Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes March - May• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1990 1:30 Site Visits 2:00 A Work Session on Air Quality 2:30 A Work Session - Holy Cross Electric Association 199 091 Two-Year Plan Review, (John Boyd). 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS s - 1. Approval of Minutes from March 12, 1990 meeting. 2. A request for an exterior alteration to the Vailglo Lodge on a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Craig Halzfaster - 3. A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing, Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. - 4. A request for a conditional use permit to expand a proposed parking structure TABLED for the Vail Valley Medical Center of Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. 1 5. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM15SI4N March 19, 1990 Minutes Present Chuck Crist Diana Donavan Connie Knight Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Absent Ludwig Kurz Staff Kristan Pritz Tom Braun Mike Monica Shelly Mello Penny Perry Then Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Abbroval of minutes for March 12. 1990 meeting. Motion for annroval of minutes as written was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 5 - 0 IN FAVOR WITH CONNIE KNIGHT NOT YET PRESENT Item No. 2: A request for an exterior alteration to the Vailglo Lodge on a portion of Lot 1. Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Craig Holzfaster Tom Braun presented the proposal explaining that this item was initially presented to the Planning Commission on February 12, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission was supportive of the proposed entry vestibules and porte cochere, but requested that the applicant incorporate landscape improvements along the north side of the property and that the existing trash dumpster be screened or enclosed. The proposal was tabled to allow the applicant an opportunity to study these requests. There have been no changes proposed to the original application. Initially, the staff recommended approval of this request with the condition that the proposed landscape plan be revised to include improvements to the berm between the Vailglo parking lot and the South Frontage Road. The staff still maintains that relocating this landscaping to the berm between the Vailglo parking lot and the South Frontage Road would greatly improve the appearance of the property, . 1 The staff supports the Planning Cammission~s direction regarding • the screening or enclosure of the dumpster and landscape improvements along the Frontage Road. The Design Review Guidelines require dumpsters to be enclosed, and it has been standard practice to require dumpsters on existing buildings to be addressed as a part of any addition or remodeling. Requesting the applicant to provide site improvements as a part of this proposal is both reasonable and consistent with other requests, with the conditions that: 1. The existing dumpster be relocated, and/or screen from view. 2. Landscape improvements to the area between the parking lot and the West Frontage Road be improved beyond what is shown on current plans. Kirk Aker, representative for the applicant, stated that ali the changes proposed are on Vailglo's property. As he remembered, staff and the Commission had no problem with the structural changes. They would be willing to relocate the dumpster to an enclosed area in the parking area or purchase a compactor far the parking area. Jim Shearer had no comments. . Kathy Warren asked if the removal of the dumpster could be a condition of approval. Aker replied, "Yes". Kathy then asked the staff if landscaping along the highway could be done. Tom replied it could. It was a matter of coordination with the highway department. Kathy asked how far the paved parking lot was from the highway. Tom replied approximately 50' Kathy then asked Kirk Aker if they were planning to landscape on the highway side. Kirk replied that he felt it was unreasonable of the Commission to ask them to landscape so far away from the proposed improvements. Kathy then responded that she felt the money would be better spent on the highway side rather than where the landscaping was proposed. Hugh Warder, CouncJ~l f the applicant, stated that the problem is that the Vailglo'~an not guarantee anything. They would first have to satisfy the EC and then the Highway Department. Kristan Pritz suggested a compromise of landscaping the planter area where snow is currently plowed toward the Northwest corner. • Craig Halzfaster, the applicant, replied that he could do this if the landscaping was back by the wall so as to avoid killing it during the winter months with plowed snow. Chuck Crist asked what type of foliage was proposed on the current plans. Kirk Aker replied that the bulk was 3 Spruce trees. '• Chuck continued by asking about the cropped trees. Whether they would continue to be cropped as they grew. Diana asked if these trees would be affected. Kirk Aker replied no. Diana asked if the post on the outside edge would just be in the grass. Kirk replied that was correct. Nothing else would be disturbed. Diana continued to state that she was happy that they decided they would do something with the dumpster. Also, as far as harming, if they were to berm the property line, it would help distinguish property lines. As it is now, they are not distinguishable. This should encourage the applicant to do so. Kathy Warren asked if Kristen's suggestion of landscaping the corner area could be a condition. Kirk Aker replied yes. Motion for approval oar the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck • Crist: 1. Dumbster be removed. 2.. Landscape the Northwest corner VOTE: 5 - 0 IN FAVOR WITH CONNIE KNIGHT NOT YET PRESENT, Item No. 3: A request far a side setback variance for Lot 6,, Block 2. Vail Village Sixth Filing. Anolicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr. Shelly Mello presented the project explaining that the applicant is requesting a variance from the side setback requirement to allow the construction of a 13' x 12'6" two story addition on the west side of the existing structure. The applicant's proposal is to add 288 sq ft of additional GRFA to the unit which will subsequently encroach into the 15' side setback. Shelly continued stating that approval would be a grant of special privilege. Staff's rec..~«.~,endation is far denial of the requested 3 foot encroachment into the side setback. The staff feels that the applicant has not fully investigated all possible alternatives that would not require a variance. Without being able to identify a true physical hardship which would limit the location of the proposed addition, the staff is unable to support the applicant's request. 3 John Perkins, architect representing the applicant, stated that he hopes to convince the staff and the C~uuulsSlon that indeed there is a hardship. He was the original architect on the home. He explained that the New England Architecture used on the home must stay clear and simple. The location of the proposed roof needs to be located where it is due to the architectural style. Any offset becomes difficult architecturally as well as virtually impossible for interior space and furniture placement. The area to the South is very steep with an 8' plus transition. Building in this area would put the new structure within 4' of the existing structure and possibly affect the footing. Drainage would also be a problem. They feel that the proposed location is the best possible. There are hardships. John continued quoting criteria #A-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." He believed this is what he had just pointed out. Quoting the Findings #C-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.", John stated a precedence that he felt was • set approximately one year ago on the Ackerman project. He was the architect on this project and they received approval. He felt the only difference between the two projects was that the Ackerman project had decks that were already in the setback. Mr. Perkins believed that approval was warranted according to the criteria and finding just quoted. He asked that the Commission review the personal letter from Mr. Ames carefully. Mr. Ames then addressed the Commission. He explained that he purchased the home 5 to 6 years ago as a rental property. At that time, the size of the rooms was of no consequence. Now that he has retired, the rooms are too small for a second home. He would like to make the home more "livable". Mr. Ames reiterate what they felt to be physical hardships to the South including the steep grade and closeness of the property line to the adjacent building. He stated that the room has to go where it was proposed. He then passed around photographs. Dalton Williams asked how much the encroachment was? John Perkins replied 3' at the most extreme point. Dalton then commented that if the room was blocked off, it would still be 12x9. Mr. Perkins answered that with closets etc., the bedroom would be 7x9. This does not make sense for a house of this stature. 4 Kathy Warren suggested that they offset with a deck to allow for a roof pitch change. John stated that his a 9' dimension into a bedroom did not make sense. Kathy stated that she sees a solution without a variance. Architectural problems is not a hardship for a variance. John said that a 9x10 bedroom is a hardship. Dalton suggested that he move the closets. John stated that this would still create a small room. Kathy Warren continued, stating that the precedence that John had mentioned earlier did indeed have a hardship. The steepness of the hill was much greater than in this case. She doesn't see a hardship here. John feels that the same situation applies here. Kathy stated that there were other alternatives. Jim Shearer wished to clarify John's statement referencing the roof clip. He asked if this would be the case if they moved the closets South. Jahn stated that it would create a 8'x6' room and this was a hardship. Chuck Crist asked where the property line was and John Perkins demonstrated on the site plat. There are 6 different parcels that jog back and forth. It is very complicated. Alice Parsons from the audience, an adjacent property owner, stated that she hopes the board Will deny this request for 2 reasons. First, the property is border to border already. Second, her view was shortened after Mr. Ames added bay windows. This addition would all but finish her view. She felt that property lines were put in place for a reason, and asked the board not to set a precedence. John Perkins closed by stating that they were simply asking for a 17.25 sq. ft. variance. He has thoroughly researched the alternatives and feels the slope and room dimensions should be considered a hardship for a variance. Diana Donovan explained that she sympathizes with Mr. Ames. However, there is a solution within the style and architecture. The board has tried to point some of these alternative out to John, though it is not their position to do so. A motion for denial as oer the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded Jim Shearer. Dalton stated that he would like to help them out. However, he felt they needed to place the addition within the limits of zoning. VOTE: 5 - 0 FOR DENIAL WITH CONNIE KNIGHT NOT YET PRESENT • 5 Itam Na. ~: A request for a aanditienal use Hermit to expand a . ~ proposed parkina structure for the Vail Valley, Medical Center of Lots E and F. Vail Villaae 2nd Filina at L81 West Meadow Drive. Aoolicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. A motion to table this item was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 5 - 0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING WITH CONNIE KNIGHT NOT YET PRESENT Item No. 5: A request far an exterior alteration, stream setback variance. view corridor amendment, site coverage variance. and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor Datio for the Red Lion Building. Abulicant: Frankie Tana and Landmark Proberties. CONNIE KNIGHT JOINED THE GOMMTSSION AT x:20 DURING STAFF'S PRESENTATION. Tom Braun presented the proposal explaining that there are 4 main elements as follows: 1. The proposal would result in 3 condo's 2. The enclosure of the patio area in the same manner of the existing deck. 3. A new dining deck along Mill Creek with Rekord Doors. 4. A public walkway. This proposal entails the review and approval of five separate requests by the Planning G~,~u«ission. These requests include the following: 1. Exterior alteration. 2. A stream setback variance for a small building addition, dining patio, and public walkway. 3. A site coverage variance for a small building addition and the new dining patio. 4. A conditional use permit for the dining patio. 5. Modification to adopted view corridor #1, (Vantage point from the steps of the parking structure over Vail . Village to Vail Mountain.) 6 Applicable elements of this prepesal are reviewed within the memos. The staff can not support this project at this time. There are a number of positive elements of this plan that should not be overlooked. Among these are the streetedge improvements along Hanson Ranch Road, the introduction of dining and the walkway along Mill Creek, and the fact that development on the site is not being maximized. However, the staff feels strongly that many elements need refinement. Among these are the new dining and walkway along Mill Creek, the overall massing and roof forms proposed on the building, and the proposal to completely enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. Staff recommends denial of this request as currently proposed. Jay Petersen, Council representing the applicants, began by recalling the last meeting. To the best of his memory the Commission asked for several changes at the last meeting. To simplify the roof forms, lessen transparency, move the deck to the east and enclosure along the northwest corner. Jay asked that the Commission keep in mind that there are 2 different applicants in this manner. One was the commercial space owners and the other the private condo owners. Jay felt that in looking at the Design Guidelines, it was important to get activity around the proposed back deck area. He felt that this would not be accomplished without the deck. As far as the deck enclosure, he felt that the "rekord" doors were a trade-off. Btu's, Sweet Basil and Vendetta's were examples of businesses currently using "rekord" doors. Contrary to what Tom had said, he felt they were opening the deck up rather than closing it. Tf this enclosure was a major problem, the applicants were open to discussion. Jay continued to explain that he felt the town had lost a lot of restaurants because of the cost of redevelopment and commercial space. Referencing public input on this project, Jay wished for the Commission to be aware of the feelings of neighboring building owners who were not present. He said that Jack Curtain and the Board of Director of the Slifer Building are now in agreement. Jay felt that they had been very sensitive in trying to keep the massing out of view. Tt was unfortunate that it affected the Rucksack. He felt that the mass needed to be kept off of Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch road. Tn order to significantly reduce the view impact to Rucksack, they would have to shift the building by 20-30 feet. Jim Morter, architect representing the applicants, began to address issues raised by Tom. He stated that he agreed that a 3'6" walk was not enough. • 7 Kathy Warren inquired about the tree relocatinn_ Jim Morter explained that the only reason they were considering relocating the trees was to allow for the public walkway. It had nothing to do with the building or construction itself. Jim Morter explained that they felt the view down Hanson Ranch Road was very important though it was not a formally adopted corridor. He continued to explain that they would be more than happy to work with Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates. As far as the adopted View corridor, they were behind the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower and below Gold Peak Building. Jim felt that it was appropriate to keep the roof of the building stepping back. He showed an example of the Hill building and how it was done, Jim Morter explained that he had followed the suggestion of the board from the previous meeting and reduced the glazing with windows. However, he felt that it was appropriate to have windows in a living room. They have changed the windows in this location but not deleted them. Referencing Tom's cu.~~.~~ents on Sun/Shade, they cast no new shade on the Rucksack building. Kristan asked for Jim Morter to point out the specific structural changes that were made. Jim Morten pointed the changes out on the drawings. The changes basically include window deletions, regroupings, mass changes and changes on the East elevation. The decks were simplified, windows were changed to punched opening rather than arched openings, and in general, a more Tyrolean look was added to the architectural style. Jim Morter showed pictures of roof lines and window treatments found on various buildings throughout the town. Examples of buildings included the Sitzmark, the Gorsuch Building, the One Vail Place Building, the Hill Building, Helgas, the Tivoli and the Lodge building. These examples showed that the Red Lion building was bath appropriate and found within the framework of the Village. Jim continued to explain the roof changes on the north and south elevations and the deletion of roof slopes. Regarding the windows, they made a 30~ reduction in window treatments. The only place large glass is still in place is the living room. He felt he could not rec~.~u~~end to his client to put a 3'6" window in a living room with a view of Vail Mountain. Regarding the suggested roof changes along Hanson Ranch Road, they made only minor changes to the elevation. He felt that to bring the lines together would add unwanted bulk. • 8 Jay Petnrsnn interjected en the views en that side of the building. He felt this added bulk would block a wanted view. For example, the Hong Kong building blocked the Lazier Arcade building view. A VIDEO TAPE OF THE SUPER STRUCTURE WAS SHOWN. Yvonne Mullally addressed the Commission with public input. She owns a unit in the Rucksack building. She had a few questions. First she wished to know if the deck in the back required a setback variance. Second, she asked Jim Morter how the addition affects her right to light. She has to lay on her back to see daylight. Morter responded that the addition is affecting the amount of sky but not light. Diana asked Tom to distinguish the difference between Light and View. Tom explained that light does not specifically mean direct sun light. Jim Morter pointed out that according to Sun/Shade charts, the Red Lion building only cast shadows on an existing roof. Yvonne asked why all the mass of the building was on the side of the Rucksack building. She continued to ask why more cement is needed (walkway} along the creek. She also found it hard to believe that they were planning to relocate 17 year old trees. . Yvonne continued by asking whether Rod Slifer's approval of the project was on behalf of the Condo Association or his personal benefit. Jay responded that the approval was per the Board of directors. Pepi Gramshammer approached the Commission with public input. He stated that he is at this meeting on behalf of the Village, not specifically this project. He feels that the Village style and scale is why people visit Vail. One building will not kill the character of the Village. However, if you approve this project, it will set a precedence for others. Also, the summer tourist trade is very important to the Village, He feels this trade would be hurt by such major construction in the Village. Tt also seems to him that a project that requires five variances must be looked at very carefully. We should be careful not to hurt the character of our Village. Dalton Williams commented on the unit entrance by the Szechwan Lion Restaurant. Instead of four 90 degree turns, it would be more suitable to leave it the way it was today. This would save losing a tree, planter and a cut-up walk. Dalton would prefer to see the walk follow the contour of the stream, meandering, rather than a straight edge. He also suggested the passibility of constructing a bridge at the end of the walk until the connection behind the Rucksack building can be completed. Dalton liked the punched windows. However, he felt they still looked 1980's or 90's. He agreed with Pepi that growth must be limited. 9 Concerning the Rucksack building, Dalton folt that the Rid Lion . project was taking 100 of the views from the unit in the Rucksack. He suggested taking the back corner where the fireplace was straight back. This would add back some view of Gold Peak for the neighbor. Dalton was also concerned about the vent fans. He was "appalled" by the noise and grease. More attention needed to be paid in this area. Regarding the front deck enclosure, he was not too concerned as long as it was opened up. He was concerned with the existing planter. It looked as though it would fall apart at any time. Chuck Crist asked if the passage between the Rucksack and the Red Lion building could be opened up by this proposal and Tom responded, "No". Both buildings were built to existing property lines. Chuck continued by commenting on the vent fans. He would like to see them consolidated due to the smell etc. He appreciated the reduction in windows and felt it did look better along with the reduction of the number of roofs. He asked what the pitch was along the roof and Morten answered, "3/12". Chuck said that he would like to see flower boxes on every porch. He had no problem with enclosing the front deck. However, he did see a problem with the existing planter wall out front. Kathy Warren questioned the June 15 to September 15 requirement to keep the deck open. Jay responded that he did not feel that the intent was to keep the deck open 24 hours a day. Tt does not make sense if it is raining and cold. Also, they would like to be able to close the doors at the time the establishment closes. Kristan Pritz commented that this is a major concern and should be addressed further. In her opinion, this 1982 condition of approval should continue. Dalton stated that a compromise could possibly be made. They could be required to be open with the exception of inclement weather. This would eliminate the possibility of closing them due to noise, Diana asked if there were any restriction of Vendetta's ar Blu's and Tom responded none. The assumption was made that the desirability of an open deck would keep the operation open when possible. Jay stated that they could agree to a compromise such as Dalton had suggested. C] 10 Kathy Warran continued by agreeing that the mass should be . brought toward Hanson Ranch Road in order to be more sensitive to the Rucksack building. She was also concerned about the fans. She would like to see the elevation from the pedestrian's view from Hanson Ranch Road staked again and felt the elevation is still very complicated. Jim Morter asked if she felt so strongly about the elevation that she would prefer to see a cold line with more bulk. Kathy explained that it seemed to her they could pull some of the mass from Rucksack toward the Hanson Ranch side and simplify the roof on Hanson Ranch. Kathy was more comfortable with the fenestration. She was in favor of the "rekord" doors on the Bridge Street deck. She was opposed to the patio dining on Town of Vail property. She would agree to the stream setback only for the small building addition, not for the deck. She could not agree to a site coverage variance for the patio dining. However, she had no problem with a site coverage variance for the small building addition. Kathy had no objection to the view corridor amendment and would like to reiterate that the planter area in the front needs to be redone. Jay asked if she felt it needed to be redone or repaired and Kathy responded redone. Jim Shearer took the floor by commented that he also would like to see the North elevation restaked. He asked about a right to air and sight. What it implies. If exhaust comes directly into • Rucksack, what happens? Jim Shearer continued by explaining that one chimney would be more desirable for the senses of smell and vision. He agreed with Dalton that the view from Rucksack could be addressed by deleting the corner from the back chimney area. Jim asked if the rock wall found along the streamwalk behind the A & D building was something that could or would be done behind the Red Lion building? Kristan answered that the staff feels that opening the area up to pedestrians is positive. The staff feels that the proposed dining deck could be reduced to allow for mare of a green area. They would prefer not to use any type of retaining wall. Jim Shearer liked the walkway idea in general. He liked the architectural changes on the most part and agreed with Chuck that he would like to see more flower boxes. Jim liked the "rekord" doors and was happy to see that the logo would be brought back. He also liked the fact that they were willing to work with Jeff Winston on the streetscape. • 11 Connie Knight apolegized for not making the site visits. She stated that she had no problems with the window changes. She asked how much room there was to the South for a mass shift and Jim Morter answered approximately several thousand square feet. Connie continued asking if they could shift the mass in this direction without affecting the view corridor? Morter replied that they could expand without affecting an official view corridor. However, they felt the view between Red Lion and Cyrano's was important. Connie then asked if they could redesign the back corner by the fireplace as suggested previously in order to open up the Rucksack View and Morter answered that this would not leave a living area. Connie then asked if the awning would be left on the front side of the building and Morter replied yes, a permanent awning. Connie then asked Bill Anderson, proposed construction superintendent, if he could build without hurting the trees in the back and he replied yes. Diana Donovan wished to reiterate points made by the other Commission members. She agreed that the fans needed to be addressed and that the stream setback should not be increased except for the condo entrance. She didn't feel there should be an open patio in the back. Glass doors would be nice. The path area should be informal with no retaining walls. Diana then asked about the height of the planter wall out front. Morter responded that the wall behind the new planter would be taken out. Diana felt a two foot planter would not be adequate to keep people safely within the deck boundaries. The deck needed more separation. Keeping the awning and logo was great. She did not like the access for the condo entrance. It should not be entered off a public area. Diana was against the North deck enclosure without receiving something in return. She would be more in favor of the enclosure if they could curve the corner so as not to block the view around the corner. She felt that the "rekord" door issue (times for opening/closing) needed specific restrictions. She could agree to allowing them to close the doors when the bar closed but not during inclement weather. Diana felt it would show great sensitivity if they could redesign the corner to allow a view from the Rucksack building. Diana preferred not to move the line on the view corridor but to allow the exception of a new picture once the building was complete. She was afraid of setting a precedence. Tam stated that this was an issue to be discussed with Larry Eskwith. • 12 Diana continued stating that she would tike to see the applicants help find a solution to the delivery problem. She would like to see all access to the Red Lion building totally from Hanson Ranch Road. xn response to Pepi's comments, Diana agreed that there are some tough decisions ahead for the Commission. There will be many that will make people unhappy, however, she felt they would be looked upon favorably in the future. Oscar Tang, speaking for his wife, stated that accused of being part time residents. They pry part time. His wife has chosen to improve the want flower boxes, she will make sure they are love to win the contest for flowers or lights. Hills are pretty tough to beat. they have been ~fer to live here property. If you there. She would However, the Tank continued stating that his wife is not a developer. They bought the Red Lion with the intent of capturing the control of redeveloping. They have the same desires as Pepi and feel they are simply taking a mare active role by purchasing and developing the property themselves. They felt that they could be more sensitive than just any developer. They understand they are hurting others, but feel they are helping the Town as a whole. Mr. Tang expressed the fact that he would be willing to restrict future development. Chuck Crist stated that he had since changed his mind and would . rather not see a deck in the back. He liked Diana's idea of large glass windows. In response to Mr. Tang's comment concerning restriction of future development, Chuck inquired as to the number and names of the other owners and how this restriction could be accomplished. Jay replied that there were two individuals through Landmark properties and the Tang's. Tang would agree to bind GRFA. Everything outside the confines of airspace will need permission of all other condo owners. Jay then requested that the matter be tabled. Discussion continued regarding the staking of the property with Jay commenting on the cost and Tom directing the Commission that if they have any questions, they should request the staking. Diana commented that it would make her feel mare comfortable in making a decision. Tt was agreed the entire roof would be staked for the April 9 meeting, A motion to table this nroposai to the 4/9 meeting with the condition that revised olans be submitted by 3/26 was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING The meeting was adjourned at 7:3Q p.m. 13 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 19, 1990 SU&TECT: A request for an exterior alteration to the Vailglo Lodge at 701 West Lionshead Circle, Applicant: Craig Holzfaster I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This item was initially presented to the Planning C~.,u,~ission on February 12, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission was supportive of the proposed entry vestibules and porte cochere, but requested that the applicant ' incorporate landscape improvements along the north side of the property and that the existing trash dumpster be screened or enclosed. The proposal was tabled to allow the applicant an opportunity to study these request. There have been no changes proposed to the original application. II. STAFF RESPONSE TO THIS PROPOSAL • Initially, the staff rec~.