.00 figure for this testing would include filter analysis, source profiles and modeling work done by a staff scientist to analyze effective control measures. This information is provided as requested for your review. If you have questions concerning this information please make note of them for the meeting next Monday. John Leary and a technical specialist from the Air Pollution Control Division will be addressing the overall air quality picture in Vail and project recommendations. • n LJ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 0 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: A work session for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for a remediation system equipment building at the Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West. Applicant: Amoco Corp. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and a side setback variance in order to place a soil contamination remediation system on the Alpine Standard gas station site. The system will be located to the south of the station between the existing building and the Holiday Inn /Holiday House alley. The system is comprised of an oil /water separator, an air stripper, recovered product storage tank, vapor extraction system, air compressors (which operates the pumps located in the recover wells at on the site, control, and electrical panel which operate the entire unit, and a container to house the equipment. The system will remove ground water with a series of pneumatic pumps which separate the majority of the gasoline from the water with the oil /water separator, strip the remaining dissolved gasoline constituents with the air stripper and discharge the treated water to the sanitary sewer which serves the site. All discharged water will meet the appropriate standards. The Alpine Standard site is in the Heavy Service zone district. Because of the nature of the uses associated with this zone district, all uses are subject to the Conditional Use permit procedure. In granting a conditional use permit for this area, the PEC may prescribe more restrictive standards than those prescribed in the zone district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences. A setback variance from the required 20' side setback requirement is necessary in order to place the system at the proposed location. The proposed location of the unit will provide no setback from the property line. (See attached site plan and photos.) II. BACKGROUND The purpose of this work session is to establish the issues concerning the remediation plan at both the Gateway (the old Amoco) and the Alpine Standard Station. With the excavation of the Gateway Building, it was discovered that there had been soil contamination. The Gateway was required to install a remediation system which consists of an underground filtration system in combination with a pump system and an air stripper 0 to be located at an undetermined site. Recently, it was discovered that the existing Alpine Standard gas station may have contributed to the problem. Amoco Corporation is responsible for the cleanup on both of the properties because of current and past ownership of the lands involved. They are required by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Health to perform this necessary cleanup. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated or uncommon incident. Soil contamination of this type has occurred at gas stations throughout the country. III. DISCUSSION For this worksession the staff has asked the applicant to address the following issues: 1. The extent of the contamination problem including the results from the recent tests that were completed in the area and an explanation of the results in lay persons terms; 2. The reason for the selection of this specific area for the siting of the remediation unit. In reviewing the side setback variance it is necessary for the applicant to show that a physical hardship is in existence, which dictates the siting of the unit in this area; 3. Information regarding the current status of the existing gasoline storage tanks on the Alpine Standard site; 4. Information on possible alternate methods of remediation that could be used; 5. The current status on the Gateway site remediation. Explain actions of why this equipment cannot be located in the basement of the Gateway Building as originally proposed." 6. Detailed information on any necessary piping, including any that would cross Vail Rd from the Gateway site to the remediation structure. 7. A copy of the approved Colorado Department of Health air permit for the remediation system. In addition, the staff is concerned with the screening of the remediation unit. The applicant originally proposed a permanent solution which was to be "painted with a maximum of two colors which will blend with the surrounding architecture and environment" and would be a "metal or wood sided construction, with an appropriate roof ". The proposal submitted to the Office of Community Development on May 28, 1990 contained a 9 foot wood screen fence. In order to construct this the applicant would need a height variance from the allowed fence height. The maximum that would be allowed under the Town's code is 6 feet. • Since the life expectancy of the remediation unit seems to be undetermined due to the nature of the problem, the staff must consider this a permanent activity rather than temporary. The staff feels that a 9' fence is unacceptable and has encouraged the applicant to submit a design for a permanent structure similar to that which was proposed originally with wood siding. The staff strongly supports Amoco's intent to mitigate the problem. However, since the necessary remediation appears to be a long term process, the staff would like a permanent solution to the enclosure housing the remediation unit. After receiving feedback from the PEC, the applicant will return to the PEC's Public Hearing on August 13th for the necessary conditional use permit and variances and a final proposal for the permanent structure which will house the unit. It is important for the PEC to understand the information that is presented. Because of the nature of the problem, the staff has limited technical knowledge about the issue. Attachments: 1. Xerox copy of remediation unit 2. Site Plan n �.J • • 17 11 r I I I { ; 4 � � `s f ci c EJECTOR SYSTEMS, INC. 0 • 0 �,� � xR ONrAGE ROAO a -r ENTRANCE /EXIT ` "��, O) cow RiRf as' ASPENS D.6 1 910P SIGN aS. ee,i 0 6 ASEEkLS cDHc V � �\ O T. el \1�'� ENTRANCE/ EXIT, 0. � ` A \ EP. ::as 57 O . II O. 1341' 13 • � .CVRf 0.8' A ASPENS Ron \ \ 9wk 0.+ MAEFR [H- . \ PIL Aa R3 \ Q IOC I l TO P eZ. • \ —t-, G0.] PVYPS \ PART OF LOT A • 1 1 \\ ! I /I1r PUMP CMkN - I V t tvwLFL DA! PUMPS r 1 1 1 ` SUPPORT _1-1 `�� •� \ P RL AN S 1 t ee + r \ 0lESE! PUYP T ae A 0_P f1642 510 C ! ` Y — SIS5 I _ _ - - -ti ! 4 111 \ e t ! ! [L [OkL cow V110T.RbP 11 + [ STEP R.a EIE ) PL0.»t[R 1 . MIA ' I f� o r V ' "` L 1a.c. eleas' DIL PASTE I. �' P ANIR O 1 t \ 1 'I.. VI T.D.P. ale +.i / 13 TA»a - '.� DIE%lL / to e. ataSY i. 0 7.0 ,/ p , GONG GUSe 4 ` + I W `.EXfSTI 11LPIN6�_ 4 / E. �LlL. \` E w' "^� , W.w - •Irr '�TANIT 8T34T10I .. �� �";� `y \ • i i.; .' i cakc .i�4n�. '� I Z T R� iS Yw�w, 1 \31 ti 1 ft ZQ R ' HI Il ', `. I q4Y - IIF •'PINE I + V\ •' 1Ll PLD 1 �� MCP 1 ! Y �� - 13 • E __ £ S10RY S!M!R OHM, . 1 Y ' FND MASS _, l C�� - ` "' •I' .m✓,. F ,':E:�. FE j ll �f W 11 DFIf v TDc Sus PARKING PART \C ioneiio AREA 4 xEyE Ni OF y LOT A "Q • T3 I 4 1 1� ` 1 THE HOLIDAY HOUSE CONDOMINIUM � `• 1 • • • JUN 12 1 90 10 =13 LAIC ENVIRONMENTAL r 158 P02/04 iwr � LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 13105 NORTHWEST FRWY., SUITE 800 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77040 713462.7275 ■ FAX 713462 -3715 June 12, 1994 Ms. Shelley Mello Department of Community Development City of Vail ... -- . - ....... 75 South) Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 ATTENTMON: Ms. Shelley Mello SUBJECT: Amoco Oil Company Alpine Standard Service Station No. 2035 G roundwater Remediation System and Container Law Environmental Pro'ect No. 71 -[ 2035 Ms. Mello, • This Ietter has been written in response to your request for additional hifuiiuidun concerning remediation system and enclosure (container) which are planned for the Vail Alpine Standard Amoco Station. The service station, as you may recall, is situated at the southwest corner of Vail Road and the I -70 East Frontage Road, Due to past leaks in the underground gasoline. stnrnge tanks which; were located at the former locution of the Amoco station (at the southeast corner of that same intersection), and possible leaks at the existing station, a ground water remediation system is presently being designee) for both sites which will reside at the current Amoco station. Although a permanent system (estimated life - 1 to 2 years) is presently being designed for the site, due to Amoco's concern for the environmental issues at hand, a temporary, interim remediation system (estimated life - 3 to 4 months) is being proposed to your city at this time. Basically the systems is comprised of: an oil/water separator, an air stripper, recovered product storage tank, vapor extraction system,ailr compressors (which operate the pumps located in recovery wells at the site), control and electrical panels which operate the entire systems, and a container to house the above - listed equipment. This system will remove ground water from the ground with a series of pneumatic pumps, separate the majority of the gasoline from the water with the oil /water separator, strip the remaining dissolved gasoline constituents with the air stripper and discharge the treated water (which meets the appropriate discharge standards) to the sanitary sewer which services the site. We hope to have this temporary system operational by the end of June or the first week of July, assuming that we receive acceptance by your office and the appropriate permitting agencies. C JUN 12 1 90 10:13 LAW ENVIRONMENTAL 158 P03/04 The temporary system container, which is described here, is still being sized at the present . time. Due to the slight variability of standard. portable building sizes by the various manufacturers in the Vail and /or Denver areas, the dimensions given in the attached floor Plan may vary by two to three feet. The size will be finalized in the next two days and at that time more accurate drawings will be provided for your review. What follows is a list Of specifications which the container will meet. Also provided is a general drawing which illustrates the esthetics of the temporary system container. Pre- engineered and pre - constructed by a professional manufacturer with a minimum of five years continuous experience in the manufacture of this type of portable building * Painted with a rnaximutn of two colors which will blend with the surrounding architecture