~~~~~ended approval of this request with the condition that the proposed landscape plan be revised to include improvements to the berm between the Vailglo parking lot and the South Frontage Road. The proposed landscape plan included the introduction of a planter on the west side of the property adjacent the L'Ostello Hotel. This landscaping would do little to improve the appearance of the property. The staff still maintains that relocating this landscaping to the berm between the Vailglo parking lot and the South Frontage Road would greatly improve the appearance of the property. The staff supports the Planning Commission's direction regarding the screening or enclosure of the dumpster and landscape improvements along the Frontage Road. The Design Review Guidelines require dumpsters to be enclosed, and it has been standard practice to require dumpsters on existing buildings to be addressed as a part of any addition or remodeling. Landscape and site improvements are commonly associated with exterior alteration approvals in CCI and CCII. The development standards in these zone districts allow properties a great deal of latitude. Requesting the applicant to provide site improvements as a part of this proposal is both reasonable and consistent with other requests, with the conditions that: 1. the existing dumpster be relocated, and/or screen from view. 2. Landscape improvements to the area between the parking lat and the West Frontage Road be improved beyond what is shown on current plans. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the side setback requirement of the Primary/Secondary Residential done District for Lot 6, Block 2, Parcel B, Vail Village Sixth Filing (725-B Forest Road). Applicants: Clinton and Doris Ames I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants, owners of Lot 6, Block 2, Parcel B, Vail Village Sixth Filing, are requesting a variance from the side setback requirement to allow the construction of a 13'x 12'6" two story addition on the west side of the existing structure. The addition to the secondary unit will encroach 3 feet at the north end and will taper down to the 15 foot setback line on the south. The site is currently occupied by a 2 family structure consisting of 2792.7 sq.ft of GRFA with a total allowable GRFA of 4190 sq. ft, The primary unit consists of 1679.2 sq. ft. of GRFA and the secondary unit has 1113.5 sq. ft. of GRFA. The maximum site coverage allowed is 3879 sq. ft. for this lot, and the property currently has 2828 sq. ft. The applicant's proposal is to add 288 sq ft of additional GRFA to the unit which will subsequently encroach into the 15' side setback. 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 a;nd structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition should not have any negative impacts on the existing or proposed structures in the vicinity. Adjacent property owners would not be significantly impacted by the proposed addition. 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 privilecre., Staff does not find that there is a physical hardship regarding this variance request and feels that approval of the request would constitute a grant of special privilege. We also feel that the applicant has not given full consideration to other design solutions for construction of the addition which would not require a variance. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of nonulat~on, transportation and traffic facilities. nublic facilities and utilities. and nublic safety. Staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems, applicable to the nronosed variance. 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 ar 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 ar enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar 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 R.FCOMMENDATZON Staff recommendation is for denial of the requested 3 foot encroachment into the side setback. The staff feels that the applicant has not fully investigated all possible alternatives that would not require a variance. The staff feels that the addition could be redesigned or moved from the west elevation so that it will not encroach into the setback, Without being able to identify a true physical hardship which would limit the location of the proposed addition, the staff is unable support the applicant's request. n U • , ~' ~ +rwe~ . ~e y i i ~~ n ~~~~' . • N-l.: ~ +v. - .. yYMii:.~-'~Cs1t~~.';Y~F"r: riL~~-h:y4~~ C :1};, ~ ~ ~ y \\ ~ ~ ~. ~~ .r v 4 \ ~ ~ ~' F .`'. ~_ \ yT_ - ,~~ . ,~ -, ~~. -r - f _ ry ~~ y1,,/ ti~`\ i •~ 4 ~• ~ ~r~ • ` I . ~ ^~i .._ i ~ ~_,~~~ ~~ 1 s ~. }' ~ ., i S ~' ~~. _~ f~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~~~ +~~. ,~. ~~ .~~ p~ ~. 1 z %/ ~~ ` .. 3 1 t i ~ m W ~ pppp u N ~p t; p _ 0 9 ~'°' & + ~ S ! ~ f `~~ ~L ~~ f4~ ~~ V ~ i i /•/~~ ~~• ,~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ , ~ ~ ', ^ `. ~~ 4 • • ~ •.;i ~ ~f~ t~ J 7. _r-~~'-tw r.~Ptix,Caf.t3~i'rd~ ~r. ~~~ ~~1 ~~-~li$~-. r `L -' ,F~ ~y a~,!rr gt t iJ Uri i i :•~~~ ;jam' wYR "~.'~ :ln~ ° .;r r G ~! ~ ~ , i tl n ~ _5 d ~ V ~ i ;~.•j i~ ~ ~~~ i,~. ~, -~-••^ - ~ ~~ 4 ~- d ..1 ~~ Qt tl' ~~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ i.1-.. ~ ; ~ ~ i 0 •~ ~~ d a. ~ a y ~~ M ~~ e • ~ ~ ' i f • ~• i a 1 ; I . ~ ~ ~ . ~ F +~ . ~ .~- w .. ' 1. - ,f ~, t ' y„ r.,'T' ~~ ~ S I. I C 4 } t r ' , ..,i ~ s ! * ~ ~' ~ d ~ ! ~ j .. I i 1 1 r , - .4. ~.. ..Fr • • i,~ i I ~V - .., ., - ~ .~ I 11 i t ~ ter. ~ - ~ ~ ~ . Y a .`. ~ .1 ~ i ll II ~ 1l17 ~A. i ' 1 4 4~~ i j~i1.4 + N~ ~ 1I`II 4. • 1J41Jy 1.• l II } 4. f ~'~ fl'? ~ ~~ ~ `I ~ ~ ~i~ fi;_ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~I I~ II !I ~f4 ~~ i~ ~~;~~` 1 1 '1 i ~I.f ; .. ~~ ~ ,I~. 1 ili ~~ ~j}~I~1~L1 I~ III ~ti w ^0 W I I ^^~ r~/~ 'I `I I y`{ II ~I ~' I i February 18, 199 Jahn M. Perkins P.O. Bax 266 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Jahn: I had previously looked at making the house addition to the south taut decided that it was not practical, efficient or economical fox the falIowin reasons. 1. There is an 8+foot elevation difference between the south side of the house and the north side of the garage. If the room addition was made by extending the hawse to the south, the floor and window levels of the new roam addition would be below grade. ~. Snow falling and rain drainage from the garage roof would -fall tv a six foot area and impinge against the south side of the new room. 3. Double garage located directly behind my house is deeded to owners of larger house (Dr,& M^s.Cadvl). The addition of my house to the south would be within 8f t. of their structure. Excavation into the steep grade cavld effect the foundation of their building. I would not ask or expect them to approve such an arrangement. Conversely, all the property to the west of my • house is deeded to me. Therefore, any addition would not effect the Cadv]'s property. 4, The Cadol's house is used as rental property. The only entrance to bath houses is down the stairs from the garage and carport area. For safety and convenience, this area remains sighted most nights and traffic dawn the stairs is very noisy. The addition of a bedroom for the most quiet and comfort should be as far away from this area as possible. 5. Extension of the house to the south would be costly and inefficient. Tt would necessitate relocating the second floor bath in order to provide access to the new 2nd floor bedroom. 1 don`t believe that a good arrangement can be worked out that would allow bathroom convenience to both bedrooms without sacrificing scarce flour space for hallway. Also, if this were done, the second floor bedroom would be too small and the whv4e prajeat not justified. Conversely, by making the addition to the west, the access to the new bedroom would be through the existing window with convenient access to the existing Math. 6. As far as hardship, I'm not certain that anyone who pays the price for real estate in Vail can claim hardship. As explained to you, we use the house in Vail as our second home. We have a daughter and a son who live a considerable distance from us and also from each other. IJe use Vail as the "family gathering " place. It is obvious that another bedroom would be coy~slder~.~b1*~ more comfortable, convenient and liveabiQ. The "one man" kitchen in the house i.s most impractical and Page 2 • difficult if this house is going to be used as a song term Name. The only way this can be corrected is by the expansion being requested. Denial of my request to expand my pause to the west will stop my plan to make this a home which would be more practical, liveable, useable, and comfortable. i guess at my stage fn life this denial would really be a hardship. 1 baps the above will convince the local authorities to approve my house expansion as requested, including the additional GF1FA if pos sible. V~e/r'y truly~y/ours, ~.i~''o'~ C.~~ Clinton G. Ames P.a. Box 137 Point Clear, AL 36564 Tel: (205) 928-4795 ;~ • t U T0: Planning and Environmenta]. Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: March 19, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration to make additions to the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties DESCRIPTTON OF PROPOSAL The redevelopment of the Red Lion Building involves modifications to ground floor commercial space and a major remodel of the upper floor residential space. The main elements of this plan are: 1. The development of three condominiums totaling 9207 square feet of GRFA. The property currently has one condominium with 5231 square feet of GRFA. 2. Modifications to the existing Red Lion deck enclosure on Bridge Street, including the enclosure of 100 additional square feet of patio at the north end of the existing deck. • 3. Modifications to the Red Lion Restaurant to include a dining patio on the east side of the building along Mill Creek. 4. The development of a public walkway along Mill Creek over the length of the Red Lion frontage. This proposal entails the review and approval of five separate requests by the Planning Commission. These request include the following: 1. Exterior alteration. 2. A stream setback variance for a small building addition, dining patio, and public walkway. 3. A site coverage variance for a small building addition and the new dining patio. 4. A conditional use permit for the dining patio. 5. Modification to adopted view corridor $~1. (Vantage point from the steps of the parking structure over Vail Village to Vail Mountain.) ,7 Applicable elements of this proposal are reviewed relative to the • criteria found in each of these requests. While each must be considered on their own merit, it is important that the Planning Commission view this project as a whole when evaluating the proposal. This exterior alteration memo will cover each of the major elements of this proposal, and will also address the requested modification to the view corridor. The other 3 memorandums provide additional detail relevant to those specific requests. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA The Vail Village Urban Design Guide 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. These sub-area concepts identify areas for potential development and improvements in the Village. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations cover large scale land use/design issues. Finally, architectural/landscape considerations provide information on the detailed design elements of a proposal. Zn addition to these three elements of the Guide Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also considered as a part of this review. The three accompanying memorandums cover the majority of these zoning issues. One additional zoning consideration has to do with parking. Any additional parking demand generated by this proposal would be met by payment into the parking fund. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Sub Area No. 8: Mill Creek walking path, west side Mi11 Creek. Path completes linkage from Pirateship Park and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive. This proposal includes a walkway along Mill Creek over the length of the Red Lion frontage. Ultimately, this section of the path will connect with the path constructed on the back side of the A & D building. Zt is a long range goal to improve pedestrianization in this area to strengthen the role of the Mill Creek building as a part of the Village. The proposed walkway is 3'b" wide. This width is unacceptable for what will become a significant walkway. The staff would like to see this element of the plan revised to include a walkway between 6 to 8 feet wide. C7 sub Area No. 10: Seibert Circle. Feature area paving treatment. Relocate focal point (potential . fountain} to north for better sun exposure (fall/spring}, creates increased plaza area and/or backdrop for activities. Separated path on north side for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods. The applicants have stated that the owners are prepared to discuss their role, or involvement, in the relocation of Seibert Circle if and when those discussion begin. The staff believes this sub-area concept has merit, however, there are currently no plans to initiate the relocation of the circle. Improvement proposed for the Red Lion building will not impede or prevent the re-design of Seibert Circle. Sub-area No. 12: Future midblock Connection to further tie Mill Creek Court to core area, Entry reinforced by packet park created on Bridge Street. Of all the sub-area concepts outlined in this plan, this sub-area could provide one of the most important improvements to the Village. This connection existed at one time. Unfortunately, a ground level addition to the Rucksack building eliminated this pedestrian corridor. Improvements to the Red Lion Building do not change the existing situation. It appears that the redevelopment of the Rucksack building will be required before this sub-area concept could be implemented. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Pedestrianization introducing another segment of the Mill Creek walkway is a very positive step in expanding the Village's pedestrian system. However, the staff feels strongly that this improvement should be redesigned to provide a path 6 to 8 feet wide. Vehicular Penetration Three condominiums will clearly generate more traffic than the one existing condominium. However, it must be pointed out that zoning on this property permits up to 8 units. In this respect, impacts of vehicular penetration are not as great as they could be. r1 U Streetscape Framework While not a street, the concept of dining activity along Mill Creek is extremely valuable in generating activity in this area. As mentioned in this memo, and in other memorandums, the design is not adequate at this time. The area has the potential to provide both the dining activity and an adequate walkway. r 1 LJ "Rekord" doors are proposed for the north, south and west sides of the present Red Lion Deck enclosure. Operable doors will provide an improved situation over what is existing. However, the staff has serious concerns over the existing dining deck. Approved in 1982, this deck enclosure was clearly a negative change on the Bridge Street framework. To consider additional enclosure of this deck on the north side is unacceptable. In addition, the staff feels the existing roof should be pulled back over its entire length of Bridge Street frontage to allow for a row of outdoor tables along the Bridge Street. Street Enclosure The enclosure along Bridge Street relates well with the Plaza Lodge building. It may be appropriate however to shift the mass of the building or provide additional mass towards the south. This has the potential to accomplish two things: 1. Shifting the mass to the south may lessen the impacts on the Rucksack building. 2. Extending the mass of the serve to consolidate the of the building. building to the south could existing mass and roof forms Street Edae Proposed landscaping along the north side of the building will dramatically improve the existing street edge. As proposed, a series of pavers and planter areas would line the Hanson Ranch road side of the building. This design follows the property line. The design that has been submitted is considered conceptual. The staff has just begun working on a Village-wide streetscape improvement plan with Winston and Associates. The intent of this plan is to evaluate the public spaces between buildings with regard to street improvements. The applicants have agreed to work with the staff and Winston as this project evolves in order to design their improvements accordingly, This will assure design and material compatibility with other future streetscape improvements. • Building Height . Building heights allow 40~ of the structure to be between 33 and 43 feet with the remaining 6p% of the structure below 33 feet. As proposed, 66~ of the building is below 33 feet and 33.9 of the building is above 33 feet but below 43 feet. At its highest point, the proposed ridgeline is 42.7 feet. Views and Focal points The applicants have provided a number of photo overlays demonstrating the relationship of this building to many view corridors. These photos demonstrate that the proposal is generally responsive to most public and private view corridors. While views from the Rucksack building will be dramatically impacted, it is not the purpose, nor intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan to protect these private view corridors. While the staff can certainly sympathize with owners of the Rucksack building, the fact remains that the Red Lion building has development potential that can be built. The role of the Guide Plan is to ensure that the development is designed in a way that is responsive to the numerous design considerations of the plan. The proposed ridgeline will encroach into adopted view corridor No. 1. This view corridor is from the steps of the existing parking structure over Vail Village. Tt is intended to provide unobstructed views of Vail Mountain and key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower. As a general rule, the staff feels strongly that these view corridors should not be disrupted to accommodate new buildings. However, circumstances specific to this view corridor line support modifications of this line. The proposed ridge line of the Red Lion redevelopment is below the existing ridge line of the Golden Peak House. However, the view corridor line "dips" below the Golden Peak House ridge. It is clear to the staff that the intent of the view corridor would be met if the line were drawn at the Golden Peak House roof ridge. For this reason, and because improvements to the Red Lion building are below the Golden Peak House ridge and behind the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, staff can support this amendment request. This amendment would relocate the view corridor line to the Golden Peak House ridge line. A condition of this approval will be that the applicant's resurvey the view corridor and provide all materials and production of the revised photos. It should be noted that the redevelopment of the Village Parking Structure will eliminate the exact vantage point from which this view corridor was taken. Efforts will have to be made to ensure that a comparable vantage point is available to reposition this view corridor line. Service and Deliverv • As with many properties in the Village, there are no back doors to provide service functions. Xntroducing dining and the walkway along Mi11 Creek perpetuates the problem of not having enough space for these operations. The existing location of trash facilities is adjacent to Gore Creek and remains unchanged. However, this location conflicts with the dining deck and walkway. Unfortunately, this appears to be the only solution available. Trash is typically removed in the early morning hours thereby minimizing potential impacts on diners. Given the fact that the Red Lion will be operating the dining deck, one can assume that they will insure that any impacts of this trash facility are minimized on there awn dining deck. Sun/Shade The proposed expansion will cast increased shadow patterns on the stream tract and the Rucksack property. Locating the new building mass on this property is a very delicate balance. The guidelines encourage the building to be pulled back from Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road, thereby shifting mass to the north and east. The obvious result is increase shadow patterns along Mill Creek and the Rucksack building. The staff is willing to accept the shadow pattern on Mill Creek as a trade off for maintaining proper street . enclosure along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road. However, it would be worth while to see how shifting the mass of the building to the south could minimize any shade impact on the Rucksack building. Architectural/Landscape Considerations Roofs The staff has serious concerns over the composition of the proposed roof planes. The existing proposal is very similar to graphic elements in the Guide Plan that demonstrate what should not be done. There are certainly a variety of roof forms throughout the Village. However, in general the roof forms along this area of Bridge Street are very simplistic. The roof height regulations da encourage varied roof heights, which this proposal does in fact do. However, there are a number of areas in the building where roof lines could be consolidated to simplify the roof form. CJ Transtiarencv As discussed at the Planning Commission work session, the degree of transparency proposed on the second and third floor of this building is not consistent with the Urban Design Guide Plan. As a general rule, transparency should decrease on the upper floors of the building. Some changes have been made to the elevation that are in fact positive. However, the staff is still uncomfortable with the large window element along Bridge Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The staff can not support this project at this time. In fairness to the applicants, this site is a very difficult one to redevelop because of the many issues and concerns that must be addressed to during the design process. There are a number of positive elements of this plan that should not be overlooked. Among these are the streetedge improvements along Hanson Ranch Road, the introduction of dining and the walkway along Mill Creek, and the fact that development on the site is not being maximized. However, the staff feels strongly that many elements need refinement. Among these are the new dining and walkway along Mill Creek, the overall massing and roof forms proposed on the building, and the proposal to completely enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. Staff recommends denial of this request as currently proposed. The Urban Design Plan is based on achieving a balance between private development and maintaining design continuity. Tt is no the purpose of this plan to have every building in the Village look alike. There is considerable variety in design throughout the Village. The key is to ensure that new development respond to the surrounding built environment. The design of this building, particularly the massing and roof forms, departs from the vernacular. For this reason, and for other reasons referred in this memo, the staff recommends denial of this request. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 19, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance in order to add additions to the Red Lion building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED Permitted coverage in Commercial Core I is 80% of the lot area. In Commercial Core I, site coverage means "a portion of a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios and decks". Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83~. This proposal will add site coverage in two areas: 1. 50 square feet for a building addition along Mill Creek. 2. 173 square feet for a proposed dining deck along Mill Creek. • 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 reauested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed dining deck is directly adjacent to this building expansion. While some degree of site coverage variance may be acceptable for the dining patio, the extent of dining deck proposed is directly affecting the potential development of the pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek. (See stream setback variance memorandum.) The 50 square feet of additional site coverage for the building expansion is partly offset by a deduction of 27 feet of building in this area. this amount of new building will not impact adjacent uses or activities in the area. U 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. Including patios and dining decks in site coverage calculations is somewhat of a hardship for applicants in that these elements are encouraged throughout the Village. For this reason, staff could support some degree of site coverage variance to accommodate the dining patio. However, the dining deck proposed is not acceptable because of the impacts related to the pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek. The building site coverage variance is a net increase of 23 feet with no appreciable impacts. However, there is no apparent physical hardship to warrant this request. 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air, distribution of population. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safety. • As discussed in the Exterior Alteration and the Conditional Use Permit memos, the deck and walkway will affect the public enjoyment of Mill Creek. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VATL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN There is one element of the Vail Village Plan that is directly related to this proposal, Policy 3.4.1., which reads: "Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts should not further restrict public access." The proposed dining deck would limit the space available for a public walkway along Mill Creek to 3'6". This is an unacceptable width for what will one day become a significant pedestrian corridor. 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 . Staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request is denial. The design of these improvements will have direct impacts on the area surrounding these proposed improvements. The Staff encourages the applicant's to consider design changes to this element of the proposal. n U TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 19, 1990 SUBJECT: A request to construct an outdoor dining patio at the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REQUESTED, This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion Restaurant on the east side of the building directly adjacent to Mill Creek. The proposed deck encompasses 237 square feet, 101 square feet of which are located on Town of Vail land. The applicants have received permission from the Council to include Town land as a part of the request before the Planning Commission. "Rekord" type folding doors will be installed on the building to allow the existing dining roam to open onto the dining deck. A 3'6" public walkway is also proposed between the deck and Mill Creek. • TI. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL Commercial Core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in evaluating conditional use requests. These include the following: A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I. District. This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic an Commercial Care I., This proposal should not appreciably reduce vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. C. Reduction of non-essential off-street oarkina. Not Applicable. D. Control of deliverv, pick-up and service vehicles. The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway. Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail . loading zone. This loading zone will rdmain unchanged by this proposal. As proposed, trash dumpsters for the entire Red Lion . Building are located next to the proposed dining deck. The physical relationship between these two uses is certainly not compatible. However, trash pick up in the Village has traditionally occurred during the morning hours prior to restaurant openings. This situation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Village is such that there are no "back doors" to provide far these operations. E. Development of public sbaces for use by pedestrians. As stated, 101 feet of this deck is proposed for Tawn of Vail land. This has limited the width of the proposed pedestrian walkway to 3'b". Staff feels strongly that this width is inadequate for what will one day be a major pedestrian walkway. The redevelopment of the A & D building began the development of a public walkway along Mill Creek. The continuation of the walkway along the Red Lion Property would leave only the Rucksack property as the missing link in establishing this corridor. While the staff is supportive of the dining activity in this area, the existing building and the Mill Creek flood plain seriously confine the space available for these two uses. An acceptable width for this public walkway would be between 6 and 8 feet. F. Continuance of the various commercial. residential and vublic uses in C...~~.~.ercial Core I District so as to maintain the existina character of the area. The introduction of dining activity, and creating access to Mill Creek in this area, is positive. It is a goal of the Vail Village Plan to establish more pedestrian activity in the Mill Creek area. The two ways to accomplish this are to increase retail and commercial activity in conjunction with improved pedestrian circulation. While this proposal is a step in the right direction, it is in need of further refinement in order to accomplish both of these objectives. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design and landscape design in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existina character of the area. Current plans indicate existing trees will be relocated in the MIll Creek area. This may or may not be appropriate depending on the final design of this area. Tf this element of the application is to proceed, additional detail and refinement will be necessary in . order to design an appropriate deck and walkway while respecting the features of Mill Creek. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this conditional use permit is denial. While this concept is desirable, the design proposed is not responsive to the needs and requirements of a public walkway. Space is confined, however, it is possible to accommodate both of these activities as a part of this design process. Please refer to the exterior alteration memo for additional comment on this element of the proposal. • -+r' r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 19, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a stream setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Red Lion building, Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties I. DFSCR,IPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The 30 foot stream setback is measured from the center line of Mill Creek. The existing Red Lion building is located within this 30 foot setback {encroachments range from one to eighteen feet}. Proposed improvements within the required stream setback include a small addition to the building, a portion of the proposed dining patio and the public walkway. The building addition adds between one to five feet of encroachment. The walkway and deck would encroach between seven to ten feet. • As defined in the zoning code, setbacks apply to both buildings and structures. As such, all three of these proposed improvements must be considered when evaluating this variance request. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development rec~.~„~~ends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationshi~a of the requested variance to other existina or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Stream setbacks have been established to ensure buffers between buildings and stream tracts. However, the expansion is a minor one and the building is already located within the stream setback. The building addition will not impact existing or potential uses in this area. • ,~ The on grade walkway is consistent with the existing and potential uses in the stream tract. Indeed, the walkway will provide access to this area to maximize its use. While the proposed dining deck can also add life and vitality to this area, the proposed deck seriously constraint the design of the stream walk (see Exterior Alteration and Conditional Use Permit memos). 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a sner..i.f.i.ed regulation is necessary to achieve aornnatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The proposed building expansion is a part of a redesigned entry to an upper level condominium. The degree of encroachment ranges from one to five feet, and accommodates an entry vestibule, ski storage lockers, and a small portion of a proposed elevator. Given the existing location of the building, the relatively minor encroachment, and the recently approved A & D redevelopment, this request would not be a grant of special privilege. As outlined in the conditional use memorandum for . the dining deck, there are significant public benefits that could result from both the dining deck and stream walkway. However, as proposed the dining deck expansion is limiting the size of the public walkway to 3'6". While same degree of encroachment for the dining deck is acceptable, the deck proposed is excessive when considering the stream tract and its relationship to the public walkway. 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 dining deck and walkway must be considered collectively. The walkway does have the potential to provide a positive affect on public facilities by opening access to Mi11 Creek. However, the extent of the dining deck proposal seriously confines the dimensions of the walkway. Both of these improvements will necessitate the relocation of existing utility meters in this area. The applicants' would relocate these meters . as a part of this redevelopment. III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN . Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the development of a stream walk in this area, The dining deck and walkway are potentially very compatible. However, as has been stated, the design proposed is not sensitive to the needs of the public access. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the. following findings before arantina 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 mare 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 Staff recommendation for this request is denial. Same degree of encroachment for the walkway and deck is warranted. However, the current proposal is unacceptable. The Staff can support the slight building expansion, however, our recommendation for this element of the proposal is denial until a revised plan for this area is submitted for our review. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 12, 1.990 n LJ 1:00 New Members Orientation 1:30 Site Visits 2:30 A Work Session to review the 1990 Recreation & Trails project schedule. 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes of January 22, 1.990 and February 26, 1990. 3 2. A request for a front setback variance for Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rive Ridge South Condominium Association • 1 3. A request for a minor subdivision on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge Filing #~~. Applicant: Todger Anderson 4 4. A request for a Special Development District in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lots 3,4 and 5, Vail Valley Third Filing. Applicant: Deborah W. and Robert Warner TAALED 2 5 . A work session to discuss a major amendment to Special Development Distract ~7 (The Marriott Mark} in order to add 60 timeshare units and 5 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation r~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 12 , ~. 9 9 0 present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Stiff Kristan Pritz Tom Braun Shelly Me11o Penny Perry The Planning and Environmental C~.~.,.ission meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. item No. 1:_ Annroval of minutes for January 22~ 1990 and February 26. 1990. Ludwig Kurz stated that he had removed himself from the board on Item No. 5, the Glen Lyon Office Building project, of the January 22, 1990 meeting and that this had not been noted in the minutes. Kathy Warren stated that it was herself and Connie, not Diana and Connie, that had voted in favor of denial on Item No. 5, the Vail National Bank Bldg. project in the February 26, 1990 minutes. She also stated that, on the same item, the 3rd condition of approval should state "Five spaces rather than 4 spaces be "purchased'"'" , not "leased" . On the last page, 5th lane, the word Colorado should be replaced with Vail when commenting on private views. Motion far approval of both sets of minutes with correction was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 2: A rewest for a front setback variance for Lot 7. Block 6. Vail Village 1st Filing. ~nnlicant: Riva Ridge South Condominium }association Ludwig Kurz excused himself from the Board due to a conflict of interest. Shelly Mello presented the project explaining that the Riva Ridge South Condominium Association is proposing to construct an elevator on the north side of the building in the 20 foot front Setback. She continued to explain that the project had previously received approval in September but that the plan was not feasible and that they had to go back to the drawing board. Shelly explained that because the building already encroaches into the setback, the staff is recommending approval of the variance. G'`7~ ~~ t ~~~,~ . Craig Snowdon, the architect for the applicant, stated that since the last approval, the contractor had pointed out many problems with placing the elevator where it was originally proposed. Dalton questioned whether this would provide handicapped access and Craig replied it would. Craig Snowdon stated that the existing foundation is 16 feet from the asphalt of the road. The elevator is proposed 2 feet beyond the existing cantilevered element. The elevator will be inside of the tree. However, they will need to transplant the tree. It is possible that they will transplant the tree and provide an additional tree. Kathy Warren asked if there was anywhere in the back that they could relocate the elevator? Craig replied no, that there would be no access to the main common areas if the elevator wer top be located anywhere else. Diana Donovan asked if the edge of the pavement shown of the plans was bath existing and proposed. Craig replied that the existing pavement does not change. Connie Knight asked if the proposed building was 10 feet from the pavement. Craig replied yes. . Chuck Crist asked if the entrance was the same? Craig replied no that it would not be out as far, that they were upgrading the planter and changing the timber walls to stucco. Motion for annraval per the staff memo with the condition, that the tree would be relocated or replaced was made Kath~~ Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 6 - 0 - 1 IN FAVOR WITH LUDWIG KURZ ABSTAINING, item No. 3: A request for a minor subdivision on Lots 1 and 2., Block 1. Lionsridae Filina #4. Annlicant: Todaer Anderson This item was discussed during site visits. lotion for annroval tier staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and Seconded by Dalton Williams, VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Item No. 4: A request for a Special Development district in; order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lots 3. 4. and 5. Vail Valley Third . Filing. ~nalicant: Deborah W. and Robert Warner_ Tom Braun presented the project explaining that this is an application to rezone three undeveloped Primary/Secondary lots to a Special Development District. The proposed development for the SDD includes three Primary/Secondary structures. The purpose of the request is to permit GRFA on one of the 3 lots (Lot 4) to exceed that which is permitted under existing zoning. In addition, site coverage on this same lot is also in excess of what is permitted under existing zoning. He explained that one of the criteria to be used in evaluating the proposal is the suitability of the proposed zoning. He continued that it is important to understand the purpose of Special Development District Zoning which is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. The purpose of this proposal is not consistent with the overall purpose of the Special Development District. With the exception of GRFA, there is nothing about the proposed development plan that could not be accomplished under existing zoning. An SDD should not be used simply as a tool to allow far density increases with no public purpose as described in 18.40.010. Tom stated that it is difficult to point to extreme impacts. However, no justification can be found to grant the SDD being • proposed. The SDD is proposed solely to satisfy the needs of the applicant, with little to no benefit to the community. The staff encourages the Planning Commission to recommend to the Town Council to preserve the integrity of the existing zoning and the SDD process by denying this application. Jim Junge, architect representing the applicant, handed out a memo from Junge Reich Magee ATA describing their view of the proposal. He explained that he can understand how Tom and the staff could come to the conclusion that the project was solely for the benefit of the owner. However, for a different reason, they believe that the SDD criteria of intent has be met. They believe that criteria #1, suitability, has been met. They view the project as one 49,900 square foot site rather than 3 individual lots. That three houses are appropriate and they had been considerate in reducing the density/site coverage by placing Mr. Warner's proposed home in the middle. In regard to criteria #2, is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives, Mr. Junge believes they did. They are proposing 3 employee units instead of secondary units that could be sold as duplexes. This is for the community's good. C7 Criteria ~ 3, does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable c4uLL..unity, Mr. Junge believes this is the intent of the SDD, They were careful to have Warner's proposed house placed in the middle and to reduce the mass and bulk as Tom pointed out. They were careful to design a one story/two story walk out basement. With the slope of the lot, they could have simply planned to build two story homes. • As far as the nine design criteria, Junge felt that emphasis should be place on criteria letter D. The goal of the Land Use Plan to "encourage the devel.,~.u~ent of employee housing at various sites throughout the community". He felt that the applicants' willingness not to sell the Secondary unit as a separate entity was "super important". In reference to design criteria letter G, traffic circulation, he stated that they would be more than willing to work with the Planning Commission on the number of driveway cuts. They would be willing to add more landscaping or if necessary, they would reduce the number of driveways to 1 each lot. Regarding the five items of SDD purpose listed on the last page of the memo, Mr. Junge felt that they have accomplished no. 1, the creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. No. 2, to improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town is being accomplished by proposing a Primary residence with a 600-70o square foot employee unit rather than a duplex. No. 3 is not applicable. No. 4, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space, he feels is exactly what they are doing. And regarding No. 5, to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the comprehensive plan. He believes the goal for this area is Single Family development, and he believes they have enhanced this. Junge pointed out on the colored site plan that the density transfer, bulk overage of 804 square feet is primarily in the enclosed swimming pool which is completely underground. He feels that what they have done is exactly what the SDD process if for. Jim Shearer complemented Junge on the great looking structures. However, if the Commission starts to allow the SDD for no purpose, the next one may not be so nice. He stated that the Commission has a duty to protect the integrity of the SDD purpose and existing zoning. Kathy Warren stated that she concurs with Jim Shearer and the staff. Chuck Crist commented that it is some of the best designs he has seen. However, he feels that it is not appropriate to use the SDD process in this case. a r~ Dalton Williams concurred with the rest of the Commission and the staff. Ludwig Kurz also concurred. Diana Donovan concurred with the rest of the Commission and the staff. She felt that they were not proposing anything that could not be done within existing zoning. Motion was made to recommend denial to the Town Council per, the staff memo by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist., Discussion continued briefly by Diana stating that the Town usually gets something in return for a SDD, and she didn't see this anywhere. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR OF A DENIAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL. The conversation continued after the vote. Junge stated that the Town would be losing employee housing. Kristan stated that the permanent actually what was proposed. That secondary unit as a duplex is not used for employees. This is not • Junge stated that he supports the ordinance. employee housing is not simply agreeing not to sell the stipulating that it would be the same . Town's mass, height, and bulk Dalton stated that he is simply afraid of setting a precedence. That too often, since he has been on the Commission, he has heard this as an argument for approval by applicants. Diana asked if there was any other Commission business. Kristan reminded the board of a joint work session with the Town Council on March 27th. Motion was made by to table the Marriott vro~iect to March 26. 1990 by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. , VOTE. 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:15 U • To: Town Council. From: Mike Mollica/Community Development Department Date; February 20, 1990 RE: Town Council 1990-91 Goals T. LAND/OPEN SPACE PURCHASES A. Puruose: The purpose of this project is to evaluate potential TOV open space parcels and to determine suitability for passible purchase and inclusion as Town of Vail open space or other public uses. B. Work Program: Feb. 27 - March 27 a) Staff to determine ownership, zoning, possible uses and COSt for each site. . March 27th b) Meet with Tawn Council to review parcel list. Staff to recommend funding mechanisms and set time line for prioritized list of parcels. C. Issues: Prioritization of land purchases, land trades with the Forest Service, and consistency with the Town's Land Use Plan. The applicable goal statements of the Land Use Plan are as follows: a) Goal 1.9 - National Forest land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned for private development. b) Goal 1..10 - Development of Town owned Lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. c) Goal 1.13 - Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. d} Goal 2.7 - The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to • purchase open space. The Land Use Plan identifies the most important, or key, goals culled from the master plan public meetings. Such goals relating to parks & open space are - "The preservation of open space was determined to be a high priority. The improvement of existing parks and open space areas, in concert with continued purchase of open space by the Town were both identified as priorities". D. The following is a list of parcels for Council prioritization for possible TOV purchase: 1) Spraddle Creek, parcel B - owned by the Forest Service. Appraised in 1988 for $390,000. This parcel is 40.243 acres in size {includes 2-70 ROW and Frontage Rd.}, is located just north of the T-70 main Vail interchange and is currently zoned Agricultural & Dpen Space. An update of the 1988 appraisal would be needed. 2} Golf Course Maintenance - parcel E - owned by the Farest Service. The property has not been appraised. This parcel is 10 acres in size (includes a portion of Vail Valley Dr.} and is located at the intersection of Vail Valley Dr. and Ptarmigan Rd. The property is zoned Greenbelt & Natural open Space. An appraisal would be needed. 3) Upper Eagle Valley Water & San. District parcels - Two parcels. 1} Tract C, is located at 967 Vail Valley Dr. The parcel is zoned Public Use. 2} The second parcel is 1.769 acres in size and located just west of Red Sandstone Rd., and north of Aspen Tree (Block D, Lionsridge Filing 1}. This lot is also zoned Public Use. The Tawn will need to da an Environmental Assessment on the "old Town shops" parcel and the Upper Eagle Valley parcels before completing the trade with Upper Eagle Valley, {possible soil contamination}. The "old Town shops" parcel is zoned Public Use. 4) Holy Crass Electric Association parcel - This parcel is located on the South Frontage Rd. just west of the Vail Associates Maintenance Shops. The property is 0.366 acres in size and is zoned Arterial Business District. The appraised value is $565,500. 5) Parcel H in East Vail - This tract of land is located under an elevated section of I-70. This property is owned by the Forest Service and acquisition of the tract would have to conform to a complicated and lengthy set of Federal procedures. Even though I-70 is elevated as it tranverses the parcel, there may be some restrictions on use of the space under the freeway. Parcel H is zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space and is 40.0 acres in size, less I-70 . right-of-way. 6) Intermountain - Swimming Pool parcel - Located at the • intersection of Kinnickinnick Rd. and Bellflower Dr. The property is zoned Primary/secondary and is currently under contract for purchase by the Town for $25,000. 7) West Vail pocket park sites (Vail Das Schone area) - the following lots have been identified as possible neighborhood park sites (all are zoned Primary/Secondary}: a) Vail Das Schone Filing No.1, Block B, Lots 8 and 9, (2496 and 2440 Chamonix Lane). These lots are not currently listed for sale, however we believe that they are the most suitable sites in the Vail Das Schone area for a neighborhood park and acquisition should be pursued. Lot 8 = 13,775 square feet in size Lot 9 = 12,725 square feet in size b} Vail Das Schone Filing No.1, Block A, Lots 12 and 13, or Lot 15 (2349, 2359 and 2379 Chamonix Lane}. Lot 15 was listed for sale in 1989 and the listed price was $49,500. Lot 12 = 8,581 square feet in size Lot 13 = 8,865 square feet in size Lot 15 = 10,675 square feet in size • s) Intermountain Area - It has been suggested by Charmayne Bernhardt that the Town acquire a parcel of land adjacent to the Columbine North Condos for the purpose of a pocket park. The property is located in front of Columbine North Condos Building E (2771 Kinnickinick, Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Intermountain), is 0.368 acres in size and is zoned Residential Cluster. 9) The Valley Area - Susan Tossem and Dave Cole have suggested that the Town purchase the lower portion of "The Valley", Phase III, far the purpose of developing it as a park site. This property is a portion of Liansridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 and is approximately 2.5 acres in size. 10} Cornice Building - Located at the intersection of Vail Valley Dr. and Bast Meadow Dr., (362 Vail Valley Dr.). The lot is zoned High Density Multiple Family and is 0.84 acres in size. 11) Hud Wirth property in West Vail - This is an unplatted parcel located in Vail Das Schone Filing No. 3. The property is zoned Commercial Core 3 and has recently been listed at $6,000,000. 12) Christiania Parking Lot - Vail Village Fifth Filing, Block 5A, Lat P-3. This site is located between Hanson Ranch Rd. and Gore Creek Dr., just north of the Christiania Lodge. The property is zoned Public Accommodation, is 7,038 square feet in size and is currently used far private surface parking. No structures exist on the lat. 13) Colorado Department of Highways - East Vail Triplex - 4313 Columbine Drive. This parcel is located within the I- 7o right-of-way. This building has been demolished and discussions with Rich Penske (December 1989), of the CDOH Grand Junction office, have indicated that the Highway Department is not interested in parting with the property at this time. 14} Parcel P-2: This is a surface parking lot used and owned by a number of surrounding lodges (i.e Garden of the Gods, Tivoli, and Ramshorn). This parking is used to fulfill the parking requirements of said lodges. The parcel is within the Parking zone district. rI. PARKS, RECREATION PATHS & TRAILS • A. Purpose: The purpose of this project is to evaluate and prioritize, for 1990 construction, the next phase of recreational trails. B. Work Proaram: Representatives of the Departments of Community Development, Public Works and Administration have recently met, and after review of the Town of Vail's Recreation Trails Master Plan (May 1988), recommend the recreation trails implementation schedule below, (in order of priority). The staff recommendation is to pursue items # 1-4 below. Public Works is currently checking the construction costs. This list will be reviewed by the PEC at the March 12th meeting and a PEC recommendation will be presented to Council on March 20th. • 1} Vail Valley Drive: -Construction of 8 ft sidewalk Gold Peak to Athletic Field: $195,000 -Sidewalk Vail Village structure to 21,000 Gold Peak -Construction documents (for sidewalk both sides) (est. construction cost $190,000) -Ford Park Entry 55,000 2) Vail Trail safety improvements and signage: Design and construction cost estimate = $2,800. 3) Dowd Junction recreation trail {to Highway 6 & 24}: Bike/Pedestrian lane from West Vail to Dowd Junction. This project to be completed with the assistance of Eagle County, various utility companies, and possibly the Town of Avon and Eagle-Vail. Design cost estimate = $60,000. Construction cost estimate = $630,000. 4) Main Vail - separated recreation trail plan: Complete a recreation trail, as a separate path, which would tie into the existing trails at the east end of Sunburst Drive, and into the bike path in the Lionshead area. This may include • a section adjacent to Gore Creek and could be combined with the Streamwalk, or the recently discussed Vail Mountain Trail. Planning and conceptual design cost estimate = $60,000. 5) Bike/Pedestrian Lane - Vail Das Schone {Safeway) to the West Vail T-70 interchange, This would consist of a 10' wide path. The approximate length is 1,800'. Design and construction cost estimate range = $85,500. 6) East Vail bike path: Completion of bike lanes (6' widened shoulders) adjacent to Bighorn Rd., from the Streamside Circle area to the Forest Service campground. Design and construction cost estimate = $380,000, . 7) Frontage Road improvements will be evaluated through the Transportation Plan: for bike lanes: The following in-progress, Master a) East end of Ford Park to Aspen Lane = $270,000. b) Vail Mtn. School to E. Vail exit = $110,000. c) Red Sandstone Bridge to Main Vail exit= $103,000. d) West Vail exit to Cascade Village = $176,004. e) Cascade Village to the 4-way = $240,000. f) 4-way to east end of Ford Park = $152,000. g) Safeway to Timber Ridge (Valli-Hi} _ $11,000. h) Timber Ridge to pedestrian overpass = $130,000. i) Aspen Lane to Vail Mountain School = $ 2s,444. {Costs may increase due to CDOH requirements for a 6' width. The plan only considered a 5' width) 8} Spraddle Creek to Bald Mountain Rd: Unpaved pedestrian path; 5' to 6' soft surface. Design and construction cost estimate = $400,000. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 12, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance for a new elevator at Riva Ridge South on Lot 7, Block 6 Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge South Condominium Association I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The Riva Ridge South Condominium Association is proposing to construct an elevator on the north side of the building in the 20 foot front setback. The applicant will be adding a total of 65 square feet of common space to the existing 1759 square feet which is within the allowable of 1839 square feet. The elevator is 4~ feet high and is under the height limit of 48 feet. The property is located in the High Density Multi-family zone district which requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The proposed elevator will encroach 19 feet into the 20 foot setback resulting in a 1 foot setback from the property line. The site coverage will be increased . by a total area of 65 square feet and will not exceed the maximum allowed site coverage, II. BACKGROUND On September 26, 1989 the Riva Ridge Condominium Association received approval from the PEC to construct an elevator on a portion of the existing deck. The proposed elevator was located within the existing garage foundation and would not extend beyond the existing foundation. Under this approval, the elevator would encroach 13 feet into the 20 foot setback and add a total of 56 square feet of common space. Under the same approval they were allowed to add a new entry way which encroaches 19 feet into the setback. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Cade, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: • A. Consideration of Factors: a 1. The relationship of the reauested variance to other Pxist.ina or potential. uses and structures in the vicinity. There are no negative impacts due to this variance request on these criteria. One large spruce tree will be displaced by the construction of the elevator. The applicant has agreed to move the tree or replace it should it die as a result of the move. 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 applicant deserves relief from the strict setback requirements due to the location of the existing building which encroaches 15 feet (mare or less) into the 20 foot setback. In order to da any type of remodel in this area, the applicant would require front setback requirements. . 