and environment Metal or wood sided construction, with an appropriate roof Openings into the container will include: access by a. single man -sized door, a powered and louvered ventilator (appro)dmately 2 feet by 2 feet), two windows (each approximately 3 feet by 3 feet), a small turbine roof ventilator (total stick -up of approximately 2 feet), and piping into and out of the container (penetrating the container at one location, near ground level) The temporary remeciiation fa ` P rY ility (per this request) will be replaced by the permanent facility in approximately three to four months, which will provide sufficient time for design, permitting and construction. The final sizing of the permanent system and its enclosure are contingent upon an investigation of the subsurface extent of contamination which is presently being; conducted at the present Amoco site. The results of this investigation will enable us to size the equipment, and therefore determine the size of the structure required to house this equipment. We have employed a local architect to assist in this project. We hope to have the sizing of the permanent structure, and the associated architectural drawings, site improvement plan, and survey completed in time for the next submittal date to the City of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, which we understand as being June 25, 1990. We are currently pursuing the necessary permits with the state and local agencies which will allow operation of the system in your city. If you have any questions concerning the system, or if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to call me at 713/462 -7275. Very Truly Yours, Thomas L. IV c rd Project Engineer • rows 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 479 -2138 (303) 479 -2139 June 13, 1990 Mr. Tom McCurdy Law Environmental 13105 Northwest Freeway Suite 800 Houston, Texas 77040 RE: Amoco /Alpine Standard Site Remediation Dear Mr. McCurdy, office of community development In regards to our telephone conversation on June 11, 1990, 1 am writing to reconfirm the information we discussed. The Town staff has reviewed the application quite extensively and feel that more information is needed before we can address the request for a conditional use permit, a side setback variance and a fence height variance. Specifically, we would like information addressing the following by July 18, 1990 for the Planning and Environmental Commission worksession on June 23, 1990: 1. The extent of the contamination problem including the results from the recent tests that were completed in the area and an explanation of the results in lay persons terms; 2. The reason for your selection of this specific area for the siting of the remediation unit. In reviewing the side setback variance it is necessary for you to show that a physical hardship is in existence, which dictates the siting of the unit in this area; 3. Information regarding the current status of the existing gasoline storage tanks on the Alpine Standard site; 4. Information on possible alternate methods of remediation that could be used; 5. The current status on the Gateway site remediation. Please explain why this equipment can not be located in the basement of the Gateway Building as originally proposed. &. Detailed information on any necessary piping including any that would cross Vail Rd from the Gateway site to the remediation structure will be handled; and 7. A copy of the approved Environmental Protection Agency air permit for the remediation system. In addition, the planning staff will be unable to support your requested variance necessary to construct the nine foot fence that will screen the unit. According to your letter dated June 12, 1990, your intent was to construct a permanant structure surrounding the unit. The permanant solution was to be "painted with a maximum of two colors which will blend with the surrounding architecture and environment" and would be a "metal or wood sided construction, with an appropriate roof ". The current proposal contains none of these elements. Since the life expectancy of the unit seems to be undetermined because of the nature of the project, it is hard for the staff to consider this • temporary activity and therefore we must review the proposal as • permanant element. We would highly encourage a solution which is similar to your June 12 request for a permanant structure. In respects to the scheduling of the project, the staff would encourage you to reconsider your proposal and in the interim present all available information concerning the remediation work problem at a worksession on the June 23rd Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, and then proceed to the August 13th PEC Public Hearing for the necessary conditional use permit and variances. The staff is very concerned about the contamination problem and supports Amoco's intent to mitigate the problem. However since the necessary remediation appears to be a long term process, the staff would like a permanant solution to the enclosure housing of the remediation unit. Please contact me at 303 - 479--2138 should you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further. Thank you, Shelly Mello, Town Planner xc: Stan Reeves, Amoco Corp. Dick Duran Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Susan Scanlan Gary Murrain u . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the wall height requirement on Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch; 805 Potato Patch Drive. Applicants: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants are the owners of Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch (805 Potato Patch Drive) and are requesting a variance from a maximum allowable wall height to provide for the construction of a new single family home on the lot. The variance requested would allow for wall heights ranging from 3 feet, up to 10.5 feet in height. Section 18.58.020 (C) of the Town of Vail zoning code allows for a maximum wall height of 3 feet within the front setback area, and up to 6 feet on any other area of the property. This section of the code reads as follows: • "Fences, hedges, walls, and landscaping screens, where not restricted by covenant or other legal instrument, shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area and shall not exceed six feet in height on any other portion of a site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls, or landscaping screens may be authorized by the zoning administrator where necessary to screen public utility equipment. No barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained." 134 feet of the proposed retaining wall would be within the front setback area and 51 feet would be out of the front setback area. All of the wall is on the applicant's property. The average slope of this lot beneath the proposed residence and driveway is approximately 50 percent. In order to access the site, the applicants are proposing a driveway with a maximum grade of 8 percent. 0 1 . II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. This lot is located within the Primary /Secondary Residential zone district. B. The adjacent land uses are as follows: 1. North - Potato Patch Road and Lots 5 & 6, both zoned Primary /Secondary. 2. South - Tract A, zone Agricultural & Open Space. 3. East - Tract A, zoned Agricultural & Open Space. 4. West - Lot 30, zoned Primary /Secondary. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: • 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance, if approved, would not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties and would not block or impede views from any surrounding properties. The westernmost retaining wall would be almost entirely screened from view by the siting of the residence (see attached site plan). Portions of the eastern retaining wall would be visible from properties located below this lot. However, the applicants have proposed to heavily landscape the area immediately below and in front of the retaining wall. The applicant's are proposing to break up the mass of the wall with the planting of three 8- foot Englemen spruce, one 6 -foot Blue spruce, and three 3 -inch caliper aspen immediately in front of the wall. All retaining walls will be finished with a stone veneer facing, and this treatment will match the similar finish on the exterior of the residence, which we believe will provide a unified appearance on the lot. • 2 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and is -- - -.! literal interpretation and enforcement of a r: _-3 w .,...1 ..� . -- w r gy m, +- .-, �r V%i at re The topographic conditions on this lot are such that the buildable area of the site is very well defined. Because the average slope on the lot approximates 50 %, access onto this site is extremely difficult. The applicants are proposing a driveway with an average grade of 8 percent, which the staff considers a reasonable grade to access the property. The proposed retaining walls are necessary to support grades both above the driveway and below the driveway. The Planning staff believes that the proposed retaining walls are necessary to ensure stabilization of the slopes and Potato Patch Road, and we feel that the proposal is reasonable and certainly necessary on this steep site. The applicants have researched using a 3' tiered wall, in order to avoid requesting a variance, however, the soils analysis and bearing pressures from . Potato Patch Road would structurally not allow for such a design. IV. FINDINGS A. 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. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in . the vicinity. 3 The staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant impact upon any of the above considerations. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: I. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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 recommendation is for approval of the variance request for a maximum wall height of 10.5 feet, per the drawings submitted by Snowdon and Hopkins, Architects, Sheet A -1, dated July 13, 1990. We believe the request would not . be a grant of special privilege and that the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The topographic conditions of this site have created some very unique development considerations, and the Planning staff believes that a hardship would be imposed upon the applicant if the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. The strict interpretation of the wall height limits would make it virtually impossible to access the site. Findings supporting the variance are IV A, B, C2. The Design Review Board has reviewed this request, at their June 6, 1990 meeting, and by a unanimous vote of 3 -0 has conceptually approved the proposal with the condition that if a variance from the maximum wall height is required, that be obtained from the PEC. The soils analysis, which were needed to determine the exact wall heights, were not available at the time of the DRB review. • 4 ai r z 1 I le Sf r r y � I L A IL Y yy to o ';#`T � a ` >�, �� �? i , ��;� w aye •' i '. } s n "� � � ,' � s S � t A 4 to • 1 y. t i _ +r.