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and. air. distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities. and public safety. There are no significant impacts on these factors. TTT. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the front setback variance, The request will not be a grant of special privilege and will have no negative impacts on the public welfare. The variance is warranted as the strict interpretation of the setback requirements would result in a practical difficulty for the applicant. There are extraordinary circumstances on this site due to the location of the existing building. We recommend approval of the variance with the condition that they will relocate the existing tree to be displaced and replace it if it dies as a result of being moved. ,] C: k _' ' _ ~ 0 • ~ T 1 ~ u .1 ~'~` 1` ~ ~ V i s~ il,ri,il l'I ~~1',~1'.,I, 1 I~ I ~~C-i~ ~ ~_ ~~I I~,, j ,~I;. ~. _ ~ ~ 1 ~. I~I~~~~I;! { z ~~ ~=~ f- .ill i ~-: ~ ~ L ~ _ f ~ ,~ -v -~,l 1 '~ ! ~ • ~.~I , .. ~ _- ~. ~ -_.. ... `~_ • #- I~ .' _ ~ _ ~ . ~ }~ ~ ~ I ~s ~ ~~ . ~ ~ I t C: ~x-% T. /^ ~ { ~. i ~3~, ~- a. ~- -+- -u, t F' ~ a~-fl .z ~n ~+ ~~~ ~ f a~~ ~ ~ >~ ~,s ~. -/D- q i k_. ~ ~ - ----l. _ .~~~ N r ~y~~ ~y. 1. A+ sl ~~ ~ ~i_ .,~~ i~r ~` i , , ~ ~, ~`I_ K ~ ~~~`~ x~ ~~ a ~. Y s~ .~~ 4 -t. `r'~ 0 +1 _ ~! ~• 4 ~ li "i i ,; ~h ti -~ S '}ai sl s y ~ Ls ~; fii~a x - ,as-1- C sA:1~ t '_~_~~~ ne_ ,,~ / ^q~ iyl ~ ill r~ ~1Y3ri: . I ~., ., - , ~~~ ~. I ~~ ~ I ~ 3 y. -;I ~.. 0 il ~, ~i ~at ~3 ,. 141, ': ~ ` _r { ~~ X13 Al sY a ~' y.,,. ~....~ ~~ it ~ ~- , ~I ~~ ~ _ y ~I flY4~ ~~~}~~ ~g.~.i .yI .q ~ - Z S Vv~~:s~t~iL l~ E "~ ~ ~ `. ~ ~ ~ a ~, _ ~. _ I I i _ 11 ~.~W~.- ._ ~ i A I / ' ;cq• i- ~ __ ~-~-° ..11 _.i. - .... I iI•. I v v. a --~ ~~ I j ~ z t ~ /~/a ii ~~ } ~ ~a r~ . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 12, 1990 RE: A request for a minor subdivision to create a single lot from Lots 1 & 2 Block 1, Lionsridge Filing No. 4. Applicant: Todger Anderson T. INTRODUCTION TO THE REQUEST This proposal involves the vacation of a lot line between lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge Filing #4. The applicant is requesting to combine the two lots and will maintain one single family unit and a caretaker's unit an the new lot. The two lots are presently zoned single family and a restricted employee unit. The net result of this request is actually a decrease in density of one single family unit and a caretaker's unit. All standards for the single family zone district shall be met by the developer. Below is a comparison of the development: SO. FT GRFA SITE COVERAGE Lot 1 15,681 3443 2352 • Lot 2 15,681 3443 2352 Lot 1&2 31,362 5011 4704 II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the approval of this minor subdivision proposal. We feel that the combining of Lots 1 and 2 to create a single lot is in accordance with the intent of the zoning subdivision regulations, and will positively impact the character of the surrounding area. Staff rec~,,,~..ends that the following conditions shall be stipulated on the subdivision plat before it is signed by the zoning administrator: 1. The lot is restricted to one single family residence plus a restricted caretaker's unit per Town of Vail Ordinance #15, 1989. 2. "The property shown on the plat is located in a moderate Rockfall Area as identified in the Schmueser & Associates, inc. map dated November 29, 1984 which map may be reviewed at the Community Development Department offices of the Town of Vail.." • f isuadFCr sirEr t[MN OF w ppN6RRY .c/ I f~ lNITY MAP ,,,rv,~y February 5990 ..°'tir,• hosed on e>tlatinq monuments mark inq thA easterly line of rat 1 :nn°n A'19"w Incc drnwingl ,n ,nn Aa nnr~d hereon FNp. REBAR 8 CAP WITH NO L.S. No. / 7 1 `~0 ! ~ ~~ If u) h9 N M ~ J~ Q~ O a~~ a~ ~~~•` ~~h ~p ah 5£T q^g CAP J - . L.S. No. Id82T SBl3°I7~49' W t ~ o[ l.rtt uVttl tl~ .... ~ a I'.ASOLAR ~ \ \ I ~ ^~r - 4 m ~y ~~ v~~ ~ Y +~ SOT : A ,, ` Od20~`11 ~~' o C, . If \~\ O N ?;<; ~;~, ~ W ~~ o ~. FNO Np.; REBiI~ 255,94' Wirfl OflpNEN C,1~ EASE MEN7 8 Ppo PE NTY L1 TO 8E ABAN U!/NF L~ i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 12, 1990 RE: A request to rezone property from Primary/Secondary to a Special Development District far Lots 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley third filing, part of replat of Sunburst. Applicant: Debra and Robert Warner, Jr. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This application is to rezone three undeveloped Primary/Secondary lots to a Special Development District. Development proposed for the SDD includes three Primary/Secondary structures. The purpose of this request is to permit GRFA on one of the 3 lots (Lot 4) to exceed that which is permitted under existing zoning. In addition, site coverage on this same lot is also in excess of what is permitted under existing zoning. With the exception of increases in GRFA and site coverage to lot 4, the development proposed by the SDD is consistent with the underlying Primary/Seco ndary zoni ng. Setbacks, building heights and parking are all consi stent with Primary/Secondary development st andards. The following table summarizes the development proposed for these three lots. Permitted Proposed Site Parcel Permitted Proposed GRFA Site Site Coverage Size GRFA GRFA +/- Coveraae Coverage +/- Lot 3: 15,364 3,786 3,300 -486 3,073 2,595 -378 Lot 4: 16,641 3,914 5,500 +1,586 3,328 3,726 +398 Lot 5: 15,967 3.846 3,550 -296 3.193 2.87$ -315 TOTALS: 11,546 12,350 +804 9,594 9,299 -295 As indicated by this table, proposed development on lots 3 and 5 is below GRFA permitted under existing zoning by 782 square feet. Lot 4 development exceeds permitted GRFA by 1586 square feet. Collectively, proposed development on the three lots would exceed the total allowable GRFA by 804 square feet. Site coverage on Lot 4 exceeds permitted site coverage by 398 square feet. Collectively, all three lots are 291 square feet below permitted site coverage. .] Each of the three lot . secondary unit, The restriction agreement not be subdivided and existing zoning. s will be developed with a small applicant has agreed to enter into a with the Town so that these units will sold off as would be permitted by Two sets of criteria are to be used in evaluating a rezoning request of this type. The first of these are 3 criteria designed to evaluate the appropriateness of the zone change. Secondly, the Special Development District zoning includes nine design criteria. These nine criteria address specific 155ueS relative to the proposed SDD. TT. CRITERIA TO BE USED TN EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL A. Evaluation of the Reauest: 1. Suitability of the nrobosed zoning. It is important to understand the purpose of special Development District Zoning when evaluating the appropriateness of this request. As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of SDDs is to: 18.40.010 Puroose: The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the . development of land in order to promote its mast appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the Tawn; to facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The elements in the development plan shall be as outlined in Section 1$.40.060. As stated, the intent of this zoning request is to permit development on one of the lots to exceed what is permitted by existing zoning. This purpose is not consistent with the overall purpose of the Special Development District. With the exception of GRFA, there is nothing about this proposed development plan that could not be accomplished under existing zoning. While SDD's have been proposed and approved for many different reasons, they have generally not been used simply as a tool to allow for density increases with no public purpose as described in 18.40.010. . 2. Is the amendment ~resentina a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with, municipal objectives. The residential use proposed by the SDD is identical to what is permitted under existing zaning. While this proposal is generally consistent with municipal objectives, the rezoning is no more consistent than what would be accomplished by the properties existing zaning. 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly. viable community., The proposed rezoning will not further the growth of an orderly, viable community. Tf approved, this rezoning could represent the gradual deterioration of Vai1's low density residential neighborhoods, One may consider this request and conclude that the uses and development are generally consistent with what is permitted under existing zaning. However, it is important to understand that zoning in Vail has been adapted in order to establish consistency between neighborhoods. The amount of GRFA allocated to a lot has a direct relationship to the size of the lot. the proposal conflicts with this basic principle of zoning for the Town of Vail. In order to preserve the overall fabric of these areas, it is important to maintain the integrity of the existing zoning. This proposal, by virtue of its deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning, is inconsistent with this criteria. ZIT. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA A. pesian compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate. environment. neighborhood and adiacent properties relative to the architectural design, scale. bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character,. visual integrity and orientation.. This proposal is generally consistent with this criteria. While the level of development on Lot 4 greatly exceeds allowable GRFA, the design of this structure is sensitive to minimizing bulk and mass. Each of the three structures are in compliance with Primary/Secondary height and setback requirements. Development on lot 4 does, however, exceed permitted site coverage by 398 square feet and GRFA by 804 square feet. B. Uses> activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Uses proposed for these three sites are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the Primary/Secondary zone district. C. Compliance with barking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. This project is consistent with the Town's parking requirements. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the vail, Comprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The goal 5.5 of the Land Use Plan "encourages the development of employee housing at various sites throughout the community". The applicant's commitment to restrict the subdivision and resale of each of the three secondary units is a positive step towards providing employee units. Tn order to fully comply with this goal, deed restrictions limiting the use of these secondary units to long term employee rentals should be established. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the Special Development District is proposed. A site specific analysis of these properties has been completed. Lots 3, 4, and 5 are located in moderate debris flow and rock fall zones. Lots 3 and 4 are located in a moderate snow avalanche zone. The Town's hazard ordinance requires mitigation of the snow avalanche hazard. Mitigation is not required for development on the lots impacted by rockfall and debris flow hazards. However, this development must be done in a way that does not increase the degree of hazard on adjacent property or Town Rights-of-way. A geologic hazard analysis of the proposed site plan has been completed. All hazards can be mitigated by structural reinforcement of the proposed residences. Subject to the removal and/or redesign of proposed landscape walls along Sunburst Drive, this development will not increase the degree of hazards on adjacent lots or town rights-of way. r~ F. Site Plan. Building design and location and open space, provisions desianed to produce a functional development. responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic auality of the, community. The proposed devel~N~«ent plan is consistent with these considerations. G. A circulation system desianed for both vehicles and. pedestrians addressing an and off-site traffic, circulation. Each of the three units have been designed with two driveways, resulting in 6 driveways over approximately 290 feet. six driveways to serve three lots is unnecessary and decreases the amount of area that could be dedicated to landscaping. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in. order to optimize and preserve natural features. recreation. views and function., The proposed open space and landscaping is consistent with what is typically found in Primary/Secondary development. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable. functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development, District. A phasing plan has not been proposed as a part of this SDD. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, Staff recommendation for this request is denial. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the purpose of the Special Development District and is also inconsistent with the three criteria used to evaluate rezoning proposals. The development standards established by the Town's zoning ordinance are in place for a reason. These development standards are the primary tool used to ensure proper and orderly development throughout the Town. With the exception of GRFA and site coverage on Lot 4, this development proposal does not deviate from established development standards. However, that is not justification to grant this request. • Special Development District zoning has been approved by the Town Council 23 times. Each of these rezonings have occurred for specific reasons relative to the development proposed far these sites. Reasons for SDDs have related directly to the purpose of an SDD (as stated before): 1. To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. 2. To improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town. 3. To facilitate the adequate and economic provision of streets and utilities. 4. To preserve the natural and scenic features of open space. 5. To further the overall goals of the community as stated in the comprehensive plan. This SDD is proposed solely to satisfy the needs of the applicant, with little to no benefit to the community. In essence, the SDD process is being utilized to achieve a density variance. The staff encourages the Planning Commission to . recommend to the Town Council to preserve the integrity of the existing zoning and the SDD process by denying this application. .7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 26, 1990 12:30 A Work Session on Air Quality. 2:00 Site Visits 3;p0 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from March 19, 1990 i meeting. 3 2. A request for a side yard setback variance and a stream setback variance for Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Row Houses (Unit #9). Applicant: Walter Gramm 2 3. A request far a setback variance for the construction of a garage on Lot 2D, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Peter Tufo ~ .4. A request for a height variance in order to add dormers to the upper floor of the Mountain Haus at 292 E. Meadow Dr. (Part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing) - Applicant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus Condo." Assoc. - 5. A request for a conditional use permit to expand a proposed parking structure for the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center - 6. A request for a Special Development District in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lots 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley Third Filing. Applicant: Deborah W, and Robert Warner 1 7. A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 22 and a major subdivision for resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Mr. Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais - Moseley Construction - 8. A request for a Special Development District at the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gare Creek Drive. Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Family - 9. Appoint PEC representative for the April - June, 1990 DRB term. Note: Joint Council/PEC work session Tuesday, March 27, from 12:OD-2;00 p.m., regarding employee housing. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 26, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristen Pritz Tom Braun Shelly Mello Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry The Punning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Aporoval of minutes far March 12. 1990 meetincr. Diana Donovan asked that, on the top of page 13, the wording be changed to "the applicants should help find a solution". Motion for arabroval of minutes with corrections was made bar ~7i.m Shearer and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Item No. 2: A recruest for a side yard setback variance and a stream setback variance for Lat 9, Block 3. Vail Row Houses [Unit #91. At~blicant: Walter Gramm, Tom Braun presented the proposal for the staff explaining that the applicant was proposing a major remodel to Unit 9 of the Vail Row Houses. The remodel included a reconfigurration of the existing floor layout, an increase in the building roof height by approximately 11 feet and the addition of window seats on the north and south elevations. The proposal did not include a request for any additional GRFA over the allowable. The units were zero setback. The granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The staff recommended approval of both the side setback variance and the stream setback variance. Diana Donovan asked if there was an applicant's presentation. Ned Gwathmey explained that he was available For questions. He felt the staff did an adequate presentation of the proposal. Greta Parks, an owner at 303 Gore Creek Drive, speaking for Units l-6 explained that after talking with Ned and looking at the blue prints, she had no objections. Greta asked the board to consider sending public notices to the neighborhood owners, not simply directly adjacent property owners. She felt projects in the Commercial Core I affected the whole neighborhood. Chuck Crist asked about the roof material. He explained that the plans called for shake and he felt that a gravel roof might be more fitting with the adjacent properties. Ned responded that the pitch of the roof restricted this possibility. Ned explained that there was another shake roof in the row of buildings. Chuck then commented that maybe this was a Design Review Board issue. Jim Shearer asked about the flood plain and Tam explained that this was a request for a stream setback and that flood plain was not affected. Motion for approval oer the staff memo and the rerommenc_3ation that the Design Review Board examine the roof matP.r.ial was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Connie Knight. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Item No. 3: A request far a setback variance for the, construction of a garage on Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1st F~iTna. Antilicant: Peter Tufo Tom Braun made the presentation far the staff explaining that the applicant was requesting a variance from the front setback requirement in order to construct a garage addition. The request was to allow a garage to be built within 3 feet of the front property line along Forest Road. The required front setback for this lot is 20 feet. Surface parking was presently being used in this area. The proposed plan had received conceptual approval from the Design Review Board. The staff recommendation was for approval. The staff believed that the siting of the garage had been designed in the most sensitive manner possible, given the steep topography and large pine tree (to be saved). The staff recommended approval with the following condition: That a revocable right-of-way permit be obtained far any and all improvements on Town right-of-way before a building permit is released for the garage. • _ Tim Driscall, son of the owner of the home to the west, expressed concern with the square footage and height of the garage. Dr. Driscall, owner of the home to the west, asked what was the height. Tom Braun explained that the height was within the 33 foot limit allowed and invited the Driscalls to review the plans. Diana questioned what the difference was between the blue and red ribbons and Gordon Pierce, the applicant's representative, explained that the red ribbons were the original proposal and the blue ribbons were what was suggested by Stan Berryman. Jim Shearer asked if they were planning to cantilever the garage so as not to hurt the pine tree. Gordon Pierce answered, "yes". Cannie Knight asked if they could guarantee that they were not going to hurt the roots of the tree. Gordon Pierce explained that by using piers they hope to decrease the possibility the best they could. Diana Donovan suggested to Dr. Driscall that he be aware of the DRB meeting regarding his concerns over the height. Ludwig Kurz asked where the applicants planned to allow for additional parking and Gordon Pierce explained that there was no • contingency plan in this area. Connie Knight asked the staff for clarification of the 30~ zoning code rule and Tom explained that if the slope were 30~ or more, the applicant would not need a variance. Connie then continued to explain that she could not approve a 17' setback, Ludwig Kurz pointed out that the cars were now practically parking in the street. Gordon explained that the house was built in 1962 prior to the strict zoning codes and presently a non- conforming use. Connie commented that the plans for the garage should have been presented at the time of the remodel last year. Kathy Warren suggested that the cantilevering of the building be a condition of approval. A motion for approval per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Ludwig Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer 1. That a revocable right-of-way permit be obtained for any and all improvements on Town right-of-way before a building permit is released for the garage. • 2. That the 2 trees to the north side of the garage remain. If they were damaged they would be replaced with mature trees within 2 years. 3. The garage building be cantilevered in the effort to protect the above mentioned trees. VOTE: 6 - 1 IN FAVOR WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED., Item No. 4: A request for a height variance in order to add dormers to the upper floor of the Mountain Haus at, 292 E. Meadow Dr. (Part of Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing), Abx~licant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus Condo Assoc., Tom Braun presented the proposal explaining that the applicant is requesting a height variance in order to add dormers across the south elevation of the building. The dormers would be added to the 7th floor roof area and would replace existing 18" windows. Because the building the constructed prior to the adoption of the Town's zoning code, the building is considered a pre-existing , non-conforming use. Any request would increase the non- conforming use. The staff recommendation was for denial of the requested height variance. The 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 appraved Vail Village Master Plan. The staff also believed that a physical hardship did not exist and therefore the request should be denied. Mark Mueller, acting on behalf of the Condominium Association, stated that the dormers were on the 7th floor not the 8th. All the rooms affected were bedrooms and currently had 3' X 6' windows. The existing building was 74' tall. He didn't feel they were asking for a height variance. They were seeking to improve the roof. At present, the windows did not meet the Uniform Building Code. The dormers would not raise the height, did not affect any view corridors, and would not create a visibility problem to pedestrians. The issue at hand seemed to be the fact that no hardship could be found. He felt that, if the building was not a non-conforming use, the PEC would be happy to see the positive changes. Mark then introduced Jerry Marimonte on behalf of the Condominium Association. . 4 Jerry addressed the Board explaining that he had been examining the Uniform Building Code. He questioned whether the Mountain Haus, by definition, was actually adding height. Jerry stated that according to the UBC definition of height, the Mountain Haus would not be adding height. He continued to state that buildings that were non-conforming were allowed to present these kinds of improvements as long as there was no discrepancy. They did not see a discrepancy. Diana explained that the Board left the decision as to who did and did not need a variance to the staff. Tam explained that anything above the 48' allowance whether non- conforming or not still needed a variance. Jerry argued that he felt the board should consider the existing height not that which is "allowed". Kathy Warren explained that she understood what Jerry was saying. However, allowable measurements were what was considered. She gave an example of a building that added height that was in an existing side setback would still require a side setback variance even though the footprint of the building was not changed. Jerry then asked if the Board would not approve the dormers, what would they suggest? Kathy suggested skylights and Jerry felt that skylights would add height. Dalton Williams questioned the fire fighting capabilities in a building of this height and Mark Mueller explained that they had been working with Gary Murrain, the Chief Building Official, on this issue. The building currently didn't conform to code. However, Gary would allow a non-combustible woad. They could consider putting sprinklers on the South side of the Building, Dalton then asked why not the north side of the building and Mark explained that they were only proposing the changes to the South Side of the building at this time. Ludwig didn't see an overall impact. The only place the dormers were visible were from the mountain and would increase the livability of the units. He would be in favor. Chuck Crist asked if they would redo the whole roof with non- combustible material. Mark stated that they would do just the roof portion along where the addition was. If they used sprinklers they would not need the non-combustible material. . 5 Kathy Warren commented that she did not see a physical hardship. She could not see making a bad situation worse. She agreed with the staff. Jim Shearer didn't feel that the dormers made a big enough impact to justify the variance. He could not support the variance. A motion for denial uer the staff memo was made b~~ Connie Knight and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 4 - 3 FOR DENIAL WITH CHUCK. DALTON. AND LUDWIG AGAINST DENTAL. Ttem No. 5: A request for a conditional use permit to exx~and a. proposed uarkina structure for the Vail Valley Medical Center an Lots # and F. Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive., Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. Kristan Pritz explained that the Vail Valley Medical Center had requested to table this item to the April 9, 1990 meeting. A motion to table the orouosal to the 4/9/90 meeting was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 - 0 TN FAVOR OF TABLING Item No. 6: A request for a sbecial Development District in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lots 3, 4. and 5. Vail Valley Third Filing. Apulicant: Deborah W. and Robert Warner Tom Braun explained that the proposal was reviewed at the March 12, 1990 meeting and that at that time, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial to the Town Council. The applicants had amended their proposal with regard to the three secondary units. The applicants had agreed to place a deed restriction on the three lots that would require the secondary units to be rented on a long term basis to employees of the Upper Eagle Valley. The fact remained that any site planning ar design aspects of the proposal could be accomplished under existing zoning. The SDD was proposed as a way to circumvent the underlying primary/secondary development standards with regard to site coverage and GRFA. The employee units were being offered as a concession for the density increase. The staff recognized the value of the employee units, but was unable to support the proposal offered. c Bob Warner, the applicant, wished to apologize for not being present at the last meeting. He wanted to give the board some background on the project. Last summer he decided to make Vail a permanent home. He found he could not find any single-family lots. Instead, they found and bought the 3 adjacent lots. He had developed for 20 years and his architect, Jim Junge, for over 30 years. He was now here to plead with the board. They started by asking the staff for direction. They had tried to work with the staff. Mr. Warner stated that his wife had a chronically bad back (he showed a doctors statement prescribing daily swimming as treatment). He had problems understanding the SDD purpose and concept. He felt that what they were proposing could not be done within the existing zoning. He presented the analogy that it would be like preparing taxes without taking deductions. He felt they were making good trade-offs. He pointed out that he had continually been told what a great design they had presented, They had been looking at the project as three lots as a whole. This was why they felt the SDD process was appropriate. He explained that Gary Murrain, Chief Building Official, was anxious for them to get started due to the level of the water table. They are anxious as well and felt that the staff direction had slowed the time table. He requested approval. Jim Junge, architect for the applicant, commented on the staff's • concerns with the SDD purpose. He felt that the SDD purpose was to encourage flexibility and this was what they had done. A solution could be accomplished under existing zoning but not necessarily the most positive solution. What they had proposed had no impacts on neighboring properties. They felt they were offering the Town many benefits in exchange for the density transfer as followed: (He showed a list on the flip chart) 1. No 60/40 primary/secondary split. 2. Low Profile 3. Luxury Homes 4. 3 employee units. Tom Braun stated that he took strong opposition with the applicants statement that the staff held up the process. All avenues were reviewed with the applicant including the pros and cons of each alternative. He stated the staff told the applicant's in writing on October 27 that support of an SDD was unlikely. Kathy Warren commented that she felt that nothing had really changed. She still felt that the SDD purpose and integrity must be maintained. The pool could be permitted by deducting GRFA elsewhere. There were other avenues that the applicant had not explored. Jim Shearer had no comment. • 7 . Connie Knight concurred with Kathy. Ludwig Kurz felt that Kathy expressed how he felt very well. He didn't feel he could approve the project. Dalton Williams concurred. Chuck asked what the specific reasons for denial were at the last meeting? Had it had anything to do with employee housing and asked why they came back. Jim Junge explained that they felt the change of restrictions on the secondary unit was a benefit to the Town. Chuck didn't feel this SDD should be used with trade--offs. Tom Braun explained that this was how the SDD process worked. It was a give and take process. Chuck asked if there were enough trade-offs, would it be acceptable? Kathy Warren commented that a SDD is not appropriate per the last meeting issues. No number of trade-off would be make the project acceptable. . Mr. Warner explained that the employee housing was always part of the plan. Under strict zoning, Vail wouldn't get the benefits as pointed out earlier by Mr. Junge. He felt the employee units were a great benefit. He felt they worked out a great solution and that the employee housing should warrant a favorable response. Dalton Williams didn't believe that employee housing units were a good tradeoff. A large house was not a reason for creating an SDD. The point of being on the Planning and Environmental Commission Board was to ensure that rules were applied as written. Diana explained that if they took the extra 804 square feet of GRFA away, she would come close to approving the proposal. She felt it was a great project and encouraged them to proceed to council. Kristan Pritz wished to point out that the fact that the housing study was not complete was not the reason the staff was recommending denial. Diana stated that she did not wish to set a standard before the standards were set. She could support the project if the GRFA was a total wash. She felt the trade--offs offered were positive. a • A motion for recommendation of denial to the Town Council, per the staff memo was made by Connie Kniaht and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE: 7 -- 0 for recommendation of denial to Town Council, Item No. 7: A reauest for an amendment to Staecial Development. District No. 22 and a ma-ior subdivision for resubdivision of Lots 1-19. Block 2. Lionsridae Filing No. 3. Abblicant: Mr. Pat Dauohinais, Daubhinais-Moseley Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the developer was requesting to make adjustments to the major subdivision and Special Development District No. 22 for the property. The project currently consisted of 24 single family lots, an open space tract, and a new public road, Lionsridge Lane. Changes to lot sizes, setbacks, curb cuts, employee dwelling units, architectural guidelines, and the phasing plan were proposed. In general, the changes to the proposal did not have any major impacts on the subdivision criteria. Due to the fact that the proposal represented a resubdivision of an existing approved subdivision, a reduction in allowable density, had no significant environmental impacts and was compatible with surrounding low to medium density residential uses, the proposed plan was supportable. The Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision and the revisions to Special Development District No. 22 for the property. The requested changes generally improved the subdivision and would allow for a more architecturally pleasing development of the property. The conditions of approval for the Special Development District and Major Subdivision were listed in the staff memo. It was also deemed very positive that employee housing was being added. Chuck Crist questioned whose responsibility it was to work the parking problem out with Solar Crest. Kristan responded that staff had suaaested that Dauphinais work with Solar Crest. However, it was not a requirement. The problem was Solar Crest's. They had been parking on the applicant's land. s Kathy Warren asked for clarification of the GRFA regarding the . employee units. Was it in addition to allowed GRFA with the site coverage and any other requirements still intact? Kristan replied that she was correct. Kathy then asked when the employee units were required to be built? At build-out? Kristan answered, "yes". Kathy then commented that there was a possibility that the project could never reach build-out and therefore the Town would never have the employee units. Pat stated that he would be happy to put some type of restriction on phasing of the employee units for example 1 per 4 free market units. Kathy then expressed concern over the drainage plan. Pat explained that his and the Town's engineers felt they had found a better solution. They had revised the plans to take all mitigation off-site by diverting the water back behind Buffer Creek. Agreements would be in place prior to final plat approval. He could not pull any permits until a down payment or a letter of credit had been issued for his financial responsibility on the drainage plan. Buff Arnold, architect, explained that they had increased setbacks on the lots on which they were asking for additional cuts. They increased the lots bordering the highway side and increased 35 to 55 ' setbacks off the ridge. Dalton asked what the reason was behind the setback encroachment of 5 ft. for the decks and Kristan explained that generally, decks were allowed to encroach 1/2 into the setback (normally 7 1/2 feet). The staff felt that it would be reasonable to allow a 5' deck (at grade, unenclosed) encroachment under the circumstance. Buff Arnold explained that there were only 2 issues in which they were not in agreement with the staff. The first was the additional road cuts. The staff had quoted Public Work's concern with safety as the main reason for recu.~~.E~ending denial of this portion of the proposal. Buff explained that for safety reasons, they would be able to make room for maneuvering to allow a driver to pull out onto Lionsridge Loop. The driveways would be level so as to avoid any sliding/stopping hazards. Kathy Warren asked if they would consider combining access to two lots. A driveway every 60 feet didn't allow much room for snow removal, storage, or landscaping. Pat explained that there were two driveways close together and then a large distance between the others. Dalton commented that the kids would have a safe side of the street (on the new public road) if they allowed the 4 new road cuts on Lionsridge Loop. He felt this would be safer. . 10 . Chuck Crist asked if allowing the cuts on Lionsridge Loop would change the front setback and Kristan explained that the front is determined by where the access to the home was located. Buff stated they were not asking for any changes in the setbacks. Chuck commented that if they were to access the homes from Lionsridge Lane (the new public road), the homes would actually be closer to Lionsridge Loop due to the smaller rear setback. Chuck felt he could approve the new curb cuts. Kathy felt strongly that she would like to see the two end driveways combined to one. She asked staff what the major concern was. Kristan replied, "safety". Public Works would not allow large trees. Kristan felt that a landscape buffer would look nicer and would break up a line of homes along Lionsridge Loop. She suggested that if the C~,~~~~~ission approved the new 4 cuts, they combine some of the 5 already approved. Kathy Warren felt that if the total 9 drives could be combined to 7 drives she could approve the cuts. Pat responded stating that the essence of a single-family home was degraded by having shared driveways. Kathy said that one could use the same argument to ask that the original 5 approved cuts be moved to the inside. Pat felt that they could do a good job mitigating the curb cuts. Jim asked the applicant if they would agree to combine the closer driveways' entrance to one but access the homes separately. Pat explained that the cuts were based on the orientation of the homes. Connie Knight felt that the drop from 38 to 24 units was welcomed, She didn't want to thwart the project, rather encourage it. She felt it was an undue hardship. Driveways were an unnecessary evil. She would vote for approval of the driveway cuts. Ludwig felt he could approve the 9 driveway cuts. He could think of a lot more things that could be done with all the driveways facing the same direction. Diana felt that the new driveway cuts would be better for the project and bad for the Public. Diana asked for an informal vote to see where the board stood on the driveway cuts. There were 4 for the proposed new road cuts and 3 against. . 11 Buff Arnold explained that the employee units were proposed over the garage on the larger units. They would like the opportunity to build them on as many units as possible rather than just the 15 allowed per the proposal. They felt they could do it by increasing the smaller unit garage by ~'. They did intend to make the employee units part of the deed restrictions. Diana surveyed the Commission regarding the employee units as presented in the memo. They agreed it was acceptable. Diana continued by asking Kristan if it was appropriate to discuss the issue of the employee units being located on the smaller lots. Kristan replied that they could continue if they wished. However, the staff would not want to see the applicant ask for a variance to allow for the employee unit and Pat didn't feel that it would cause a problem with the exception of a few lots. Kristan felt there would be no problem with the employee units on any lot as long as the employee housing units fell within the confines of the SDD requirements. Kathy felt it was appropriate to require 6 and have a maximum of 15 employee units on any lot in the subdivision as long as the home fell within the confines of the SDD. She would like to have seen a phasing plan of employee units to be built at a minimum of 1 per 4 buildings. Pat explained that he would like to come back if he built all 15 and wanted mare and Diana explained that he could always come back. Kathy Warren suggested that, if Pat decided to sell the lots and not build himself, that they require him to come back and designate employee housing lots. Diana asked about the phasing plan. She felt that the plan should be in some pattern, not split up. Pat explained that he does not intend to break up the homes, but that he could not predict what would happen. Diana requested a sidewalk and bus shelter and Pat asked if the north side of Lionsridge Lane to the entry would be okay? Diana explained that she didn't feel that it had to be a 5' walk, simply a nice walk and that the shelter should be on the same side of the street. Pat agreed. Diana asked if the footprint of each home would be substantially the same and Pat explained that the footprint will be as different as the lot and setbacks would allow. 12 `Diana asked if the Town was a party to all covenants so the Town ' would have right to litigate as party to the agreement and Kristan answered that the employee dwelling unit restrictions and the architectural guidelines would be restricted with the Town as • a party to the agreements. The restrictions would be recorded at Eagle County and run with the land. Kristan pointed out that the garage could not be separated from the unit. Chuck Grist had no more comments. Dalton wished to express thanks, that he felt the project was good far Vail. Ludwig Kurz had no more comments. A motion was made by Kathv_ Warren and seconded by Chuck Grist for approval of the amendment to the SDD per the finding of the staff memo and conditions listed therein with the following chances and additions: 1. The employee units shall be allowed on anv lot including a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 15 as long as the building was built within the zoning confines i.e., variances not requested to allow employee units. 2. The 4 additional proposed driveway cuts be allowed. • 3. A sidewalk separate from the street be incorporated on the north side of Lionsridge Lane along with a covered bus shelter to be located at the project entrance on the same side of the street as the sidewalk. 4. Drainage Plan be approved per the Town Staff. 5. Phasing plan for the employee units include a minimum of 1 in the Phase I and 1 in every 4 structures thereafter. 6. Exterior decks be allowed to encroach 5' into the rear setback and 2' into the side setbacks and on grade only on Lots 1-14. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR A motion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams that the nreliminarv plan for a maior subdivision be approved ner the findings of the staff memo and conditions listed therein with the changes and additions as listed in the conditions of approval for the Sbecial Development District Amendment. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR 13 Item No. 8: A recruest for a Special Develoument District at . the Garden of the Gods on Lot K. Block 5. Vail Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Aoolicant: Garden of the Gods. Mrs. A,G. Hill Family. Connie Knight removed herself from the board due to a conflict of interest. Kristan Pritz presented a summary of the changes made to the project. Don Hare explained that there were no new c~.«.E~ents. Mickey Cannon from the Vail Trail Chalets explained that he felt a view blockage would result from the building orientation and setbacks. He felt that if the building is going to be tarn dawn and rebuilt, it should be treated as a new development and built within the present zoning restrictions. April Carol, a Vorlaufer owner, asked if the north side of the building, which is now a barren wall, could be structurally changed in order to make the wall more aesthetically appealing? Pam Hopkins, architect, stated she would study the issue and present changes to the Design Review Berard. • Art Carol, representing the Vorlaufer, stated that the main concerns were the view impact and the increase in GRFA. He felt that the Garden of the Gods did their homework when asking for additional GRFA in conjunction with an employee unit. This seemed to be the manner in which most increases were approved. He felt that the staff had written the memo in a biased manner and not simply stated the facts. He felt the wording was misleading. Diana responded in the defense of the staff stating that SDDs typically give additional GRFA devoted to employee units. Mickey Cannon then questioned the SDD purpose to "allow flexibility". He felt this was a general comment. Diana responded that the reason behind allowing the flexibility was that if the Garden of the Gods were to be torn down and rebuilt within the setbacks, it would hurt the Vorlaufer's view and not change the view of the Vail Trail Chalets. The staff felt that it showed sensitivity on behalf of the Garden of the Gods to impact as few buildings as possible. • .14 . Greta Parks, a residential owner on Gore Creek Drive, didn't want to stand in opposition to any one specific project. She felt there was a county wide problem that needed to be addressed. She felt they were talking about obeying rules or making exception to a changing situation. The quality of life was philosophical and legal. She was not an adjacent owner but definitely a neighbor. As long as the building was being torn down, she would like to see the new building comply with all regulations. She stated that she would also like to see more community input. She felt the public notification process should be expanded to include the neighborhood, not simply the adjacent owners. Diana suggested that the Condominium Associations designate a single person to be responsible for keeping up with the activities within the Town. One way this could be accomplished would be to subscribe to the Vail Trail newspaper in which all notices are published. In regard to the private views, Diana suggested the possibility of approaching the Town Council to adopt legislation. Mickey Cannon reitereated that when he invested in property in Vail, he "expected" the zoning to be upheld. Connie Knight wished to clarify that she could appropriately ask questions and make c~s~~.~~ents as a member of the public and not a • board member. Diana explained that since she had excused herself from the board, she was considered public. Connie Knight, as a Vnrlaufer owner, stated that if the accommodation units were decreasing as stated in the Lodge Definition section on page 6 of the memo, this was in discrepancy with the Master Plan's Goal #2, Section 2.3 objective listed on page 13 of the memo to "Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations." She felt that this was defeating the purpose. Diana explained the "key concept" to Connie. Kristan wished to help clarify the issue. Presently, there were 16 accommodation units. The proposal was for 18 accommodation units which represented a combination of au's and du's as well as lock-offs restricted for short term rental permanently. 7.5 Kristan Pritz, in response to Mr. Cannon, stated that an • SDD is a legal zoning alternative. Zn response to Mr. Carol, she explained that staff did not rewrite the memo. it was the same memo that was presented in February. The staff did not get involved with private views. She wanted Mr. Cannon to understand that the staff was not trying to slant the request. The staff felt that it was important to present the project in black and white. Jim Shearer liked the safety issue, bus access, underground parking, green area, landscaping, and the employee units and felt part of the trade-offs and reason for the SDD was the employee units. He felt the designer had been sensitive, especially since the issue had been in front of the Commission time after time. Chuck Crist concurred with the board. Dalton Williams concurred. Ludwig Kurz concurred with Jim Shearer. He felt the time spent working with adjacent owners showed sensitivity. He felt the architect had exercised restraint. Doris, with public comment, asked, if the SDD had not been requested, the building torn down and replaced within the current zoning, would it have impacted the Vorlaufer more? . Diana explained that, yes it probably would have. The architect had been sensitive. The placement of the building would not have changed the view impact of any other adjacent properties due to the height. Tn this particular case, they had worked to the advantage of the greatest number of people. She was supportive of the project. Without an SDD, the Town would lose gutters, landscaping, underground parking, and much more. Kathy Warren stated that if the building were built within the present zoning code restrictions, the building could actually be much larger in bulk. There was approximately 2000 square feet in site coverage not used. She felt that the SDD was bringing positive changes to the Town. If an 800 s.f, employee unit was the trade-off for a parking structure, gutters, bus stop, and improved landscaping, she was in approval. However, she did hope to see the zoning regulations cleaned up concerning GRFA. A motion to recommend approval of a new Special Development District to the Town Council per the staff memo with a recommendation to the Desian Review Board to review the design ftransparencvl of the north elevation wall was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 6 - 0 WITH CONNTE KNIGHT ABSTAINING. . 16 . Connie Knight asked what process should be used to begin private view legislation and Diana explained that interested parties should start by calling their Council members. Dalton commented that a private view easement could be purchased. Art Carol asked when the Garden of the Gods issue would go before the Town Council and Kristan answered that it would be on the agenda a week from Tuesday and the meeting started at 7:30 p.m. Item No. 9: A.ntioint PEC representative for the April - June, 1990 DRB term. Ludwig Kurz volunteered. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. r 1 U . 17 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 1990 RE: A request for a side yard setback variance and a stream setback variance far Lot 9, Blnck 3, Vail Row Houses (unit #9) Applicant: Walter Gramm I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicant is proposing a major remodel to Unit 9 of the Vail Raw Houses. The remodel includes a reconfigurration of the existing floor layout, an increase in the building roof height by approximately 11 feet and the addition of window seats on the north and south elevations. The proposal does not include a request for any additional GRFA over the allowable. • The Vail Row Houses are zoned HDMF, and as such the setbacks are 20 feet on all sides of the property. The Vail Row Houses were originally subdivided in a way which created nonconforming side setbacks. The units and lots are only 21-1/2 feet wide, with each unit's side wall being right on the `side property lines, leaving a zero setback. It is for this reason that a side setback variance is always required for any modifications to the Vail Raw Houses. The request for the side setback encroachments are to accommodate window seats on the north and south elevations of the building, a reconfigured bedroom area on the second floor, an expanded entry on the south elevation and the addition of two upper floors. The roof height is proposed to be increased by 11'. The Town of Vail Zoning Code requires a stream setback of 50 feet from the centerline of Gare Creek. The existing building currently encroaches 7 feet into this setback, as indicated on the attached survey. Although the proposed remodel does not alter the existing footprint of the building, the 11' height addition for the two upper floors does require that a stream setback variance be obtained. This increase in height is considered an expansion of a pre- existing, non-conforming use. • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: HDMF Lot Area: 2,387 square feet Allowable GRFA: 1432 s.f. Existing 1323 s.f, Proposed 1432 s.f. Site Coverage: 1312 s.f. 765 s.f, 774 s.f. Height: 48 feet 25 feet 36 feet Setbacks: (Required 20 feet on all sides of property} Existing Proposed North: 24 feet 22 feet South: 41 feet 39 feet East: D feet 0 feet West: 0 feet 0 feet III. CRITERIA AND FTNDTNGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 • of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances 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. However, the existing setbacks are currently zero feet on both sides. The proposed alterations will create a slightly larger area of encroachment into the setbacks, as indicated on the attached floor plans. The encroachments will impact an upper level deck on the unit directly west of this property. However, this is an inherent problem with zero setback developments such as the Rowhouses. Because the existing building footprint will not be expanded, the staff believes that the requested stream setback variance will have no significant effect upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the immediate area. The 11 foot increase in building height would place the • overall height at 36 feet, which is still 12 feet below the maximum allowed height of 48 feet. 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 amana sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of spacial crivilege. The Vail Row Houses have lot configurations which make it almost impossible to modify the units without requiring variances. In fact, the existing units already encroach significantly into the required side yard setbacks. These encroachments are due to the fact that the lots are very narrow. Staff strongly believes that there are extraordinary circumstances due to the original lot layouts of the Vail Row Houses and that approval of the variance requests would not be a grant of special privilege. Other Vail Row Houses have received similar setback variances for remodels. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and, air, distribution of copulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and, utilities. and public safety, • The staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMXSSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE., 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. 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 is for approval of both the side setback variance and the stream setback variance, We believe there are extraordinary circumstances on this site (i.e. lot layout) which do not generally apply to other properties in this same zone district. It is also felt that the granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare to properties or persons in the vicinity. For these reasons, staff believes that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the variances. • • 3 ,~ (~ ~ -~,J z .....2 :? :::.:... ' ':';. ~:~ ;: ` ~--_~ , -~.._ _ . . ._.~ ~.~ E5-'~~ ~ ~~ .:.:. ~...~~ --~, ~~89° !5' E 25,57 _ la' __ _ - - ~_ S~P~ 9f)0 __.-~-,~ _' ~ `~ JO, PINE .n ~-~-„ N iT1UTY EASEMENT ^+ +-ra°- 1 l I M l i~ ~,~..~ rte' S5R£AM SET DAGx w z O ~I) Z _. O N J ~ __ ~ Q `1 ao _~ W V1 ,... ;~ QEG>< I~I t~- ,~ ~-LEVEL ~prVNHQUSE v a m 0 4' PINE vt a7 ~' o+ DFLK~ ~ Q.B DANK -,~..T-- BE_ _ ~ W tS~ _ ~i. ~.S MhfA7T£G Lt77 ~- __ G~. PiOE NTIG AI W~TN PL -~-"-`-^'-T 1 -) .. n:}.. ~.~~~:fa,a':.:.::.::,.: ': ar ~ nECKJ a t"~ .3' ~ ~°d E~aoR ~ i r 6:~' : ~ - a s -~ ~_- ---- i, ~ K~ ~ /ENTRYW hY/IyECtt 'vtr C ((( ~ ~~ i+! FEt•1GE 7 ~ f ! ~/ ---- --k--- ~;I ___ -ri- in ~`~'~5 ~T. 0.0540 AG. fM 80° 43~ W 21.58` ~`~ }1? ~~1^f= f_ rf rfe7fr ll. f ~f.f,]~r • ,// ~'' /f G $CAI-E` 1~ 1 DAVE Uf SU ~~~~~~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance for the construction of a garage on Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Peter Tufo I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance from the front setback requirement in order to construct a garage addition at 285 Forest Road. The request is to a11ow a garage to be built within 3 feet of the front property line along Forest Road. The required front setback for this lot is 20 feet from the property line, per Section 18.13.060 of the Town's zoning code. No residential floor space is proposed for the garage addition. There is currently a primary/secondary residence on the site, with enclosed parking provided only for the primary unit. Surface parking is used for the secondary unit. Section 18.69.050 of the Town's zoning code does allow for garages in this zone district to be constructed in the front setback without a variance, provided the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent. Although this site is extremely steep, the average slope beneath the structure and parking area is only 270, and hence this variance request. Because the proposed garage would not be attached to the residence, this site plan was presented to the Design Review Board for conceptual review with regards to compliance with the Design Guidelines. The DRB, on December 6, 1989, unanimously approved the separation of the residence and garage. The Design Review Board found that the existing residence presented a significant site constraint and that the garage could be separated from the residence and not be in violation of the Design Review Guidelines. With this conceptual approval from the Design Review Board, the applicant is now requesting a 17 foot encroachment into the 20' front setback. U II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Cade, the Department of C~.~~.«unity 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. Due to the extremely steep topography and the heavily wooded slopes along Forest Road, many of the existing garages, and surface parking areas, have been constructed in close proximity to their front property lines. The net effect of this variance request would be a reduction in the amount of fill needed to support a garage within the required setbacks, as well as the preservation of an 18" diameter, mature evergreen (see attached site plan). The Department of Community Development believes that the requested front setback variance would not adversely affect the privacy or use of any adjacent . properties. We believe this variance request is positive because the mature evergreen tree is preserved and the construction scarring on the hillside is minimized. 2. The dear_ee 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 relief from the strict setback requirement is reasonable in order to sensitively place development on the site, and to provide accessible, covered parking for the secondary unit. The staff has always been supportive of garages in conjunction with the development of primary/secondary lots. We feel that garages relieve on-street parking problems and the associated aesthetic impacts of surface parking. 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 no significant impacts with regards to any of the above criteria. Public Works has also reviewed the request and has no problem with the location of the garage. III. R.FT~ATFD POLICIES IN 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". • Staff believes that the addition of covered parking for the secondary unit on this lot supports the upgrading policy. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina 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 far 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 17' encroachment into the front setback, is for approval. We believe that the siting of the garage has been designed in the most sensitive manner possible, given the existing site constraints. We believe there to be no significant impacts to adjacent properties and that due to the physical site constraints, approval. of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. The staff would recommend the following condition of approval: That a revocable right-of-way permit be obtained for any and all improvements on Town right-of-way before a building permit is released for the garage. • • o ~ ~~l~ll/~/ o ~ ~~ ii~/ I .~ / ~ 1 , ~ .r 11, 1 f 1 ~ / ~xl-~7t~.ty ~~^ ~~r ~l~z t7' i !o f }~-=~ I ._ _ ~ , ~ va~ ~~~`'~' ~ ~~~ ~~`,~~ f ~ s~~ O `~ ~"h /~ ~ ~~ ~xalo:p~~ ~~~ ~p . a°L'-~" -- i• • ~._ -. ~~ . _ __ , .___~ ~ ._ ~.. _ - . r . • r - ~ - } .. - - ._ _ .- ~~`~k~~~f~f~~i~i~~~f~~~~~l~~i fR~iE~~l~~i+~~~'~~r~f~f, ~;,~,I~~I ~~~I~!!'C~ ~: , ~ rr S •. - 1 ~~~ ~~~~ ~ t :~_ ~ -,~ .~. -~ , ~. ~,.1~s ~ ~.v~aT~D ~ ~~'~~ -~~'O~~ z-ZG-`IO TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department BATE: March 26, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance in order to add dormers to the upper floor of the Mountain Haus at 292 E, Meadow Dr. {Part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing) Applicant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus Condo. Assoc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTEP The Mountain Haus Condominium Association is requesting a height variance in order to add dormers across the south elevation of the building. The dormers would be added to the 7th floor roof area and would replace existing 18" windows, The intent of the dormer additions is to increase the amount of light which presently enters the south-facing bedrooms. The dormers would not add any GRFA to the building. The Mountain Haus is in the Public Accommodation zone district which has a maximum height restriction of 48 feet. The existing ridge height of the building is 74 feet. • Because the Mountain Haus was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town's zoning code, the building is considered a pre-existing, non-conforming use. Although the proposed dormers would not exceed the ridge line of the existing building, a variance is required because the dormers would exceed the 48 foot height requirement of the PA zone district. The height of the proposed dormers would be 72 feet above existing grade (2 feet below the existing roof ridge). II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.D60 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 overall height of the Mountain Haus is significantly greater than other adjacent buildings. The Vail Village Master Plan's conceptual building height plan has identified the surrounding properties and their potential heights as follows: Height fstories)* Vail Athletic Club - 6 Sonnenalp = 3 - 4 Covered Bridge Building = 3 - 4 Gallery Bldg. (Russell's)= 3 - 4 Slifer Building = 3 - 4 Vail Row Houses = 3 - 4 *(a story is defined as 9 feet of height, no roof included) Considering the heights of the existing, adjacent buildings and the recommendations of the Village Master Plan, the staff believes that any height increase for the Mountain Haus would only create a greater disparity of height between the Mountain Haus and neighboring buildings. Staff believes increased height for the Mountain Haus is not compatible with surrounding buildings. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interbretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives . of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff has been unable to identify a physical hardship and subsequently has been unable to support the height variance for the Mountain Haus. We believe that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege, as adjacent buildings are significantly lower in height. 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air. distribution of population. transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities. and public safety. The staff is of the opinion that the proposed dormer additions would have little, if any, impact on any of the above named considerations. III. APPLICABLE POLICIES FROM VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLANS The recently adopted (Jan. 1990) Vail Village Master Plan has identified the Mountain Haus property as a site which may be considered for a maximum building height of six stories. No specific sub-area concepts of the Village Plan apply to this parcel. • The Urban Design Guide Plan for the Vail Village does not include this property. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the. following findings before arantina 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 mare 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 da 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 recommendation is far denial of the requested height 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 approved Vail Village Master Plan. The staff also believes that a physical hardship does not exist and therefore the request should not be approved. • • • n n n u ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ " L~ L. J f`1 L_._J ~ f U i~i~~~ii ~`u~_~I o, ir~;'L lI!IIIIliIIII' u u u u ~~ ~1 `~ 5~~ • ~- .- ... t .' t ~~ U • mnu~ ~!~~!~~ _~ II'i~Ip,~~~~ ~~~ I'~~ 1~~1 fi , 1-~~~ ~, i i u ~! IIIHIII~ ~,I r----~ 1 r __.-~--~ ~ u~ ~„ .i t'." ` 1 r art 13f,~'~ r~y '' '' ~ ~~ , . •r., ..... ~. .. ~n.., ~•. :~~. ~ ~ '.air :~ ~~ r . ~~}•. :.. ~~'_ .4 ' i ' ~v~Y'u. ; s q; ; ~ if ' .:~ . w.Yrw a. r ~.a.1~^"'` s 1'i, ~i '., ~ >~§;•~ 1• ~ ~ t n r~w~r•r ~~ . .i, ~ f ~ r w l 1? ^T ~~~ 1 ~. y ~ ....~. _ J r: ;~~~ ~, i 1, r ~. ~;a`"~".. "~J r •i UPPER R~+~ REMO®EL THE MOUNTAIN HAUS VAlL, COLORADO . • the mj mueifer co:, inc>, • p.o. hox 2747 ~ 476.2627 vaii, colors@o 81658 " TO: Planning and Environmental C~,t~~~ission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit to expand the proposed Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure, 181 West Meadow Drive, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center I DESCRIPTION OE REQUEST The Vail Valley Medical Center is proposing to add two 1/2 levels to the proposed parking structure on the northeast corner of the property. According to the applicant: Initially, one of the 1/2 levels would be used as parking providing 26 additional parking spaces. The second 1/2 level (elevation 8135) would be used temporarily as finished hospital space. Although conceptual plans are still being developed, and will be submitted to the Town at a later date, we envision this space will be used to provide a sports medicine educational center under the auspices of Dr. Steadman, as well as a maintenance/housekeeping shop. The long • range plan is to convert this bottom half level to parking, when needed to support future hospital growth. This conversion would provide an additional 46 parking spaces. The two new 1/2 levels would be constructed beneath the parking structure presently approved and would be entirely below grade. The above grade appearance of the parking structure would be unchanged from the drawings and model previously reviewed and approved by the various Town bodies. The expansion approved by the Town in 1989 has a total parking requirement of 278 spaces. 20 spaces must also be provided far the Doubletree Hotel per the parking agreement. This results in a total parking requirement of 298 spaces. The revised figures for total available parking on site are as follows: r 1 LJ Available by Future Conversion • November 1990 of Elevation 8135 Parking structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface parking 104 spaces 104 spaces Lot 10 18 stiaces 18 spaces Total 326 spaces 372 spaces Available parking 325 spaces 372 spaces Doubletree parking - 20 suaces - 20 stiaces Total Net 306 spaces 352 spaces Required Surplus - 278 stiaces - 278 spaces 28 spaces 68 spaces At this time, the hospital is not requesting an amendment to their conditional use approval for the Learning Center within the parking structure. This request will be reviewed separately by the Planning Commission at the April 9th meeting. Currently, the space proposed for the Learning Center is approved only as parking. IT. 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. Relationshiu and impact of the use on development, objectives of the Town. This proposal is extremely positive. Town boards and planning staff encouraged the hospital to plan for additional parking within the structure for any future expansions of the hospital facility. As long as the parking structure was being constructed, it was felt that it made good planning sense to provide as much parking at this Location as possible. The Vail Valley Medical Center is furthering the development objectives of the Town by providing additional parking in an efficient and logical location that is easily accessible. • 2, mhe effect of the use on light and air, • distribution of copulation, transportation facilities. utilities. schools, parks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. The appearance of the parking structure will be exactly the same as the approved plan. 3. Effect ubon traffic with carticular reference to congestion. automotive and cedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control. access, maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and corking areas. Certainly additional traffic will be generated due to the increased number of parking spaces. However, Colorado Division of Highways will not require additional improvements as all possible roadway improvements were required by the previous hospital approval. 4. Effect ucon the character of the area in which the, proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the crocosed use in relation to. surrounding uses. U There will be no change in the mass and bulk of the parking structure as the additional floors are below grade. TV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties nr improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request. The proposed location for additional parking is very complimentary to the overall master plan for the hospital site. There will be no negative impacts due to the additional floors of parking. In fact, the concept of providing additional parking beneath the approved parking structure is an efficient use of the hospital site. The fact that the spaces are below grade will benefit the aesthetics of the site for the hospital as well as adjacent property owners, Staff would like to commend the Vail Valley Medical Center for making the extra effort to provide as much parking as possible in the location of the parking structure. This effort makes good planning sense for the hospital as well as the entire community. U • 4' To: Planning and Environmental C~,t~~~ission FROM: Community Development DATE: March 2&, 1990 RE: A request for a Special Development District in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lat 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley Third Filing, Applicant: Deborah W. and Robert Warner The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at the March 12, 1990 meeting. At this meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of this praposal. The applicants have now amended their project with regard to the three secondary units. Initially, this proposal would have restricted these units from being sold separately from the main units. The applicants have now agreed to place a deed restriction on these three lots that would require the secondary units to be rented on a long term basis to employees of the Upper Eagle Valley. These restrictions are outlined in Section 18.13.080 of the zoning code. This section of the code provides standard language that has been used with other units throughout the Town. It is the applicants desire to present this change to the Planning Commission prior to formal review by the Town . council. STAFF RECOMMENDATYON The staff is certainly su impose restriction on the proposed, the units could assurances that the units Valley. This restriction employee units. pportive of an amendment that would use of these units. As originally not be sold off, but there were no would be rented to an employee of the would assure the community of three new Regardless of restrictions on the use of these units, the staff recommendation remains denial. While the employee units certainly offer something back to the community, the staff is very uncomfortable with the trade-off of the increased density far the employee units. The fact remains that any site planning or design aspects of this proposal could be accomplished under existing zoning. The SDD is proposed as a way to circumvent the underlying primary/secondary development standards with regard to site coverage and GRFA. The employee units are then being offered as a concession for this density increase. The Town is currently in the midst of developing policies and new development guidelines pertaining to employee housing. Tt is conceivable that new regulations providing incentives in exchange for restricted employee units may result from this housing study. However, at this time these decisions have nat been made. The • staff recognizes the value of these units, but is unable to support the proposal offered at this time. .. , ... • • DATE: (March 22, 1990 T0: Town P1 anni ng Com~~ni ssi on Totivn of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vai 1 , CO £31u57 FROM: Junge Reich h9agee AIA Architecture & Planning P.C. SUDJECT: A request for a Special Design District rezoning process to rezone the overall 47,972 s.f. sites 3, 4 and 5 of Yail Ya17ey Third Fi 1 i ng to x71 o4v a greater footprint and x71 ovrabl e fl oar area for the residence on the center site -- Lot 4. JIJSTIFICATIO~[: The Toti~rn of `tai 1 wi 11 benefit with three employee housing units in a perfect location, mixed into a single family housing neighborhood; one of the major goal s of the Totian. In addition, the Town will benefit by the development of three very attractive luxury houses at the golf club location rather than the more usual primary/secondary duplex type of project. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE SITE PROJECT l~larner Developments, Inc. has acquired an approximate 1.1 acre parcel to construct three luxury single family homes. Each home will include a small (650 - 750 s. f. ) employee housing uni t per Tovrn of Vai 1 's regulations and a large four bedroom, two-level custom primary residence. Each residence includes a three automobile garage and a guest/secondary unit parking space on site. The site slopes down approximately 10 to 12 feet from Sunburst Drive to the vrest toward the golf course. This allows the design of the homes to be one-level as viewed from the front elevation from Sunburst Drive, with a "4ra1k-out" garden lower--1 eve? onto the rear yards, making the structure only two stories when viewed from the golf course; much less "bulk" than could be developed. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The total site coverage allowed on the parcel, when calculated as three individual sites, is 9,593 s.f. On1y 9,299 s.f. is covered on the overall parcel; thereby resulting 294 s,f. less coverage than permitted. The gross residential floor area allowed on the overal l site i s 11 ,546 s.f. The total proposed is 12,3x0 s.f., resulting in 804 s.f. of floor area greater than allowed. This area is in the enclosed swimming pool room within the center residence (Lot 4) and therby does not add to the actual "livable" floor area; nor to the mass of the house. • The total paved driveway and parking site coverage for the three homes is 6,525 s.f. This is 13.6% site coverage of the overall parcel. The houses and garage footprints cover 19.4% of the site. This leaves 67% - (just aver two-thirds) of the land area as landscaped open space. This is over 101 greater than the minimum allowable, Town Planning Commission - Town of Vail page Two • III. SPECIAL DEVE~.OP[~1ENT DISTRICT xOP1IiSG S.D.D. zoning is a concept of an "overlay" zone district to "encourage flexibility and creativity" in order to: 1). Promote it's most appropriate use. 2). Improve the design character. 3): Improve quality of new development. 4). Further the overall goals of the community. In order for a developer to submit for any "contract" zone district, there must be a benefit for both the Town and for the Applicant. ~Jnder this approach the Applicant must develop the three homes within a set of performance cri teri a established by the Toavn that creates a far better end result of less mass and bulk. IV. REASOhdS FOR THE S.Q.D. REQUST The applicant desires to develop smaller houses than could be allowed on either side of the center residence, which is proposed larger; thereby involving a residential floor area density transfer to the center house. The two side residence footprints are also less in site coverage, transfering that additional coverage to the center house footprint. . The "net" result is that no additional overall site coverage by the structures {footprint) is requested. No additional actual living area is requested, as it is the pool area of 804 s.f. that adds to the gross area as the code i s now ti,rri tten . Thi s additional pool room area i s 1 ocated completely bel o~•r ground, beneath the garage and below the first floor level of the residence; thus not contributing to an oversize structure. An outdoor pool facing the golf course tilith the required security fence would be a far more visually impacting element, thus becoming less desirable. All setbacks are in conformance and, in fact, all three buildings height and bulk are considerably less than what could be designed as full ttivo story structures. Houses 3 and 5 have been approved by the Design Review Board at the conceptual level. V. S.D.D. APPROACH The S.D.D. zone district is a bona fide rezoning concept for a single family district, so long as the intent of such a change creates favorable results for the community and is not only for the benefit of the applicant. The applicant must achieve his purpose or he vroul d have no reason to submit to the additional restrictions of the S.D.D. Simply because an S.D.D. has not been processed for this type of single family area is not a reason not to alloy 7t here. Toti~1n P1 anni ng Commission - Town of Vai 1 Page Three VI. S.D.D. VALUE The S.D.p. approach r~al<es all sorts of sense. It is a sound method to "encourage" more attractive housing an the Vail Golf Course of less bulk, more landscaped open space, a cluster of compatibly designed buildings of similar roof slope, exterior materials and colors. When the three parcels are considered as one 7.1 acre single family parcel zoned for three detached residences, the proper planning approach wool d be to: 1). Orient each home to the best view and provide solar access. 2). Keep the houses as low in profile as posible. 3). Have the house designs be luxurious single family residences similar to other Vail Valley luxury housing. Thi s has been accomplished. P~loreover, the overi di ng community benefit i s in the provision of three employee housing units. The proposal accomplishes both. Each house includes the employee unit and each home appears as an attractive estate residence; nat the more typical 60/40 split two farm ly individually otvned duplexes. This is consistant with the community's standard of "suitability", "consistant with municipal objectives" and "promotes a viable neighborhood" (cor~munity); the criteria for a S.D.D. approval. IX. CONCLUSION The additional house area requested on Lot 4 has no visual impact whatsoever on the scale and massing of the stucture, as the space is utilizing what would other~~vi se be crawl space. Also there i s a balance of coverage across the three houses when analyzed as a single site; and the only extra area requested is the under building pool room itself. The three houses have ample open space, are not massive, and the center house will have only a minimal appearance of being larger. Any possible visual impact of the center residence being larger is offset because it is flanked by the other houses being developed simultaneously thus screening any perceived size increase of the center house. Addi ti onai ly, the o-vner wi 11 agree to provide the three secondary rental employee units as a benefit to the community. The elimination of the secondary units would reduce the overall area, thus making there be no need far this S.D.D.; yet these employee units is one of the Town's goals. The three luxury house development will be a welcome addition to the Vaii community with their design meeting t'ne spirit of the Town of Yai1's development guidelines, and is exactly what the S.D.D, process should promote: tide respectfully request your approval of this reasonable request, James S. Junge, AIA JSJ/el a r: TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 26, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a Major Subdivision and amendment to Special Development District No. 22, resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Liansridge Filing #3. Applicant: Mr. Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais - Moseley Construction. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The developer is requesting to make adjustments to the major subdivision and Special Development District No. 22 for this property. Special Development District No. 22 was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in August of 1988 and was adopted by Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1988 by the Vail Town Council. Special Development District No. 22 currently consists of 24 single family lots, an open space tract, and a new public road, Lionsridge Lane. Total size of the existing Special Development District is 10,69 acres. The original zoning allowed 19 primary/secondary lots for a total of 38 dwelling units. Total allowed GRFA was 84,905 square feet. The approved SDD reduced the number of dwelling units to 24 and decreased the GRFA by 16,701 square feet. The total approved GRFA is 68,204 square feet. The major subdivision plat also received final approval from the Planning Commission. However, the final plat has not been recorded. The developer is requesting changes to the major subdivision plat which will require preliminary plan review as well as final plat review from the Planning Commission. The following changes are requested: 1. AMENDMENT TO LOT SIZES AND CORRESPONDING GRFA PER LOT:, The slight changes to the lot sizes and corresponding GRFA per lot are listed below: • APPROVED PROPOSED APPROVED PROPOSED APPROVED PROPOSED % % •LOT LOT SIZE LOT SIZE GRFA GRFA GRFA/SIZE GRFA/SIZE 1 14,375 11,805 2,950 2,293 21% 19% 2 14,375 16,248 2,950 3,171 21% 20% 3 11,761 11,500 2,940 3,171 25% 28% 4 11,326 11,805 2,831 2,293 25% 19% 5 10,454 12,197 2,800 2,293 2$% 19% b 10,454 11,500 2,800 3,171 28% 28% 7 11,326 11,543 2,831 3,171 25% 27% 8 10,890 11,021 2,800 3,171 26% 29% 9 11,326 11,456 2,831 3,171 25% 28% 10 11,761 11,979 2,940 3,171 25% 26% 11 10,890 10,803 2,800 3,171 26% 29% 12 13,068 12,981 2,950 3,171 23% 24% 13 15,246 15,159 2,950 3,171 19% 21% 14 11,326 11,151 2,831 3,171 25% 28% 15 8,712 8,494 2,800 2,293 32% 27% 16 7,405 8,494 2,800 2,293 38% 27% 17 9,147 8,494 2,800 2,293 31% 27% 18 10,019 10,062 2,800 3,171 28% 32% 19 9,148 9,148 2,800 2,293 31% 25% 20 10,019 9,801 2,804 3,171 28% 32% 21 10,019 10,237 2,800 3,171 28% 31% 22 9,583 9,409 2,800 2,293 29% 24% 23 10,454 10,324 2,800 3,171 27% 31% ~4 9,583 9,496 2,800 2.293 29% 24% 68,204 68,202 At this time, the developer is not proposing specific models for the entire subdivision. Phase I development includes construction on four lots. These four lots will use either Model A or Model B. The total GRFA proposed (68,202 square feet) is almost the same as the originally approved GRFA of 68,204 square feet. 2. CHANGES TO SETBACKS: The original approval called for a 20' front setback, a 10' side setback, and rear setback of 15 feet. It should be pointed out that there was some conflict between the originally approved development plan and wording within the SDD far front setbacks for lots 15- 19, The SDD wording calls for a 20' front setback. The development plan drawing indicates a 0' setback for these lots. Changes to the setbacks are requested to allow far a more realistic siting of the houses on each property. Site coverage, GRFA, access, and parking have been considered with the proposed setbacks. No encroachments are allowed into the approved setbacks for roof . overhangs or decks. An access stair to the employee housing unit may be allowed to encroach up to 4 ft. into the required side setback. However, this encroachment is only allowed for an exterior unenclosed stair. .Lot 1 •2-13 14 15,16 17 18 19 Front Setback 20' 10' 20' 14' 15' 15' 15' Side Setback 1a' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 20-23 35' Adjacent to Lionsridge Lane 24 15' r1 U n U 15' North side adjacent to Lionsridge Loop Rear Setback Appx. 97' See Development Plan. Varies from 35'-75' in order to minimize the visual impact of houses along the ridge area. 45' 1' Lots back-up to common open space. 5' Lot backs-up to common open space. 10' 10' 20' 10' 3. CURB CUTS: Five curb cuts are requested off of Lionsridge Laop far Lots 20-23. At this time four road cuts accessing off of Lionsridge Loop are approved for Lots 15-19. 4. EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNITS: The developer will be required to provide 6 employee units on lots having an allowable GRFA of 3,171 square feet. Up to 15 employee dwelling units including the required six employee dwelling units may be located within the larger homes if future lot owners so desire. Each employee units shall meet the following units: A. GRFA range of 400-500 square feet. B. One enclosed (garage) parking space. C. The unit shall be permanently restricted as an employee dwelling unit and shall meet the requirement in Section 28.13.080 B10 a-d of the Town of Vail zoning code. D. No wood-burning fireplaces shall be allowed in these units. E. The owner of the property shall be required to document on an annual basis to the Town of Vail that the units have been rented as long-term rentals to persons meeting the requirements in Section 18.13.080 B10 a-d of the zoning code. F, The employee dwelling units shall not count towards density or GRFA for the project. 5. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES: The developer proposes that the Architectural Design Guidelines be incorporated into the subdivision agreement which will be recorded at Eagle County. The guidelines will also be incorporated into the Special Development District. These guidelines are as follows: I. Architectural. At the time of review of specific architectural plans provided for any development of single family structures within Special Development district No. 22, the Town of Vail Design Review Board shall, in addition to the Design Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code, consider the following guidelines in the review and approval process. The architectural design of the buildings upon the site shall be such that buildings relate harmoniously to each other. This is not to imply that each building must look exactly similar to those around it, but that compatibility be achieved through the use of scale, materials and colors, and building shape and form. The overriding concern is that, upon completion, the Special Development district, because of the clustered nature of the small single family lots situated around common open space should appear to be an integrated development possessing a common architectural quality, character, and appearance. To this end the following general design criteria shall be followed: a. A palette of colors shall be as set forth below and presented to the Design Review Board for their review and approval. Colors are indicated far the use on different types of building materials and elements such as stucco colors, siding colors, metal flashing, windows, accent colors, etc. The palette of colors indicate a range of acceptable colors in order to encourage similarity on one hand, but also diversity within the acceptable ranee. • b. The following building forms and materials shall be adhered to 1. Roof. The roof pitch shall be a minimum 8/10 and a maximum of 12/12. A clipped or hipped gable roof shall be mandatary. The roofing material shall be cedar shake shingles with staggered butts. 2. Chimneys. The chimneys shall be stuCCO with chimney caps of weathered copper. 3. Flues. A11 flues shall be galvanized or "paint Lols" sheet metal, painted to match the roof. 4. Main Fasia. The main fasia shall be a solid color stain, with brown taupe or gray. 5. Secondary Fasia and Metal Railings above the First Floor. The secondary fasia and metal railings above the first floor shall be an accent trim color of muted green, red or blue. 6. Walls. Walls shall be of stucco and horizontal wood siding. Stucco colors shall be gray, beige or off-white. Wood siding colors shall be gray, brown or . taupe. 7. Stone. Residences will have a minimum of a two foot high stone wainscot in rainbow mix with a sandstone cap around the perimeter of the structure. 8. Windows. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of two inches from the outside wall plane and have a sandstone sill. Trim shall be white, taupe or brown. 9. Outdoor Liahtina. Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed source except for an entry chandelier which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered cooper look metal. 