� �,' '. -- Lt i � w�}��'� I €s�;, '•a'" s � 2 S �' " "f� k a r " y� � �• 0. 4 � l - .`t ?! l' � 1 s t S {.1 i� - ': �,�� "4� Y - .4' F ,, �� I' >��: , i_ 4 sf� �� ;.� j t� +yam - �,,r+' SFr � 4 ii �{ J � 0 � TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: July 23, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance for an addition to a single family structure located at Lot 16, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, 1879 Meadow Ridge Road Applicant: Jerry Farquhar I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE RE UESTED The applicant proposes to build a sun room on an existing deck in front (south side) of his single family residence. The sun room is 16 feet by 12 feet (194 sq. ft. GRFA) and is located in front of the living room of the residence. The existing structure currently encroaches 3' - 6 " into the west side yard setback and the applicant proposes to align the new addition with the existing house creating a similar setback encroachment. As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 3--1/2 feet into the side (west) setback. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Lot Area: 14,854 sq. ft. • GRFA: Allowed: 3,713 sq. ft. Existing: 1,912 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,106 sq. ft. Site Coverage: Allowed: 2,970 sq. ft. Existing 1,323 sq. ft. Proposed: 1,501 sq. ft. Height: Allowed: 33.0 ft. Existing: 22.5 ft. Proposed: 22.5 ft. Setbacks: Front - Existing: 49 ft. Proposed: 38 ft. Rear - Existing: 66 ft. Proposed: 66 ft. East - Existing: 41 ft. Proposed: 41 ft. * West - Existing: 11.5 ft. Proposed: 11.5 ft. *Area of setback variance request. 0 1 III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS upon review of criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the recruested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Even though the existing residence encroaches into the setback, there is adequate distance between the Farquhar residence and adjacent home to the west Because the applicant's house is already located 11.5 feet from the wester property line, the addition should not create a noticeable impact on the surrounding area. The addition is located on an existing deck which further diminishes the impact of the expansion in the setback. Although the addition could be shifted to meet the 15 foot setback, staff believes that uniform roof lines will provide a more compatible structure than one that is shifted to meet the standard side yard setback. 2. 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 Because of the existing residence's location in the side setback, it is reasonable to consider this circumstance a practical difficulty warranting the variance. The applicant is requesting a variance that does not exceed the existing encroachment. This degree of relief from the strict interpretation is appropriate and has been granted to other property owners. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. Because this single family home is one story, the resulting 11.5 foot setback provides more than adequate light and air separating it from the neighboring structure. There are no impacts on the other considerations. • 2 • IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: I. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 40 2. 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. 3. 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 Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Because the existing house is in the setback creating a physical hardship, the owner deserves relief from the strict setback requirement. This variance is not a grant of special privilege as this type of situation has justified other variances in the past. There are no negative impacts on adjacent properties. The variance criteria cited include findings IV A, B, C1 &2. 3 • • • } � � u 5 �� � ieYn i r4'r• � t �4't i Z�', 1 j r Y (,. f � }IS ' :�,F `Y �; t• � a� ' - � � j KV ' S � - }:a �r. 4 r SR;lo1'�QN::� .. IT ,!.I. i m I ! b y f • • 0 • r t ; a n F f • { 4 - -t stiyy I a s • , ( r �.� Si t� t 'S ir. ti' r `r■ ma . 'F _ 1 , -EASTrELEVATIO�Va TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a "Television Station" in the Commercial Core II zone district, located at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Sunbird Lodge, 675 Lionshead Place Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE 0 is The applicant has proposed to locate a television studio in the Sunbird Lodge which is located within the Commercial Core II zone district. Within this zone district, television stations are an allowable use on first floor with an approved conditional use permit. This use ( "Television Stations ") was recently added to the zoning code by the approval of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1990 by the Town Council on July 17, 1990. This ordinance requires that any approved television station have a production room /studio which would be visible from the street or pedestrian mall, and that the television station be "cablecast" only, which would require no additional antennas. The Vail /Beaver Creek Television Networks' proposal consists of the following, (see attached floor plan): A. 221 square feet of outdoor studio area, which would be used only in the summertime. This studio space is proposed to be located immediately north of the TV station's main entry (Sunbird Lodge property), and would be fronting on the Lionshead pedestrian mall. B. 587 square feet of floor area which would be utilized for the TV station's north studio, production and master control room, and visitor reception area. C. 689 square feet of floor area would be utilized for the TV station's south studio, green room (make -up), conference area and staff offices. This area is proposed to be located in the Sunbird Lodge's old lobby area, which is on the south side of the building and faces the ski slopes. The entire studio area would be visible through the large window fronting on the Lionshead Mall. No antenna will be required with this T.V. station, as the proposal will operate via a cablecast system. 1 When operating at full capacity . applicants are expecting to hire would be part time workers. during the ski season, the 5 to 7 employees. Some The purpose of this proposed television station is to inform the Vail Valley visitor of current weather, events, ski mountain information, and available activities. One example of this proposed television station's programming is a show entitled "Good Morning Vail ". This show would be telecast live from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week during the ski season and July 4 through Labor Day. The types of information which would be provided during this show would include weather conditions, ski conditions, trails groomed overnight, race information, skier warm -up aerobics, scheduled events for the day or for the week, guest interviews - -from lift lines and mall areas, information on bus routes, parking, restaurants, real estate, general ski information, and Town history. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS U Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Purpose section of the Commercial Core II zone district, Section 18.26.010 states: "The Commercial Core II district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards." Due to the recent amendment to the Town's zoning code, which allows "Television Stations" as a Conditional Use, it is the Planning staff's opinion that this proposed television station in 0 2 the Sunbird Lodge, would meet the intent of the purpose section of the Commercial Core II zone district as stated above, since it is a commercial establishment that is located in a building with a mixture of uses. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of Ropulation, transportation needs. The proposed cablecast television studio to be located in the Sunbird Lodge, will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. 3. Effect upon traffic with Particular reference to congestion automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,_ traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability_ and removal of snow from the street and parking-areas. Again, the staff can find no significant effect or impact upon any of the above named considerations. There is the potential for an increase in . pedestrian traffic immediately adjacent to the TV studio. However, we believe the Lionshead pedestrian mall to be of an adequate size to handle such an increase. This proposed television studio would require an additional parking demand of 3.458 spaces. Because the Commercial core II zone district does not allow for the parking demand to be met on site, the applicants are required to pay into the Town's parking fund. This proposed use has an associated parking fee of $3,000 per space. The total parking fee required is $9,448.50. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the surrounding uses. The proposed use will involve no changes to the exterior of the existing Sunbird Lodge building, and it is the staff's opinion that the proposed use will have no effect upon the character of the area. 0 3 . III. FINDINGS Mt— nl -r A. 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. B. 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. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department finds that this request meets the Conditional Use permit criteria, as stated above. Staff recommends approval of this "cablecast" type of television studio. We believe this proposed use to be consistent with Ordinance #23, Series of 1990 which sets the parameters for television studios as conditional uses in the • Commercial Core II zone district. Note: Under the Conditional Use Permit requirements, should there be any change in the approved floor plan, programming, or any other conditions of the permit, the applicant will be required to amend the Conditional Use Permit. is 4 A • I* le I i i:� - lab Win M- �� .. � �.�, 3�i�,[j 5315 � � 3 D j -to -jo V/O" OQ-) ell � w I _- 1 - �3 l l � MAO a as -a" REVISED 7/23/90 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission 0 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: Proposed Addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer /Lancelot Restaurant On February 26, 1990, the PEC reviewed a proposal for the Bell Tower Building which included a ground level retail expansion along Gore Creek Promenade and additions to existing residential development on the upper floors. A landscape variance, height variance, exterior alteration, and conditional use permit were requested. The staff recommended denial of the proposal due to the negative impacts that the project would have on the overall fabric of the village. The item was tabled by the applicant and a new proposal was submitted. The current proposal to the Bell Tower building involves only a ground level restaurant expansion along the Gore Creek Promenade. The nature of the proposal requires the review of two separate requests. These requests include an exterior alteration which is required in the Commercial Core I zone district in order to add • enclosed floor area to an existing structure and a variance request to reduce landscaping on the site. No site coverage variance is needed on this application because the existing outdoor deck is considered site coverage in CCI. Therefore, the covering of the area with a building will not increase the nonconformance of the site in relationship to site coverage. However, a variance to reduce the landscaping will be necessary because the brick pavers that will be removed on the outdoor deck and planter area are considered part of the landscaping requirement. • 44 • 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: A variance request in order to reduce landscape area at the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer /Lancelot Restaurant I. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN CCI ARE AS FOLLOWS The applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the landscaped area of the Bell Tower Building in Commercial Core I. Currently 14.6% of the site is considered to be landscaping. The proposal would decrease this to 10.2% by eliminating 253 sq. ft. of existing paved patio area. Approximately 19 sq. ft. of the existing planter to the west will also be removed (9.5 sq. ft. of stone wall and 9.5 sq. ft. of soil). 165.5 sq. ft. of the exterior deck area will remain with 65.5 sq. ft. of the deck on the applicant's property and 100 sq. ft. on Town of Vail land. • The landscape definition states that a maximum of 20% of the total landscaped area for a site may be used for "core development such as walks, decks, terraces, water features and other like features. (Section 18.04.200) Also, section 18.24.170, Landscaping and Site Development for Commercial Core I states: "No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations." Below is a summary of how the site relates to the limit on hardscape that can be considered as landscaping and the reduction in planted material: Lot Size: 6,144.16 sq. ft. Existing landscaping: 786 sq. ft. or 87% hardscape 114 sq. ft. or 13% planted area 900 sq. ft. total or 14.6% of site 1 Proposed landscaping 504.5 or 83% of hardscape • 104.5 or 17% of planted material 609 sq. ft total or 10.2% of site II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. While architecturally a fine building, the Bell Tower property is lacking in landscape features. It should be noted, however, that this situation is not unique to the Bell Tower Building. The Wall Street Building, the Gorsuch Building and the A & D Building are other examples of properties that do not have a great deal of on -site landscape improvements. In many cases, the landscaping which does occur is located on Town owned land or is in right -of -ways. It is the role of the review boards to determine the relative importance of each consideration involved in a given situation. The staff feels that the request to remove 272 sq. ft. of paved area is not excessive and that the usefulness of the existing 437.5 sq. ft. patio is limited because of the northern exposure. The request will not have any negative affect on adjacent properties. The benefit of the restaurant infill outweighs the loss of hardscape patio. The removal of a small portion of the planter (9.5 sq. ft.) should also have little negative impact on the area. The applicant proposes to add more landscaping in this planter including 1 tree. In addition, the open grass area on the north side of Gore Creek Promenade provides a unique situation in the Village in that it is one of the few major landscaped open space areas in this otherwise developed area. This greatly mitigates the lack of landscaping associated with the buildings along Gore Creek Promenade. 2 2. The dearee to which relief from the strict and • literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the applicant has shown sufficient cause to reduce the planted area by 9.5 sq. ft. The CCI landscape section specifically relies on the Urban Design Considerations to provide a guide in decision - making. As stated in the exterior alteration memo, the proposal complies with the considerations. In addition, the applicant is upgrading the planter by adding a tree which will have much more landscape impact than the present 9.5 sq. ft. in the planter. Staff could have requested that the applicant pull back the expansion by two feet to the east. However, our opinion is that no significant benefit is gained by this change. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety_. • The proposal would not affect any of the above criteria. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN. Goal # 3 of the Vail Village Master Plan states: "To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village ". Related objectives and policies include: Related objectives and policies include: 3.1 Objective Physically improve the existing pedestrian walkway with landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.3 Policy Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. One may argue that the addition could in fact be considered a physical improvement to the pedestrian streetscape. It should be noted that the applicant annually does a great deal of landscaping to the area with colorful planter boxes and planted pots. 3 3.3 Objective • Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.2 Policy Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encourage in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. The proposal is enclosing an existing dining deck that has limited use. Both the northern exposure and the relationship of the existing deck with the interior of the restaurant limit the use of the.patio. The installation of rekord doors on the north elevation, will increase the livelihood and activity of this deck by increasing the transparency of the facade which is especially important during the winter months when the outdoor dining deck is unusable. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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. 0 4 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION i The staff recommends approval of the requested landscape variance. The applicant has shown both sufficient cause for the 9.5 sq. ft. reduction of softscape and the removal of paved patio area per the Urban Design Considerations. The code relies on the Urban Design Guideline Considerations to be the criteria for analyzing a request to remove landscaping. We feel that the overall benefits of the project clearly outweigh the removal of landscaping (paved and planted). C. n U 5 0 • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building located at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer /Lancelot Restaurant DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REQUEST Approval of an exterior alteration request is required for any addition of enclosed floor area to structures in the Commercial Core I zone district. The proposal includes a 272 square foot, ground floor expansion of the Lancelot Restaurant adjacent to the Gore Creek Promenade. The expansion includes moving the facade 8.5 feet towards Gore Creek Promenade and adding rekord doors and glass roof producing a glass front. The new enclosure is completely on private property. The area is currently used as a dining patio. 165.5 sq. ft. of exterior deck will remain with 65.5 sq. ft. of the deck on the applicant's property and 100 sq. ft. on Town of Vail land. The depth of the outdoor deck will be 6' and will have 4 tables. REVIEW FOR THIS REQUEST The Vail Village Urban Design Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub -area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations desired in the Village. And finally, architectural /landscape considerations, which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan also addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition to the Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum that addresses this zoning issue. 0 1 THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There are no specific sub -area concepts relevant to this proposal. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development be consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: This proposal does not directly affect or change the existing Pedestrianization system in the Village in that it does not increase the encroachment of the building into the Gore Creek Promenade walkway. The addition will have a minimal encroachment into the view from the top of the Children's Fountain stairs down onto Gore Creek Promenade. The applicant has minimized the impact by using a pitched glass roof on the front of the addition. This will allow some transparency through the enclosure to the Gore Creek Promenade behind. • B. Vehicle Penetration: Vehicular penetration, or circulation, will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework: Streetscape framework identifies two alternatives for improving the pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space .including landscaping along pedestrian routes, and the development of infill commercial storefronts along pedestrian corridors. While the landscape improvements can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, the commercial infill can provide activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest to the pedestrian. The proposed restaurant infill along the Gore Creek Promenade will provide such an activity generator. While the existing dining deck could provide such activity during the summer, its poor north facing location (relative to sun exposure), has resulted in the deck having little success in providing such activity. This enclosure would make the dining are more useful year round, while maintaining an open dining area during summer months due to rekord doors being proposed along the entire north elevation. • 2 The addition of glass rekord doors and a glass roof to • the facade, which are commonly used in the Village, will add transparency to the front of the restaurant. This feature will greatly add to the livelihood of this area by allowing for greater visibility into the interior of the restaurant in the winter. The staff feels that this is a great improvement over the existing facade of the restaurant which provides limited visual accessibility. In the summer, the doors will allow the restaurant activity to extend out onto the deck area. The success of the doors as a method of adding visual interest and also creating successful dining deck space can be seen throughout the Village and Lionshead (ie. Blu's, Up the Creek, Vendetta's, etc). D. STREET ENCLOSURE The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of streets and the height of buildings. The one story restaurant expansion along the Promenade will establish a more desirable "human scale" on this side of the building. Because of the extensive use of glass on the front of the addition, the impact of the addition will be minimized in regards to street enclosure. E. STREET EDGE There are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Rather, proposals are looked at with relationship to the site and the surrounding development to ensure a strong street edge. A strong street edge does not imply perfectly aligned facades along entire street widths. Rather, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscape areas create life and visual interest for the pedestrian. The addition will fill the void along Gore Creek Promenade which occurs on this portion of the Lancelot during the winter months of the year when the deck is not used for dining but rather for snow storage. The proposal will bring the activity of the restaurant closer to the pedestrian on a year round basis instead of just during the summer months. F. Building Heiaht Building height is unaffected as the one -story expansion is below 33' in height. • 3 G. Views and Focal Points . The proposed expansion does not impact any of the adopted view corridors. One view consideration was the vantage point form the top of the staircase between the Children's Fountain and the Gore Creek Promenade looking west. The view of these stairs is important to provide pedestrians with a point of orientation as they meander through the Village. This addition will have a very limited impact on views from the top of the stairs towards Willow Bridge. The applicant has minimized the impact of the addition by limiting the size of the expansion and proposing a glass roof form that preserves most of the views towards the Gore Creek Promenade. The enclosure also has no major impacts on the staircase up to the Children's Fountain from the Gore Creek Promenade. H. Service and Delivery The proposed expansion will not require any additional service or delivery. The seating capacity will not be increased due to interior remodeling which will remove tables from the existing interior of the restaurant. Although the applicant will not be adding any seating capacity, he will be adding 86.5 sq. ft. of floor area to the restaurant (272 sq. ft. of new dining area less 185.5 sq. ft. to be removed by a kitchen expansion = 86.5 sq. ft. of new restaurant floor area). The applicant will be required to pay a $2,162.50 Town of Vail parking fee as a result of this addition. I. Sun /Shade There will be no significant increase in the shadow pattern as a result of this addition because the addition is within the existing shade pattern of the Bell Tower Building. J. Architecture/Landscape Considerations These design considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board. However, in this case it is important to address the consideration pertaining to roofs. As stated in the guidelines, roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate to low pitch. The proposed low pitch roof form is in keeping with the other restaurant expansions in this area (i.e. Blu's and Up the Creek). The applicant has worked very hard in developing a roof form which does not drastically depart from the existing roof forms in the 4 Village. The staff feels • roof will successfully tie building and that the form existing streetscape. that the detailing of the the addition to the existing will be harmonious with the A landscaping variance is necessary in order to do this expansion. The addition will remove 253 sq. ft of paved area and 19 sq ft. of planter area decreasing the amount of landscaping from 14.6% to 10.2 %. The applicant has proposed additional landscaping for the west stone planter. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Goal No. 3 of the Vail Village Master Plan states: "To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." Related objectives and policies include: 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Although the proposal is removing outdoor dining area, this addition will actually increase the success of the existing dining deck. Because the patio is north facing it is unusable during the winter and has limited use during the spring, summer and fall. The use of rekord doors and a glass roof as the primary elements of the elevation will provide a transparency which will allow greater visual access to the interior of the restaurant. This is especially important during the winter when the north facing outdoor patio is not used. The existing facade of the restaurant does not provide such transparency. The addition will improve the streetscape of this area by adding visual interest to a void area of Gore Creek Promenade which sees little activity much of the year. Although the proposal will be removing landscaping, it is the staff's opinion that the proposed improvements to the streetscape framework outweigh the impacts of removing hardscape type landscaping, i.e. brick pavers. 3.3 Obiective Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 0 5 . 3.3.2 Policy Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment. The proposal is enclosing an existing dining deck which experiences limited success. Both the northern exposure and the relationship of the existing deck with the interior of the restaurant limit the use of the existing outdoor area. The added transparency gained from this addition and the proximity of the new interior space to the pedestrian way is especially important during the fall, winter and spring when the deck is practically unused. The increased visual access to the interior activity of the restaurant while the outdoor deck is not in use will have positive impacts on the livelihood of the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested exterior alteration with the condition that the landscape variance be approved. The review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan goals shows that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. The staff would like to further recommend that the PEC require the applicant remove railings surrounding the patio from November 1 to May 1 of each year. In the past, infill projects of this type have been supported. We feel that the proposal has maintained a sufficient operable outdoor dining area and the design of the addition is consistent with the roof forms in the Village area and more specifically Gore Creek Promenade. The staff feels that this proposal has maintained the design elements of both the Bell Tower Building and Gore Creek Promenade which is critical to the streetscape framework of the area. The existing Bell Tower Building typifies the desired character of the buildings in the Village and this is in keeping with that character. In addition, the staff finds that additions of this type along Gore Creek Promenade and in other area of Town are quite successful in providing enhancement to walking areas throughout the year. The staff would recommend that the PEC require, as a condition of approval, that the applicant participate in a project involving the property owners and the Towns Public Works Department in an effort to resolve severe drainage problems adjacent to the Bell Tower Building. These drainage problems are a result of the undirected drainage off of the building. We do not feel that the applicant should be required to provide the solution individually. However, we feel it is fair to require him, as a property owner in the building, to participate and pay for his fair share as deemed by the building association (see attached letter form T.O.V. Public Works Department). 0 A � J a x� .. �� � OM ± � 'I k I • r� v t x d 1• I ra p �� F{- � n r ,f -. •.i { - `^ �f i7`oi L `" 7 y -x �� � �4 '„ �1�� ..�� � �V i , I x ly Ht � } � A X�':p n E lAt� - .�..,�4 F ai r r -_(� .. Tii..:k•. i( E- s - i ��'. - t 3 !. l gk 4. d�re �3� - x� ` � � ` � i J i y� w t , . ' � *� L �/n `J w � {. - �•. �{ d� �Y���'„ .r� `'j ! - ` r t. r � - � t �. •, � '�' ." x��'..,�„�F�r --. ^/� .. � x '.?; _ F - �r:�'.a Z�s !� - •' f ` 1 ; s �, i' wr t1� 4 y " �.. �- { r :� 4 P '� II ti } f Y��Si � 1. � 7r 5 r i .3�� 'h' X � = Y•��'i�Y��, x ic�• t A� }� �. \r�-- "cam /x• i ' �, 'U t 1 � `k� •!•_` _h }, i S �` -� d 2� � I:• S as Diu k� - ;�', 1 A- ��y t * h X • � r . S p v11f 1 r � 1 .1Y JL 1e �. Glr, eta sl y r r r 4 1 �. y r. YI . = ,_� f 1 1 i d?A JL 1e �. Glr, eta sl y r r r 4 1 �. U 0 s ' + va N s ' J + •.r i �t • 3 3 � i i + a N J + •.r i �t • 3 3 � i i • . t� ' 11 u • d SCI ky 'S S A W A, lf r'"IVS,� � �i3 r x 4l ; ti=4 i ` F f .915 .. ifI • o'%li '" a� tKF�f • C'f[rTr: fowl ,m 75 south frontage road vall, Colorado 81657 VAIL 1989 (303) 479 -2158 department of public works /transportation May 31, 1990 TO: Building Owners: John Galt Mountaineering & Blus Restuarant c/o Vail Management Company Timber Haus 2 FROM: Stan Berryman, Director !l+ Public Works /Transportation RE: Brick Pavers in the Gore Creek Promenade . Our Department has completed an investigation of brick pavers which have heaved in the Gore Creek Promenade. We have determined that improper roof drainage from the buildings abutting the plaza is the primary cause of the failure of brick pavers. Five roof drains exist between the Timber Haus building and Blus. One downspout exists on the west end of Blus. Two roof drains are located on the west end of John Galt. All of the above drains are not properly tied into a system which bypasses the plaza. The drains deposit runoff directly onto the brick plaza area. Over time, this drainage has undermined several areas of brick pavers. The only permanent solution to the problems occurring in the plaza is to correct the improper roof drainage coming off the private buildings, The Town of Vail proposes to coordinate and perform the work necessary to correct all the drains and repair all affected brick pavers. We have prepared cost estimates for each of the private buildings. The Town is willing to begin work on these projects as soon as we have entered into letters of agreement with the property owners or managers. Please call me if you have questions or need any additional information. • JOHN GALT BUILDING Repair two roof drains and tie in catch basins. Install one catch basin and run 15 ft. of drainage pipe under pavers. Daylight pipe in grass area. Regrade and resod grass over to accommodate drainage. Repair all affected brick pavers. Labor & Material payable to the Town of Vail $1800.00 BLUS BUILDING Install two catch basins and tie in roof drainage. Install 40 ft. of drainage pipe under brick pavers and planter. Daylight pipe in grass area. Regrade and resod grass area to accommodate drainage. Repair all affected brick pavers. Labor & Material payable to the Town of Vail $4800.00 TIMBER HAUS BUILDING Tie five roof drains into two catch basins. Install two catch basins. Install 65 ft. of drainage pipe under brick pavers. Daylight pipe in grass area. , Regrade and resod grass area to accommodate drainage. Repair all affected brick pavers. Labor & Materials payable to the Town of Vail $6900.00 �J ■ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: A request for a landscape variance in order to provide two additional parking spaces on the southern portion of Tract G, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 17 Vail Road. Applicant: First Bank of Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance from the landscape standards to add two compact car spaces to the parking area south of the 1st Bank Building. These spaces would be added on the east end of the existing row, and would be setback 32 feet from Vail Road (see attached site plan). The spaces would be 9 and would have 15 feet of backing distance behind them. Three Aspen and two spruce trees would be relocated and 189 square feet of landscaping would be removed. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS . Zone District: Public Accommodation Lot Area: Landscaping: 21,196 sq. ft. A. Planted Areas: Existing: 4,509 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,320 sq. ft. B. Hardscape (patios, sidewalks): Maximum Allowed: 902 sq. ft. or 20% of existing planted area Existing: Proposed: C. Total Landscaping: Required: Existing: Proposed: Parking: Requirement met with both Interfaith Chapel lot. 0 1,794 1,794 6,359 5,411 5,222 on -si• 1 sq. sq. sq. sq. sq. to a ft. ft. ft. or 30% of lot area ft. or 25.5% of lot area ft. or 24.6% of lot area nd off -site parking on III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship between the First Bank site and surrounding properties does not have the buffering that the Town's landscaping standards normally provide. Currently the bank property is 949 sq. ft. below the required minimum landscaped area. The hardscape area also exceeds the maximum allowed to be considered as landscaping by 892 sq. ft. The lack of landscaping is evident as the building has surface parking to the north and south and has only a narrow landscaped setback between the building and the surface parking lot to the west. Staff believes the site benefits from as much landscaping as is feasible to maintain on the site and does not support the proposed reduction in landscaping. The existing landscaping is very attractive and should be preserved. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified re ulation is necessary to achieve com atibility and uniformit of treatment amore 1. �,_ . . Staff believes that the request is positive to the degree that it provides additional parking. We acknowledge that at certain times parking is a problem at the Bank. However, the applicant has already met the minimum parking requirement per the Town of Vail Zoning Code. If the applicant would like to go above and beyond the zoning standards for parking, staff encourages First Bank to do so by restriping the south lot and gaining an additional space without removing any landscaped area. Because the project is already under on landscaping, staff cannot support a request to allow the removal of a planted area with numerous trees. 2 3. • The spaces would function substandardly and could be a hazard to public safety. With only 15 feet of backing distance, drivers will need to make several back and forth movements to access each space. Parking spaces which do not function well are apt to create accidents. Additionally, a sidewalk from the Interfaith Chapel leads to the common drive between the buildings at the location of the proposed spaces. A pedestrian /automobile conflict area should not be exacerbated by the addition of these two spaces. IV. FINDINGS A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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. 3 uLLi-Ltues ana ubiic safety. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends denial of the request to reduce the amount of landscaping in order to add two parking spaces on the First Bank property. The request would be a grant of special privilege and has negative impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Staff believes any further reduction of the landscaping should not be approved because the site only accommodates 85 percent of the requirement at this time. With the complications of the constricted traffic flow due to the small backing distance, staff believes that the reduction is not warranted. In order to improve the parking situation, staff recommends restriping the south lot and also removing the sign adjacent to the parking that states "Private Parking, Unauthorized vehicles will be towed." Perhaps a small sign at the north lot indicating additional parking on the south side of the Bank would also be helpful. • • 4 � ��• � _ 0� a �, f + 1: ,�_� ., x L jl CE �:`_n sj� � '•L. �. gg� •dY• .ifs _ I � � ,� �yl av n7 4 ..S '}li. 5 iF- 7 J� N 47••4, - �..`.`,t .a r 4W , IFS o F . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: A request for a site residence on Lot 31, 64 Beaver Dam Road. Applicant: H. Ross coverage variance for a new Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, Perot T. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is the owner of Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, which is located at 64 Beaver Dam Road. He is requesting a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a new single family home, with an attached three -car garage. The existing single family home on the site is proposed to be demolished, due to structural concerns with the foundation. All existing retaining walls on -site will be removed as well as the existing concrete stair leading from Beaver Dam Road to the residence. The property is zoned Primary /Secondary Residential. Given the current zoning, as well as the steep slopes on the lot . (the average slopes beneath the proposed structure and parking area are approximately 42 %), the site coverage requirement for this property is limited to a maximum of 15% of the total site area. Because the slopes exceed 30 %, the applicant is allowed to locate the garage within the front setback area without a setback variance. Note: If the average slopes on this lot were less than 30 %, then the site coverage restriction would be increased to 20% and the garage would not be allowed in the front setback without a variance. The applicant has made a 250 request and this will be reviewed by the Design Review Board at their August 15, 1990 meeting. The proposed residence meets all the other zoning standards, including GRFA. The parking requirement for this proposed residence is three spaces. Because of the slopes on the lot the Town code requires one covered parking space for each dwelling unit, (Section 18.69.050 (K)). • 1 II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY U AiDril 23 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 6 -0, denied the applicant's appeal of a decision of the zoning administrator, regarding the definition of "site coverage." May 14 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 7 -0, unanimously approved a site coverage variance request for this property. The original request was for 21% site coverage, which the staff supported, however, this was modified during the hearing and the PEC approved a 22.1% site coverage variance. The request was for an addition to the existing structure, plus an attached three -car garage. The PEC found that the existing structure and the steep slopes on the lot created a physical hardship. • III. ZONING ANALYSIS Total Site Area: Allowable Site Coverage: Existing Site Coverage: Proposed Site Coverage: 15,682 sq. ft. 2,352 sq. ft., or 15% 1,154 sq. ft., or 7 % 3,159 sq. ft., or 20% The applicant's request is to allow a 5% increase in site coverage, or an additional 807 sq. ft. This results in a site coverage of 20 %. Allowable GRFA: 3,818 sq. ft. Additional request: 250 sq. ft. Total Allowable: 4,068 sq. ft Proposed GRFA: 4,067 sq. ft. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. 40 2 It is the staff's position that the requested site coverage variance will have a positive impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the neighborhood. Parking for this property is currently provided by a small gravel surface lot immediately north of Beaver Dam Road (this area is not owned by the applicant). The applicant is proposing to meet the Town's parking requirement with the construction of a three -car garage located within the boundaries of Lot 31. The proposed garage consists of 828 sq. ft., which is 5.3% site coverage. If the applicant were to delete the garage and utilize surface parking, the site coverage for just the residence would be 14.7 %. 0 2. The proposed garage will be covered by soil /sod on three sides and the only visible portion of the garage would be the north elevation. Grades over the garage will be substantially similar to the existing grades, plus or minus a few feet. The existing graveled, surface parking lot will be eliminated, and a revegetation and landscaping plan for this area has been proposed (please see the attached site plan). The applicant could remove a portion of the garage which would decrease site coverage. However, the staff's opinion is that it is preferable to have all the required parking enclosed to avoid the view of parked cars and retaining walls. it is also important to note that technically, one covered parking space is required. The covered parking space could be accomplished by building a carport; however, staff believes a garage will be more aesthetically pleasing. The Town planning staff has historically been supportive of requests for the addition of covered parking. In this particular situation, given the steep grades of the site, the staff believes that the garage location and size present a reasonable request for a variance. The staff believes that the literal enforcement of the zoning code's definition of site coverage would present a hardship upon the applicant. Our rationale is based on the fact that the zoning code allows the construction of garages within the front setback area of steep lots. Conversely, the zoning code 3 The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achipvp does not allow for GRFA to be placed within the • front setback area, or over the garage. Hence, siting of the residence and garage tends to be more spread out over the lot area. 3. The staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant negative effect upon any of the above considerations. The variance, if approved, should improve the flow of traffic along Beaver Dam Road, and will eliminate the need for pedestrians to cross the road to gain access to their vehicles. V. FINDINGS A. 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. • B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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. i 0 4 uzziiLies and Rubiic safety. . VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposed variance is for approval. We believe this lot is encumbered with a physical hardship, due to the extreme slopes on the site. We also believe that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare of properties or persons in the vicinity. For these reasons, staff feels that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the variance request. Findings include V A, B, C1 and C2. n U 0 5 • 0 r1 LJ 0 - 0 z 0 LU -j LU CG 0 z f ' �f i Z W ' W 31 • • w. i s rrr c VIA t 00" • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 SUBJECT: A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.04 to add a definition for "brew pub" and a request to amend the Commercial Service Center zone district, Section 18.28, to allow a brew pub as a permitted use. Applicant: Dean Liotta I. DESCRIPTION OF THE EREQUEST The applicant is proposing to change the zoning code to allow a brew pub as a use by right in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district. This zone district applies only to the Crossroads shopping center and condominiums. The request, at this time, is to: -- define the brew pub use in the definition section of the code; and -- list the use as a permitted use in the CSC section of the code; -- list the use, with limited off site sales, as a . conditional use in the CSC section of the code; and -- include a paragraph, also in the CSC section, regarding operating characteristics. The definition and paragraph on operating characteristics are attached as Exhibit A at the end of this memo. Note that a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review will not be required for this permitted use. II. BACKGROUND RESEARCH Staff researched the operating characteristics that distinguish a brew pub from a restaurant or from a micro brewery, including delivery schedules, odors, size, production quantity, and marketing and distribution of the beer making operation. A table is provided in Exhibit B (to be handed out at meeting) of the different communities surveyed. Descriptions of the operating characteristics are listed below. . The deliveries required for a brew pub include typical restaurant trips (daily for the food used in the restaurant, weekly for the liquor used in the bar). The delivery trips of raw materials to the brewery would be weekly, at most. The delivery schedule for the Breckenridge brew pub, which is similar to other brew pubs staff researched, is monthly for grain and every three months for hops. Another aspect of the brew pub is the odor emitted during brewing. The applicant has stated that odors will occur during the brewing period which will range from 75 to 100 minutes, three to five times a week. The odor emitted is not pungent or sharp. It can be smelled up to 15 - 20 feet away from the use and has been described as being similar to baking bread. The size of the brewery function ranges from a quarter to a third of the total floor area in the brew pubs staff researched. A majority of the floor area is used for restaurant seating, the kitchen, or the bar. With the Town of Vail's proposed "brew pub" ordinance, the maximum area allowed for the brewery is twenty -five percent of the floor area. The amount of beer produced in a brew pub differs dramatically from micro - breweries. Typically, micro breweries produce about 10,000 barrels per year. A micro brewery, as defined in the Vail Municipal Code can produce up to 7,000 barrels per year. The brew pub, as proposed in this ordinance change, will have a cap of 1,000 barrels per year. The applicant is actually proposing to make 750 barrels per year, which is less than the cap. Another major difference between a brew pub and a micro - brewery is the marketing and distribution of the product. Normally, micro - breweries distribute regionally and cover several states. Because a brew pub produces so much less beer than a micro brewery, the distribution typically is limited to local bars and restaurants. In addition to beer sold on tap in other bars, staff considers beer sold at the front counter of the restaurant for off site consumption as "Off site" sales. With the proposed definition, the combined off site sales will be limited to 15 percent of the total product produced each year. • 2 • III• EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST A. Suitability of zoning. The purpose of Commercial Service District as defined in the Town's zoning code states: Section 18.28.010 "The Commercial Service Center zone district is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple - family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the district. The Commercial Service Center zone district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses." Staff believes that the commercial facilities intended for this district should include uses such as the brew pub. Other similar permitted uses in the CSC zone district include restaurants; bakeries and confectioneries including preparation of products for sale on the premises; delicatessens with food service; taverns; and liquor stores. As stated above, staff views the brew pub as primarily a restaurant that has a special feature, the brewing operation. Given this opinion, the Commercial Service Center zoning is suitable for a brew pub. B. Is the amendment proposal Presenting a convenient workable relationship among land uses consistent with munici al ob'ectives? Generally, restaurants in this district can be compatible with the other uses in the zone district. There are some characteristics about a brew pub, unlike a restaurant, which must be regulated in order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Staff was concerned with regulating three features of a brew pub: the production volume, the size, and the distribution. Brewing Ca aeit Concerning volume, staff believes that it is appropriate to put a cap on brew pubs, limiting the volume of the beer produced to 1,000 barrels per year. This is consistent with the productions of 0 3 brew pubs across the nation and will ensure that • the use maintains an appropriate size for this zone district and maintains an accessory status to the restaurant operation. Limit To Operation The second point in the definition limits the brewing function to 25 percent of the floor area of the total operation. This is important to the planning staff because it ensures that the restaurant function is the primary use. Restaurants, we believe, are appropriate in this zone as are brew pubs, but only if the brewing operation is an accessory use to restaurants. Off Site Sales A third issue is off -site sales. Staff believes that it would be beneficial to allow the beer brewed in the brew pub to be sold on tap in other local restaurants. In addition, customers may want to purchase the beer at the restaurant cashier counter and take it home with them. Staff believes that these two kinds of off -site sales for off -site consumption are reasonable. There are two impacts associated with the off site sales which need to be addressed. The first is • production volume. Limiting the off -site sales to 15 percent of the annual production will allow this kind of distribution, but will prevent a wide distribution system with a large consumer demand which would make the brew pub less of a restaurant and more of a micro - brewery. The second impact is the loading and delivery requirements for even a small distribution system. Crossroads is different from other brew pub locations that staff researched in that it has two large multi- tenant buildings. Because of the existing parking, loading, and delivery congestion, staff believes that any new, frequent loading and delivery patterns must be able to be accommodated without worsening the existing congestion. Staff is proposing to allow off site sales as conditional use. This will enable the Town to map out and analyze the delivery of the outgoing product. If the delivery system cannot comply with the Town of Vail standards in Section 18.52.130, staff will not recommend approval of the request to the PEC. 0 4 Deliveries of raw materials . Staff understands that the deliveries of raw materials are similar to an average restaurant and need no special regulation. Odor Odor is an impact that is not likely to be perceived as a problem. However, staff believed that it needed to be addressed in the zoning code to make the use compatible with surrounding tenants. Of all the people that staff checked with, no one had complaints about the odor. The brew masters and restaurant people all said that it was a pleasant smell (not surprisingly). Planners in various communities said that it was not a problem and that no one had complained to them. Though generally not a problem, we do want to ensure that this factor does not negatively impact abutting tenant spaces. Vail's brew pub will be unique from others staff looked at in that it is a tenant space in a larger building and not in its own free standing building. For this reason, Staff recommends adding a stipulation in the CSC section of the code that the brewing occur before or after business hours. Staff understands that the odor occurs only during • the brewing, which takes approximately 100 minutes. The applicant proposes to brew three to five times a week. Though the smell may be attractive to people walking by or those in the pub, staff is concerned that adjacent tenants may grow weary of a frequent brewing odor. By limiting the hours of brewing to before or after regular business hours, the adjacent tenants should be protected. Other methods of mitigation include installing a powerful ventilation system and piping the air into the sanitary sewer or installing air scours in the vents to purify the air before releasing it outside. From discussions with staff from Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sewer District, it appears that venting the odor into the sewer would be feasible. However, staff believes that the expense involved with either of these options is not warranted given the relative mildness of the smell. Also, the effectiveness of any ventilating system is not guaranteed to direct the smell to the correct location. In staff's opinion, regulating the hours of brewing appears to be the most effective way to make the pub compatible with other Crossroads tenants. is 5 In summary, the brew pub, as it will be defined in the zoning code will have a convenient, workable, compatible relationship with the other land uses in the Commercial Service Center district. C. Staff believes that adding a brew pub use to the Commercial Service District will be an asset to the community. Planners from other communities said that the brew pubs were unique, attractive, highly frequented restaurants. Therefore, the Vail Town staff believes that it will be a use that is enjoyed by residents and guests and will make the community more viable. The proposed code changes are consistent with goals in the Land Use Plan. Goal 3.5 calls for additional night time business in the Village and Lionshead areas. Goal 4.1 generally applies to this proposal as it calls for further commercial development to occur in existing commercial areas. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of . the applicant's request to modify the Town zoning code to allow a brew pub as a permitted use in the CSC zone district. We believe that the brew pub, as defined in Exhibit A, is an appropriate use. It should be operated under a by -right status without conditional use review, since the impacts have been studied and are minimal or have been addressed in the proposed revisions to the zoning code. Adding this use to the Town's code will allow a unique operation in the Town of Vail and will make the Commercial Service District more viable. 41 6 0 EXHIBIT A BREW PUB DEFINITION To Become Section 18.04.035: A brew pub means an eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than 1,000 barrels per year. A barrel is equivalent to 31 gallons. ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR BREW PUBS TO BE LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE To Become Section 18.28.030, Permitted Uses, (G): • The brew pub operation shall be conducted under the following parameters: 1 -- There shall be no exterior storage of any supplies, refuse, or materials; 2 -- The operator shall comply with the Town of Vail's loading and delivery regulations as specified in Section 18.52.130, Town of Vail, Municipal Code. 3 -- The operator shall not brew beer during normal business hours -- specifically, not between the hours of 10 AM to 8 PM, seven days a week. To Become Section 18.28.040, Conditional Uses, (L): A Brew pub having off --site sales or sales for off -site consumption not to exceed 150 of the product. is 7 if i EXHIBIT B Memorandum to Planning and Environmental Commission July 23, 1990 RE: Brew Pubs TO: Planning and Environmental Commission i FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a work session for an exterior alteration and a height variance on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5 -B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street. The proposal calls for major modifications to the front entrance of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces which would be accessible from two stairs directly on Bridge Street, infill on the north and northwest sections of the existing structure, the addition of an elevator at the northwest corner of the building, and the addition of two upper floors, predominantly located along the west section of the structure. The existing covered stairs located along both the west and north elevations would be removed. A sprinkler system for fire • protection will be added to the entire building and all exits will be brought up to code. The applicants have also proposed to upgrade the adjacent pocket park to the north of the Covered Bridge Building. The owner of the Covered Bridge Building had previously made the following applications with regards to the redevelopment: 1. An exterior alteration request; 2. A site coverage variance request; 3. A height variance request; 4. A landscape variance request; and 5. A floodplain modification request. The project has been modified since the last PEC work session and the requests are now as follows: 1. An exterior alteration request; 2. A height variance request The site coverage variance, landscape variance and floodplain modification requests have been withdrawn. 1 II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS • The following is a preliminary summary of the proposed redevelopment for the Covered Bridge Building. It should be pointed out that these are still preliminary figures only, and are subject to verification from a registered surveyor and the planning staff. 1. Lot Size: 4,675.32 square feet Buildable Area: 4,510.32 square feet 2. Site Coverage: Existing = 84% Allowable = 80% Proposed = 84% 3. Building Heights: Existing = 36 ft. Proposed = 51 ft. Allowable = 60% of the building may be up to 33' and up to 40% of the building may be higher than 33 but no higher than 43 4. Roof Area Percentages: a) Allowable below 33' = 2,708 sq. ft. or 60% Proposed below 33' = 1,618 sq. ft. or 36% • b) Allowable between 33' -43' = 1,806 sq. ft. or 40% Proposed between 33' -43' = 494 sq. ft. or 11% c) Allowable above 43' - 0 sq. ft. or 0% Proposed above 43' - 2,402 sq. ft. or 53% 5. Density: Existing Dwelling Units - 0 Allowable Dwelling Units = 2 Proposed Dwelling Units = 2 6. GRFA: Existing -- 0 sq. ft. Allowable = 3,608 sq. ft. Proposed = 3,608 sq. ft. 7. Commercial Square Footage: Existing = 9,334 sq. ft. Proposed = 10,076 sq. ft. S. Floodplain: The existing 100 -year floodplain, as indicated by FEMA is currently 7.2 inches, vertically, above the existing grade along the north elevation of the existing building wall. No further encroachments into the floodplain are proposed, in fact, a portion of the existing • 2 encroachment (covered stair on north elevation) will be removed from the floodplain. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL 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 ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. IV. PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS The staff has reviewed the applicant's submittal and we have the • following concerns regarding the application: 1. Building height concerns. The proposed maximum height of the structure would be 51' -7 The staff prefers to see the height requirements (which are identified in Section II of the memo) met and encourages the applicant to redesign the roof and upper levels to avoid the 8' - 7 " height variance. The staff has been unable to identify a physical hardship and at this time cannot support the applicant's request for a height variance, although we do acknowledge and support the upgrade of the building. The Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, specifically Streetscape Framework and Street Enclosure, encourages buildings to be stepped back from pedestrian areas to provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. The Vail Village Master Plan has identified this area as having an acceptable range of building heights in the 3 -4 story category. A building story is defined as 9' of height and no roof is included. Because there is a 6' difference in height between Bridge Street and the pocket park area the applicant has requested the staff to reanalyze and interpret where building height base elevations will be calculated from. 3 Regarding the measurement of heights on this site, the staff • has made the following interpretations: That the base elevation to determine heights fo: structure. That the base elevation Covered Bridge property heights for the western of Bridge Street will be used r the eastern 50% of the at the northwest corner of the will be used to determine 50% of the structure. 2. Landscaping Concerns: a) The applicant is proposing to either relocate the two large evergreens trees, which are located just to the north of the existing building, or to replace said trees by purchasing two of the largest available nursery grown evergreens. The applicant proposes to relocate or replace the trees onto the Town's adjacent pocket park. b) Consideration should be given to landscaping on Bridge Street, along the east elevation of the building. 3. Architectural issues: a) The north and west elevations -- Perhaps additional • balconies and /or bay windows can be added to both elevations to further enhance the building's appearance and to provide additional visual interest. We believe the north elevation can be further refined to enhance the pedestrian experience in the adjacent pocket park and we would recommend that the north wall be stepped back to provide more openness in the pocket park area. b) The east elevation - We have some concerns with the revised front entry and the stairs leading to the proposed retail spaces on the basement level. Pedestrian access and views of the retail spaces are diminished. The applicant has moved the commercial windows on the lower level further out towards Bridge Street, however, without the aid of a model it is difficult to determine if the proposal is adequate. 4. Proposed improvements for the Town of Vail pocket park immediately north of the Covered Bridge Building. The applicant is proposing to upgrade this pocket park area and the Town Council, on July 17, 1990, has granted the applicant approval to move forward with designs for the park and to proceed through the planning process. Staff is of the opinion that this pocket park should be • designed in a very informal manner. We have recommended no hard surfaces or paths and a general upgrade of the turf areas with a few benches located near the creek. We have also suggested that a "viewing platform" be located at the Bridge Street level and be cantilevered over the existing retaining wall near the Covered Bridge. This would provide for a seating area, photo point and would also be available (with a detachable railing) for snow storage during the winter months. 5. View Corridors - -the applicant has hired Eagle Valley Surveying to certify whether the proposed structure encroaches into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. This information shall be required before a public hearing is scheduled before the PEC. 6. The following submittal information is still pending: a) A scale model of the proposal and adjacent pocket park. b) Certification, by a registered surveyor, of the lot size, buildable area (lot area out of the 100 - year floodplain), and the existing buildings site coverage. C) Staking of the proposed building. . d) Note: All roof overhangs and decks, etc. must be within the confines of the applicant's site. 0 5 - ro ry- � / rj �5us4 L�C� 2 • Na �eW Imus pf w��� 6HOVV �� WALKS T,,.;, 13G 4fkAVEL; STAl r To 1 F- 6' - (a 4 - �. � ��,ff% •_ � X11 rgo rMME0 G -p VM \M VPltj& �7 0 Cl* �! t N f �t1 ij �,I I ..� � 4 '�4��, 0 z i i Date 7 Z- 9v Sheet Number .. PROPOSED SITE PL „ ��, Revised: • 'NMI Ing IY t I I R i li f ` W ill w I MA, 1�1 0 M p �I �AS�'.';���:EVA�T"�t'�N . � _ Date ON-00 , sneer t*h,mber Revised: • is r ro to 0 M p �I �AS�'.';���:EVA�T"�t'�N . � _ Date ON-00 , sneer t*h,mber Revised: • is Ofd w athmey ! U.d r 1 WEST ELEVATION • Date 'I.1o:ara sheet Mrnber Revised: 4 4