10. Garaaes. No garage doors shall directly face the street. 11. A residential address/nameplate if desired by the owner shall be located on the side of the garage facing the access point to the lot. TT. Landscape. At the time of review of landscape plans provided for any development of single family structures within the Special Development . district No. 22 the Town of Vail shall, in addition to the landscape guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code, consider the following guidelines in the review and approval process: a. Entry Landscaping and liahtina: A plan indicating the landscape treatment of the main project entry shall be submitted and approved. The goal of such a plan shall be the following: 1. Present an identifiable entry point to the subdivision containing plant materials, lighting, and signage of a scale appropriate for the size of the development. 2. Provide appropriate screening to the rear yards (along Lionsridge Loop) of Lots 20-24 which blends in with the entry treatment. 3. Provide appropriate screening along the western edge of Tract C. • b. When the individual landscape plans are presented for individual lots special care shall be taken in the design of side yard landscaping in order to provide adequate screening between structures. Active outdoor use areas should be located within front and rear yards. c. The concern of the Board shall be to improve the natural appearance of the Subdivision and the maintenance of such appearance. Owners and their representatives or builders will be required to: 1. Minimize disruption from grading. 2. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion and appearance reasons. 3. Use indigenous species of plant materials. 4. Select the man-made elements that blend and are compatible with the land. 5. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever possible. 6. Conserve and protect topsoil, rock formations and unique landscape features. 6. PHASING PLAN The first phase of the Development District (1990-91} shall include the following improvements: -Lots 2M3 (Model A} -Lots 1, 4, 24 {Model B} -Project Entry Plan Completion -Final Grading of Common Open Space and Revegetation of Native Grasses in all Undeveloped portions of the project. -Paving of Lionsridge Lane -All underground utilities in place and stubbed to individual lots as well as drainage improvements. The second through fifth phases (1991-1996) of the Development District shall include construction of 4 to 5 units per year until the project is built out. II. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION., PRELIMYNARY PLAN REVIEW The major subdivision section of the zoning code in 17.16.110 PEC Review Criteria states: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning . ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other applicable documents, environmental integrity, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the town, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses." Tt is important to realize that the proposal is a resubdivision of 19 existing duplex lots. A Special Development District and Major Subdivision have already been approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council which allowed the developer to resubdivide the 19 existing duplex lots into 24 single family lots. In general, the changes to the proposal do not have any major impacts on the subdivision criteria. Due to the fact that the proposal represents a resubdivision of an existing approved subdivision, a reduction in allowable density, has no significant environmental impacts and is compatible with surrounding low to medium density residential uses, the • proposed plan is supportable. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Staff did not require an additional environmental impact report for the changes requested. The proposed changes do not necessitate a revised environmental impact report. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA, 1. nP_slan 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 existing SDD has actually been improved in respect to the design of the project. The increase in setbacks along the ridgeline on the south side of the subdivision will improve the visual integrity of the project. The previous SDD called for only a 15' rear setback. Under the new proposal setbacks will range from 35 to 75 feet. The developer is also including specific architectural guidelines for the SDD. The guidelines have been reviewed by the Design Review Board and have received conceptual support. These Guidelines will encourage consistent material, roof farms, and substantial landscaping which will benefit this project as well adjacent property owners. • As with the previous proposal, the project does deviate from the standard regulations governing mass and bulk for the single family residential zone district. However, the staff feels that these deviations are acceptable due to the overall density reduction and the provision of a large common open space which can be used by residents within the project. 2. Uses. activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. With the amendments to the SDD, the density remains essentially the same except that the developer is willing to include 6 employee dwelling units into the project. The developer may also build up to a total of 15 employee dwelling units if he so desires. In previous Special Development District approvals, the staff has never counted employee dwelling units for GRFA or density purposes. Assuming that the developer builds 6 employee dwelling units, the project would still be under the previous allowed density of 38 units as 3o units would be built. If the developer builds 15 employee dwelling units along with the 24 single family units, the project will be only 1 dwelling unit over the originally approved 35 unit amount. Employee dwelling units are proposed to be located above the garages on the lots having the larger GRFA allotment of 3,171 square feet. The developer is providing the type of employee housing unit which has been deemed very attractive as there is minimal impact on the neighborhood and the employee housing units are dispersed throughout a large area. Staff believes that the developer has proposed a very compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses in the area. 3. Compliance with barking and loading requirements as outlined in Chanter 18.52., All parking requirements will meet the Town of Vail standards outlined in Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail zoning code. Each employee dwelling unit will be required to have one garage parking space. 4. Conformitv with applicable elements of the Vail, Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Uesian, Plans. The Master Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one which is suitable for medium density residential uses. The reasons behind this were the site's good access, compatibility with the neighborhood's other residential uses, the suitable topography for medium density, as well as the overall long-term need for more medium density residential sites in the Town. The following are applicable land use policies applicable to the proposal: 1.12: Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed (infill) areas. 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. 5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demand 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 varied sites throughout the community. The proposal complies with all of these policies. 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the, special development district is proposed. The site is not located within any geologic hazard area. 6. 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 preservation of open slopes below the southern ridgeiine of the project is important. Staff wanted to ensure that units would not extend down the hillside. It should be pointed out that units will be visible from I-70. However, the intent is to pull the development back from the ridge. The common open space is also a very positive part of the project. U • 7. A circulation system designed for bath vehicles and, pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic, circulation. No changes have been proposed to Lionsridge Lane which will be a public road. The developer will be required to meet Town of Vail standards for the road and approvals from both Public Works and the Fire Department before final plat review are necessary. Staff strongly recommends that the four additional road cuts along Lionsridge Laop be denied. Public Works has concerns with the existing five road cuts off of Lionsridge Loop for Lots Z5-19. However, due to the fact that these were approved during the original SDD review and having these lots accessed from Lionsridge Lane would destroy the open space, staff will not request that these road cuts also be removed. The Town of Vail engineer will also require that for the existing five road cuts approval will be necessary in order to review the grades, orientation of the cut, proposed landscaping and drainage, and site distance for each cut. Public works has cited major concerns about the four additional cuts due to inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic from each new cut, which creates a safety problem. Access off of Lionsridge Lane will also encourage site planning and architecture that will break-up the mass and bulk of structures along Lionsridge Loop. Instead of having nine homes orienting towards Lionsridge Loop, only five will face north. The remaining four homes will face south. The developer is constructing a public road to service the proposed lots. It is simply good planning to require these lots (20-23} to utilize the road within the subdivision. This solution in no way compromises the common open space. It is our understanding that the owners of the property are working with Solar Crest Condominiums to resolve their parking and access problem. Staff feels that it is only reasonable to reauest a solution from the • developer and not require a solution as the problem is truly an issue which requires cooperation on the part the Solar Crest owners. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.- The landscape plan is generally the same for the common space as was approved under the original SDD. Staff's primary concern with this project is that the site will be revegetated as soon as possible. Secondly, the landscaping between residences must be substantial and not symmetrical to give a more natural appearance to the subdivision. Amore specific review of the landscaping for each site will occur by the Design Review Board. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable. functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Staff has no problem with the phasing plan proposed. We encourage the developer to quickly pave Lionsridge Lane and revegetate the entire site that was disturbed • through the grading process approved last year. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision and the revisions to Special Development District No. 22 for this property. The requested changes generally improve the subdivision and will allow for a more architectural pleasing development of the property. The conditions of approval for the Special Development District and Major Subdivision are as follows: Special Development District Conditions,: 1. The Special Development District shall be required to include 6 employee dwelling units. The developer may provide up to 15 employee dwelling units if so desired. The employee dwelling units shall only be allowed on lots 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23 that each have a GRFA of 3,171. An employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 400 square feet and a maximum of 500 square feet. An employee dwelling unit shall be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed garage parking space. The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted on a • permanent basis as employee housing and shall meet the requirements of Section 18.13.080 B 10 a-d of the Town of Vail zoning code. Employee dwelling units shall be prohibited from having wood-burning fireplaces. Employee dwelling units shall not be counted toward density or GRFA for the subdivision. Each owner shall be required to prepare an employee housing unit agreement for Town approval and recording at Eagle county before a building permit is released for the proposed residence. The owner of the lot shall be required to document on an annual basis to the Town of Vail that the unit has been rented as a long term rental per the requirement outlined in Section 18.13.080 B10 1-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. 2. The requested four additional curb cuts shall not be approved. 3. The Special Development District will not be effective until the Major Subdivision is recorded at Eagle . County. 4. The Major Subdivision shall be recorded at Eagle County before a building permit shall be released for any construction on the subdivision including common improvements as well as individual residences. 5. The Town of Vail Engineer shall have the right to review and approve the five approved curb cuts for Lots 15-19 to ensure proper driveway orientation, landscaping, visibility, and drainage before a building permit is released for any of the units on these lots. 6. The landscaping, signage, and wall design for the entry to the subdivision must be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer before final DRB approval. Mayor Subdivision Conditions of Approval,: These conditions of approval shall be addressed before a final plat is submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval. 1. Lionsridge Lane shall be reoriented to a 90 degree angle where it intersects Lionsridge Loop. • 2. A 20 foot roadway having a maximum 4 percent grade shall be constructed at the main entry into the subdivision. 3. There shall be a 20 foot tangent before the vertical curve at the access point to the subdivision begins. 4. The drainage plan shall be revised to relate to the new drainage criteria outlined in the report titled TR X55, dated June 1986. 5. A revised drainage study shall be submitted which updates the Intermountain report dated January 1989. 6. The Lionsridge Lane roadway profile shall be revised to address the changes in grade on the site due to the approved grading plan. 7. A pavement design based on soil compaction tests shall be submitted for the Town Engineer's approval. 8. The drainage ditch along Lionsridge Lane shall be vegetated with natural grasses as opposed to cobble. 9. A l0 foot right-of-way along either side of Lionsridge Lane shall be provided l0. All plans for the major subdivision shall be updated to show the revised lot lines and existing grades. 11. The developer shall meet with the Fire Department and verify the number of useable hydrants for the project. • • 'S 1 . To: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and Environment Commission Community Development Department March 26, 1990 A request to amend Special Development District #19, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge. Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hi11 Family On February 12, 1990, the PEC reviewed this request. The applicant tabled the item in order to wark with the adjacent property owners on the View impact of the project. Since that time, the applicant has amended the request by slightly changing the location of the proposed building. Below is a comparison of the setbacks due to the change in building location: Setbacks REVISED FEBRUARY 12 FEBRUARY 26 ,STYE PLAN SITE PLAN EXISTING EAST 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET WEST ~ FOOT 2 FEET .2 FEET NORTH 3 FEET 4.5 FEET 1.4 FEET SOUTH 8 FEET 8 FEET 9 FEET The Vail Valley Drive entry has been moved further south in order to allow access through the parte-cochere. This change necessitates the need to move the bus stop to the south. As with the previous proposal (Feb. 12), four trees will need to be replanted or replaced. There have also been some minor changes to the wording of the conditions of approval. These changes are indicated in bold type print and all capital letters. The staff recommendation is for approval of the project. *A revised letter from Eagle Valley Engineering is enclosed for the roof ridge. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: MARCH 26, 1990 SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District #19, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gads Lodge. Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill Family I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This praject~has received one Special Development District approval in 1987. The approved SDD was then revised in the summer of 1989. However, the applicant never pursued final approval from the Town Council. Under each of the previous SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remodel the existing building. With the present request, the applicant would like to demolish the existing building and construct a new building in the approximate original building's footprint with a few modifications. The request to rebuild the Garden of the Gods includes: A. 6 dwelling units = 12,648 sq.ft. of GRFA. • B. it acc~~~u~~odation units @ 4, 086 sq. ft. GRFA 4 accommodation unit lock-offs @ 1,725 sq.ft. GRFA TOTAL: 15 accommodation units @ 5,812 sq.ft. GRFA C. An increase in square footage devoted to 2 employee dwelling units = 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA. The existing SDD calls for 1 au and 1 du having a total square footage of 730 sq. ft. D. An increase in c~,~~.~ton area from the existing amount of 3,575 sq.ft. to 3,712 sq.ft. E. Construct sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. New planters will be built adjacent to the parking lot on the east side of Vail Va11ey Drive (P-2 Farcel). F. Underground parking of 15 spaces. The underground parking allows for the removal of 2 surface spaces on the east side and 2 surface spaces on the south side (Tivoli side) of the project. 2 spaces are removed from the parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive to allow for the sidewalk and planters, Landscaping is proposed for the areas where surface parking is removed. The parking requirement is met. • G. Build a public bus pull-off with bench on the southeast corner of the property. H. The existing height of the building is approximately 43 feet (ridge elevation 8219 ft). The proposed height on the north end of the building will be 43 ft 6 inches (ridge elevation 8219 ft 4 inches). The south half of the building has a height of 47 feet (ridge elevation 8223 ft). The existing zoning of the property (public accommodation zoning} allows for a 48 ft. height far a sloping roof. The designated view corridor ~5 is not impacted by this proposal. * All ridge elevations are measured to the final finished roof including any roof cap, etc. HEIGHTS ASSUME BASE ELEVATION OF 817G FEET. T. The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 11 accommodation units (5812 sq.ft.) as well as 4 accommodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882 s.f.) as short term rentals on a permanent basis. All of the restricted accommodation units and a.u. lock-offs shall be made available to the short-term rental program. Definitions: d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen a.u. = accommodation unit or lodge roam a.u. lock-off = A dwelling unit may include one attached accommodation lock-off or lodge room. **Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis charts. TT. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public Accommodation zone district. The existing SDD zoning that was obtained in 1987 was originally requested because the project did not meet the definition of a lodge, was over the allowable density by .5 dwelling units and had a total common area that exceeded the allowable. Tn respect to all other zoning standards the project met the requirements of the Public Accommodation zone district, This new Special Development District request differs from the Public Accommodation zoning and existing SDD in the following ways • A. Definition of Lodge: The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge. According to the zoning code, Section 18.04.210, Definition of a Lodge: "A lodge means a building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families, either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities." The Public Accommodation zone requires that, at a minimum, 51% of the total GRFA be devoted to accommodation units. 53% of the GRFA is in accommodation units in the existing building. The approved Special Development District allocated 27% of total GRFA to accommodation units. In other words, there is a 4% increase in GRFA devoted to a.u.'s when comparing the old SDD to the proposed SDD. • B. GRFA; The new SDD has a proposed GRFA is The existing SDD square feet. The C. Setbacks: total GRFA of 18,460 square feet. The 866 square feet over the allowable. is under the allowable GRFA by 857 PA zone allows for 17,594 square feet. Tn previous SDD reviews, the existing building was proposed to be remodeled so the setbacks were not changed. In this request, the building will be completely rebuilt. For this reason, the setbacks are no longer a given. The existing building encroaches into the west, north and south setbacks. Below is a summary of how the existing building setbacks compare to New SDD Existing East 20 ft East 20 ft West 2 ft West .2 ft North 4.5 FT North 1.4 ft South 8 ft South 9 ft In respect to all of the other zoning standards and parking, the project meets the requirements of the Public Accommodation zone district. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Uses: Please see Sectian IV.B B. Density/GRFA: Please see Section IV.B C. Setbacks See Section IV.F D. Height The height proposed is within the maximum allowed of 48 feet for a sloping roof. E. Site Coverage The site coverage is below the allowable of 9,67'7 square feet. The proposed site coverage is 7,787_square feet. F. Parking Parking requirements are met for this proposal. TV. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate Environment. Neighborhood, and Adjacent Properties • Relative to Architectural Design, Style, Bulk, Building Heightr Buffer Zones, Identity. Character, Visual Integrity and Orientation. The architecture of the building is significantly upgraded by this proposal. The use of stone and stucco, additional landscaping, removal of six surface parking spaces and underground parking will improve the appearance of the building. The roof has been designed so that there will be no impacts on the designated view corridor. The building location is basically the same. However, areas where the building encroached into the setbacks have been decreased slightly at the closest points (north and west setbacks}. The proposal will have a positive impact on the character of the neighborhood. B. Uses, Activity and Density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density The proposal is one du under the allowable density far the Public Acc~,~~.~~odation zone district. For PA zoning, 12.5 dwelling units (d.u.} are allowed. 11.5 dwelling units are proposed, (Please remember 2 accommodation units = 1 dwelling unit}. It is positive that the project is actually under the allowable density. Lodge Definition Similar to the approved SDD, the amended SDD falls short of meeting the definition of a lodge which would require that more than 50~ of the GRFA be devoted to accommodation units (a.u.'s). However, the new SDD actually allocates more GRFA (1,21fi sq ft) to accommodation units than the existing SDD. The average size of the accommodation unit is also increased in the new proposal from 287 square feet (existing SDD} to 372 square feet. The number of accommodation units does decrease from 16 (accommodation units plus accommodation unit lack-offs--old SDD} to 15 accommodation units and accommodation unit lock-offs in the new proposal. Also, the number of dwelling units has been decreased from 8 d.u.'s to 6 d.u.'s in the new proposal. However, the GRFA far the dwelling units has increased from 12,141 square feet (old SDD) to 12,648 square feet in the new SDD for d.u.'s. In general, existing SDD the size of project is n slight incre negative imp properties. n the new SDD is an improvement aver the in that the number of d.u.'s is decreased, the accommodation unit is increased, and the o longer over the allowable density. The ase in GRFA (866 s.f.) does not have a major act on the project or surrounding Restricted Units As stated in the previous SDD memo, the Ramshorn project was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden of the Gods. Tn analyzing this type of request, the staff has taken the position that maintaining rental restricted units for the bed base is positive for the community. The intent of the requirement that a majority of the project square footage be devoted to accommodation units is to maintain the purpose of the Public Accommodation district as a "site for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors." (Section 18.22.110) Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning is once again requested, there is some flexibility in how the intent of the Public Accommodation zone district may be maintained without meeting the precise requirement to have a majority of square footage devoted to accommodation units. The staff originally analyzed this project in terms of available rental units or "keys," i.e., au's or du's that are available for rent. The new proposal has 21 "keys" available for guests. This number of "keys" is based on the fact that 15 accommodation units and 6 dwelling units are available as POTENTIAL short term rental units for guests. Of the 21 potential rentable units, 18 will be restricted as short term rentals including 3 dwelling units. The percent of units available for short term rental increases from 70$ or 17 "keys" to 86~ or 18 "keys." GRFA The additional GRFA (866 square feet] is due certainly to the fact that units area being expanded, but also because the circulation within the structure has been designed in a more efficient manner. Employee Housing The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing employee unit situation for the building. Two employee n LJ units will be added having a total square footage of 1,802 square feet. The total existing square footage devoted to employee units will be increased by 1072 square feet when compared to the existing SDD. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. All parking requirements are met. D. Conformity with acplicable elements of the Vail Compliance Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design Plans LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the following ways: 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used mare efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to Condominiums should be discouraged. 4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community • .7 F. Xdentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the Special Development District is proposed. Not applicable. • F. Site plan, t~rovisions responsive vegetation, community. building design and location and open space designed to produce a functional development and sensitive to natural features, and overall aesthetic quality of the The applicant has developed a site plan that is functional and has a high level of aesthetic quality. The amount of open space, mass and bulk of the building and pedestrian/vehicular circulation have been planned in a sensitive manner. An important question is why is it appropriate to allow the new building to encroach into the 20 foot setbacks? These encroachments are supportable, as the configuration of the building, access, and parking are made more functional with some flexibility for the 20 foot setbacks. The building could be pushed into the northeast corner of the site which would create problems for traffic circulation, separate the building from pool amenities and possibly impact the Vorlaufer to a greater degree. Under the new SDD, the building will continue to encroach into a drainage and utility easement. All of the utilities except for the cable TV have vacated the easement. Public Works will agree to vacate ALL OR A PORTION OF THE drainage easement as long as the applicant agrees to construct curb, gutter, and other necessary drainage improvements to the east, north and south sides of the property. G. The circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. The Ramshorn has built a sidewalk along the south west side of their property that also extends over to Golden Peak. It makes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add the two sidewalks, as pedestrians coming from the transportation center will walk along bath sides of Vail Valley Drive. Guests of the Garden of the Gods will also use the sidewalk. The present bus stop is Located at the northeast corner of the property. The new southwest location is better for the owners of the Garden of the Gods in that the bus stop does not block the visibility of their site. (Four trees will need to be relocated due to the new bus stop.) Tn addition, safety is increased for vehicles entering and existing off the Garden of the Gods property as well as for the general public. It is very reasonable and appropriate to request that the applicant make these improvements given the request for an SDD. ~. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features,, recreation, views and functions. The project proposal includes the following landscape improvements: * new planters along the west side of the pool * landscape buffer along west side of property * existing spa by pool replaced by landscaping * 4 on-site surface parking spaces replaced by landscaping * 2 parking spaces on P-2 parcel removed and replaced by sidewalk and planters * curb and gutter and any asphalt work necessary to handle the drainage problems will be rebuilt The landscaping proposal is extremely positive and will add to an already well landscaped project. The only area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional. and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. Not applicable. The entire project is to be built the summer of 1991. V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS Below is a summary of how the Vail Village Master Plan relates to this proposal. • A. Illustrative Plans: 1. Land Use Plan: The Garden of the Gods property is indicated as "medium/high density residential". This section states that a majority of the Village's lodge roams and condominium units are located in this land use category. The goal of the plan is to maintain these areas as predominantly "lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail"". The proposal generally complies with this description of the land use category. 2. Open space Plan: This plan calls far planting buffers along the east side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the surface parking an the P-2 Parcel. The applicant has worked with the Planning Department and Town engineer to arrive at a solution that removes the existing planters and private parking from the public right-af-way to allow space far a new sidewalk and planters. r~ 3. Parking and Circulation Plan: This plan calls for sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley Drive. Sidewalks are included in the proposal. 4. Conceptual Building Height Plan: This property falls within the three to four maximum range of building stories. A story is defined as nine feet of height with na roof included. The proposed height falls under the public accommodation zoning maximum for a sloping roof of 48 feet. There are no impacts on the designated view corridor #5. Please see the attached letter from Eagle Valley Engineering and photo of the view corridor. B. Sub-area Concepts The Garden of the Gods falls under the east Village Sub- area No.7. This plan states that the most important public improvements in the sub-area relate to pedestrian • and bicycle safety. The public right-of-way should be • maintained and expanded for public use whenever possible. Sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically to this property. The plan states: 1. #7-3 Vail Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk (separated from the road where possible) through the sub-area linking the Golden Peak base facility with the Vail Transportation Center. Landscape improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be included as required to meet demands of pedestrian traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.4. 2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infill - Presently utilized as parking for adjacent properties. While zoned far parking (covenant restrictions also limit use of this parcel to parking), this site could accommodate a small lodge. Practical difficulties in developing this site include the covenant restrictions in maintaining on-site parking for existing and future demand. Possible public uses for this site include pedestrian and bus circulation improvements. Special emphasis on 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4. The proposal complies with Sub-Area 7-3 and does not prohibit the eventual implementation of 7-4. C. Vail Village Master Plan Goals Objectives. Policies, and Action Steps that apply to Garden of the Gods Proposal. Below is a summary of the goals, objectives, and policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods proposal: GOAL #1: ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN TTS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. • 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. GOAL #2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR ROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policy: Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.& Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over the allowable by existing zoning. n U 2.6.2 Policy Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to ensure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 2.6.3 Policy The Tawn of Vail may facilitate the development of affordable hausing by providing limited assistance. GOAL #3: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 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. 3.4 Objective: Develap additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible greenspace areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Pian. GOAL #4: TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. C, 4.1.1 Policy: Active recreational facilities sha11 be preserved (or relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the Village) in any development or redevelopment of property in Vail Village. GOAL #5: INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND IMPROVE AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 5.1.5 Polio Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5. 4 Ob-i ect ive Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. 5.4.2 Policy: . Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped. For the sake of brevity, staff will not address each goal, policy, and objective separately. The project supports the Village Plan in the fallowing ways: 1. The redevelopment is a high quality proposal that maintains architectural scale as well as almost all the zoning standards for the underlying PA zoning. 2. Significant public improvements are incorporated into the redevelopment such as sidewalks, the bus stop, and landscaping. 3. Short-term accommodation units are upgraded. 4. Large and more functional employee housing units are proposed. 5. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by sidewalk and landscape improvements. • . 6. Underground parking is included, while surface spaces are removed. The remaining parking is visually screened. The project meets its required parking. 7. Public transportation is improved and made safer as a result of the new bus stop. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically, our position is very similar to our recommendation on the Ramshorn project. As stated previously: "Although the inability of the end product to meet the strict definition of a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will continue to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing high quality guest accommodations in the Public Accommodation zone district." The applicant has provided significant improvements through the redevelopment which will benefit both guests and owners of the Garden of the Gods, as well as the general public. The proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Special Development District review, goals of the Land Use Plan, as well as Vail Village Master Plan. . Staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised employee hauling agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the location, type of unit, and square footage for each employee housing unit. The two employee housing units shall be restricted permanently. The agreement shall be submitted and approved by the owner and the Town of Vail before a building permit is issued for the project. SECTION 1$.13.Q8o SHALL BE USED FOR THE WORDING FOR THE AGREEMENT EXCEPT THAT THE UNITS SHALL BE EMPLOYEE HOUSING PERMANENTLY. 2. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to restrict the proposed accommodation units, accommodation unit lock-offs and three dwelling units as chart term rental units on a permanent basis. Even if the project is conduminiumized, these units shall remain as short term rentals. This written agreement shall be submitted by the owner and approved by the staff before a building permit is issued for the project. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED AS A CONVENANT THAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND. • 3. The owners of the Garden of the Gads shall construct a sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their property as well as a sidewalk and planters adjacent to • the FRONTAGE OF •rt~: P-2 PARCEL ALLOCATED TO :~•nr: GARDEN OF THE GODS. The final design for the sidewalks, planters, and bus stop shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department and Community Development Department far approval. The sidewalks, planters and bus stop shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to this condition for the Town attorney's approval before a building permit is released for the project. If needed, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a public easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage. The applicant shall submit the easement agreement to the Town attorney and Town Council for approval before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released for the project. 4. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt work etc.) improvements necessary along the north, south, and east sides of their property. Final design for the drainage improvements shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Department for final approval. These improvements shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 5. A revocable right-of-way agreement shall be completed for any encroachments on the public right-of-way. This agreement must be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved before a building permit will be released on the project. 6. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall submit a utility and drainage easement vacation to the Town Council for approval before a building permit may be released for the project. 7. ALL FIREPLACES SHALL BE GAS AND MEET THE TOWN OF VAIL ORDINANCE Guv~RNTNG GAS FIREPLACES. 8_ RUN--OFF CONTROL & POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SURFACE PARKING LOTS. THIS ISSUE SHALL BE ADDRESSED AT ~ti~ DRB RENEW OF THE PROJECT AND INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS. Recommendations to the Design Review Board . 1. The vent on the west side of the pool should be removed OR SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING. 2. The north elevation of the building should have more transparency. 3. The four trees that will be either relocated or replaced due to the construction of the bus stop should be addressed. If the trees must be removed, landscaping that has substantially the same positive impact should be required. • ;; ~ ~,~3-u f' ;' ~- ~ w S • WINTER 1990 GARDEN Off' THE GODS ZONING ANALYSIS ;:;PUB.'ACCaMMOD ' ::.; EXISTING:: .:.....; ~.. ,, O!f} SDD .. 16 @7742 Sa.FT. t0 AU 51 ~o GRF=A fN AU'S 6 AU LOCK OFFS"" t6 @4586 SO.Fi'. NA 2 @ 6745 SQ. FI', $ @ t 2141 SQ. FT. 1 AU 6t0 SQ. FT. 1 DU 215 SD. FT. NA Z DU 5t5 SQ. FT. 1 DU 5t5 5Q. FT. - 1.5' " @ 1 ~ 25 SQ. FT. 2 @730 SQ. FT. 17594 $p, Ff. 14543 SQ. FT. I 1b737 SQ. FT. '52.5 DU t0 DU I 1$ DU (AUS +DUS) 4399 SQ. FT. 3575 SD. FT. 4360 SQ. FI•. 45 FT. FLAT ROOF 42 FT. ~ SAMS 48 ~. SLOPE RQOF 20FT. 12096' SQ. FF'. 6598, S©. FI". .., EAST 20.0 FT. WEST .2 FT. NORTH 1.4 F i . SOUTH 9.0 FT 63fi3 SD. FT. OK 22 READ. 2s Ex. EAST 20.0 FT. WEST .2 FT. NORTH 1.4 F~. SOUTH 9.0 FT 6831 SQ. FT. OK 27 READ. 28 ~Ropos;~ .:: NEUV SDD ..-: iI AU 4 AU DOCK OFrS i5 @ 5$12 SD. FT. 6 @ 12648S~. FT. 1 DU 401 t DU 901 2DU @ 1802 SQ. FT. ~ t $48 0 Sa. FT. _0.1.5 DU (AUS +DUS} 3712 SQ. FT. 3FT. 6" NORTH END 47 FT. SOUTH END EAST 20.0 FT. WEST 2, F7. NORTH 4•~FT. SOUTH $ FT 7 214 SD. FT. OK 26 RE{7D. 29 PRDFDSi=D * Restaicted employee units are not counted towards density or GRFA ** I DL' equals 2 AU *** Standard parking requirements applied **** A DU in amulti-family building may iaclude one attached accom- modation unit (AU lock-off) no larger than one third of the total floor area of the DU. A lock-off is not counted for density. Lock- off GRFA is added to the total DU GRFA. Parking for clock-off is calculated by adding the AU lack-aff to tze DU GRFA. The DU parking requirements are applied to the focal GRFA for the DU plus AU Lock-off. .~, • y WINTER 1990 i ~ GARDEN OF THE GADS UNIT USE ANALYSIS PA ZONE EXISTING . :. :.OLD SAD ~-: ( .::::'NEW SOD .:`% OF TDTAL '' < 27 9~O 317 '`~ ~'~`GAFA !N AUS ~: 51 Q/c 53 9~a AVG. AU 287 S.F. AVG. AU 372 S,F, %~..QF.TDTAL.:~; . . . .. _ "~°GRFA~IN~DUS ~'~~ 49 9~0 47 ~/0 73 ~/0 69% `'<::~i6~.OF;TOTAL, °;;: 18 AUS @ 4596 I5 AUS 5812* GAFA R1=IVTAL ~ 1 DU @ 1134 3 DVS 2882.5 ' RESTAIGTED PER NA 0 5730 5.F'.QA 34fl/o 8695 S.Z=.QA 47 9~a €;;:TDTAL` KEYS ;::`~:; NA 18 24 ~ 2I ~ ~:=>: ~..% OF. KEYS =< ~RESTAf~ i tt~ PER NA 0 17 KEYS OR 70 ~/0 18 KEYS oR 86~ * All AU and AIT lock-ofrs shall be used for short-term rental through out the pear. • • ~~~~~ ~V~' February 12, 1990 Ms. Pam Hopkins Snowden & Hopkins Architects 201 Gore Greek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Garden of the Gods Expansion Dear Pam, Per your request I have reviewed the impact the above mentioned expansion would have on the Town of Vail view corridor from View Point #5, The elevation of the highest existing north-south ridge Line of the structure is 8219.0 feet.If the north end of the existing ridge was moved to the east seven feet the new ridge line could be built to an elevation of 8229.6 feet. Tf the approximate mid-point of the existing ridge was moved to the east five feet the new ridge Could be built to an elevation of 8219.4 feet. Neithez of the new proposed ridge elevations would encroach into the defined view corridor. Please call if I can be of any further assistance on this project. Sincerely, Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. ~ C~~ Dan Corcoran, P.L.S. President i 199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagie-Vail Past Office Box 1230 Edwards, CO 81632 303-949-1406 fow~ of nail 75 south ironiage road nail, Colorado 81fi57 (303) 479-2138 (303) 479-2139 oiiice of community development MEMORANDUM • T0: Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 27, 1990 SUBJECT: Preliminary Alternatives for Town of Vail affordable Housing. The consultant and planning staff have meet with employers, developers, and employees to discuss the preliminary concepts out- lined in the attached memo. The memo is only a draft document. The primary purpose of the list of alternatives is to stimulate discussion at the joint work session. Comments from the council and planning commission as well as developers, employers and employees will then be compiled and used to refine the alternatives, Additional ideas brought up in the focus groups will also be added to the list of alternatives. At Tuesdays joint work session, the consultant and planning staff will led a focus group which will allow council members and commissioners to view their personal opinions on the alternatives. C: • ROSALL REMMEN CARES ~ "~-`~'~`'~``~A'`°`"p`` ~ ~ ~ _ ~a~ FEAK~ cTREET ~' per..'.".'vG JR;iKti D~5'Gti H''.D r~ES~:,G`., c. __-- C'_0= ~_ E:,.~ ... ~~~l,f S=i REGULATION ALTERNATIVES: TOWN OF VAIL AFFORDABLE HOUSYNG ANALYSIS L Requirements for employers and residential developers to set aside units for low and/or moderate income residents/employees. A -Eligibility Residential developers of 5 or more units need to allocate at least 20 percent of their units to low or moderate income employees for rent only. Provisions: • Can be on-site incorporated as part of development Plan or off-site, if approved by Town of Vail PEC and/or Town Council. If off-site, specifics, si#e plan and approval of Eagle County or applicable local jurisdiction must be received and documented prior to issuance of any building permits. • • Must be newly constructed units; cannot be met by "reserving long term rental units" ou# of existing housing stock, unless exceptional arcumstances warrant "variance" due to hardship or documented period of excess supply of units existing (criteria to be established). • In establishing number of units required, applicant rounds to nearest whole number if units will be constructed, i.e. 5-7 units require 1 affordable unit, 8-12 units require 2 affordable units, etc. • Applicant can elect to pay to Town of Vail Housing Authority {or other assigned entity) a fee in lieu of construction of said affordable housing. The fee would be deposited into an account allocated exclusively for provision of low/moderate income housing by Town of Vail. Fee will be calculated on the basis of $25,000 per unit, with fractional units calculated. • Tawn of Vail will define maximum rent levels which can be charged for each unit {variation by size of unit, # of bedrooms, etc.) based upon formula related to median income, adjusted annually. Developer must agree to maintain designated units under "affordable housing criteria control" through covenants which will remain in force for a minimum of 15 years. + Once constructed, units can be "transferred" to other locations upon approval of Town of Vail, i.e. a unit constructed at one location may be converted to market rent or short-termed if at least a comparable quality unit is provided at an alternate location either within the development or • off the site. J -tip ..~ ` ~ ` w ~r R45ALL REMMEN CARES • The provision applies to all qualifying developments. No variances ar waivers are available. Town may enact a provision which sets up a criterion such as a documentable vacancy rate in affordable housing units of 10 percent or greater, on an annual basis, that applicant can defer construction of units until such time as vacancy rate dips below 10 percent, at which time units are required to be constructed. This provision, if elected by developer, will be treated as a developer or subdivision a Bement, with a formal bond or acceptable letter of credit deposited, subject to call by Town of Vail. II. Requirements of "em foyers" who wish to construct new square footage either through expansion of existing fadlities or through free standing, independent structures, to set aside/construct law and/or moderate income "employee" housing which represents at least 20 percent of the direct employment generated by the development. Provisions: • Can be on-site or off-site, same as Residential Development requirements. • Can utilize in lieu of payment, same as Residential Development. • • Requirement applies only to amount of new construction approved; cannot be retroactively applied to portions of development already constructed. • Renovation of existing square footage does oat require new affordable housing; only increase in gross square footage ar new "independent" construction applies. • Criteria for office and retail square footage, lodging and resort/recreational fadlities will be developed to calculate the minimum new employee definition. For example: - Office -one per 350 square feet - Retail -one per 300 square feet - Lodging -one per three rooms - Resort - if facilities such as restaurant, ad:ninistradve, etc. utilize above criteria. if expansion an mountain, i.e. new lifts and trails, then special calculation to be considered through negotiation as part of approval process. Employers can provide "for-rent housing only" which they will manage and control. New housing, not control of existing units. • 2 • ROSALL REMMEN CARES • Criteria will be u ' ' ed to relate numbers of employees to number of bedrooms provided, i.e. 1.2 employees per bedroom in standard units, 2 employees per bedroom in dormitory/group housing facilities. • As with residential development requirements, during periods of above 10°k vacancy rates, deferral of obligations combined with bonding requirements subject to "call" by Town is permitted. • Criteria will be established to describe the threshold of commercial expansion/new construction which will trigger the employee housing requirement. One possibility is any expansion in excess of 5 percent of the existing square footage or any new facility of 2500 square feet or greater. III. Special provisions to be made available as part of the SDD to anyone seeking increases in density or expansion of uses permitted by right. These provisions apply only in zones where SDD are also permitted. The purpose of this section is to encourage, within reasonable standards and parameters, the production of affordable employee housing units in excess of the . 20 percent required of all development above a certain threshold size. Provisions: • Incorporate in 18.40.050 - Stibmittal Reaurrements: 13) A plan which describes the method by which the applicant will meet the overall housing needs of the employees being generated by the development. Incorporated Into this document is a description of the number and classification of seasonal and year-round employees projected by season, by year. Applicant will state what specific commitments are being made either through on- and/or off-site construction to house ~,..rloyees in excess of the standard 20 percent normally required. • Insert a new section after 18.40.090 - Increase in density beyond that permitted 'bv rieht" in the underlvins~ zone. There are two types o€ developments envisioned related to this section. One entails an employee housing project, exclusively, which is located in either a residential or a commercial zone. The second involves amixed- use ar commercial-oriented development, typically located in an underlying commercial area. With regard to the fixst example, the Gv~~,loyee housing . development, we would suggest the following: 3 R05ALL REMMEN CARES So long as the design criteria defined in 18.40.0$0 and the criteria (perhaps refined) related to benefit to the Tawn outweighing adverse impacts contained within 1$.40.090 can be demonstrated to have been met, maximum density increase beyond that normally permitted in the underlying zoning shall be defined. One of the criteria to be utilized in that derision i$ the affordable housing plan committed as part of the development. Each year the Town would formally adapt an affordable housing policy which establishes a prioritization of affordable housing needs far the community. For example, the Town might initially state that housing facilities for "single" seasonal employees represents the most critical need in the community, with rental housing for middle income families (2-3 bedrooms), employed on a year-round basis as the second priority. Rental levels of $250 per month per person for seasonal employees and $600-750 per month for 2-3 bedroom family housing might be established as part of that policy. The housing plan submitted as art of the SDD application for the employee housing project would be reviewed in the context of the pertinent housing policy. Based upon the quality of the application, including review of all aspects of the design and affordable housing criteria, as well as the applicable Land Use flan standards, the applicant would be eligible to receive an increase in GRFA and/or number of dwelling units of up to 25 percent beyond that which is permitted within the underlying zoning. in the instance of an SDD application involving a mixed use or a commerdal project in order for any increase in density beyond that permitted by the underlying zoning to be approved, a corresponding finding that the applicant is complying with the "targeted" affordable housing plan in a manner which is eater than normally required must be made by the approving board. As in the case of all SDD applications, the overall design criteria and other related criteria For approval must be met in addition to the new affordable housing plan component. It is recognized that 4~..lain areas of the Town such as portions of Vail Village do not allow additional increases in density beyond that permitted by the underlying zoning. The requirements of these particular areas shall not be modified by this provision. 4 • • ROSALL Ri~MMEN CARES N. Caretaker Units Provisions: • Allowed in single-famfly, primary/secondary, duplex and hillside residential zone districts. • 500 s.f. maximum, including kitchen. • One parking space paved. • ,~ence must be owner-occupied. (, ~~ ~~ } • Occupancy of accessory unit must not exceed two people. • The property must meet all zoning standards for parking, landscaping, minimum lot size, etc. • Accessory unit must be located within the existing unit. Minor conversions on the exterior are allowed as long as all zoning standards are met. Setback variances and height variances discouraged. • Accessory unit is incidental to primary use of property as a single or duplex residence. • Notice shall be given to adjacent property owners. • Accessory unit may not be subdivided or sold separately. Unit may not be short-term rented. Accessory unit is permanently designated as a long-term rental to local (see enclosed section on employee-restricted units f.~u~ zoning code}. • Accessary unit agreement is signed by owner and TOV. Agreement is recorded as County. • Process far review is similar to a home occupation permit or perhaps conditional use permit, Additional Provisions: • The community development department shall find that the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. • No variances for setbacks, height, parking, site coverage or landscaping, . site development or gross residential floor area would be approved unless 5 RCtSALL REMMEN CARES the granting of such a variance benefits the visual appearance of the site and surrounding area. • The architectural design of the structure and the materials and colors must be visually harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and structures, and must not unnecessarily block scenic views from existing buildings, • Access to the secondary unit must not adversely affect the privacy of adjacent structures. • The applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to double its capadty far handling trash and outdoor storage. • An application for the second unit, containing the following inf......ation, must be submitted to the community development department for their review. - Name of applicant and address -~ Name of applicant`s representative {if any? - Authorization of property owner -- Location of the property for which the proposal is made . -- A fee of $I00 plus an amount equal to the then-current first-class postage rate for each property owner to be notified hereunder -- A list of the names of the owners of all property adjacent to the subject property and their addressee far the purpose of notification. The proposed plan and all required materials must be submitted to the design review board at their regularly scheduled meeting for their review and approval. • The applicant shall agree in writing: -- That the accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the primary unit for a period of not more ~~r~vr,cw~~than 20 years and the lift of Trent Ruder~rom the date that the certificate of occupancy is issued for said second unit. - That the accessory dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented far any period of less than 30 Consecutive days, and that if it shall be rented it shall be rented only to tenant who are full-time employees in the Upper Ea le Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee is a person who works an .average of 30 hours per week. s • • RCfSALL REMMEN CARES - That the accessary dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of time-shares, interval ownership or fractional #ee. - That a declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be flied a# record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney #or the benefit of the Town to ensure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land. A - An appeal to the planning commission from a decision of the community development department may be made by the applicant, adjacent property owners, or the Town manager. The planning commission can also call up such decisions by a majority vote of those commission members present. B -For all appeals, the appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days following the decision or the decision must be called up by the planning commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. C -The planning commission shall hear the appeal within 30 days of its being filed or called up, with a passible 30-day extension if the commission finds that there is insufficient information. D -The decision of the community development depamnent shall become final after the time for such an appeal or call-up is exhausted within any formal appeal. V. Town of Vail Demonstration Housing Project. Support has been expressed by several focus group partiapants that, in addition to amendments in the Zoning Code such as those outlined above, the Town should move forward with a demonstration project involving public/private cooperation. This program would involve the Town either utilizing an appropriate site which it currently owns or acquiring a new site for the purpose of constructing an employee housing project targeted primarily for seasonal residents. Under this concept, the Town would be responsible #or designing and constructing the project. It would "pre-sell" the units to local businesses and companies on some criteria. Those businesses would then utilize the units they purchase for housing eligible employees in need. The Town itself could also be a buyer of a certain number of the units, In effect, the Town would be the agent responsible for putting the project together, with the costs shared by the parti©pating businesses. Various alternatives could be utilized for ongoing management responsibilities. Covenants would be written to ensure long-term compliance with af#ordable housing restrictions. RO5ALL REMMEN CARES _~~~''. v_. _. ~ :JG~~..'~ H'~';' F.; S~.. rim The Town, through creation of a Housing Authority, could borrow money at below private market interest rates, with revenues guaranteed by the prokect partidpants, ar other funding mechanisms could be established. As one alternative, the Town could sell the units at a slight profit over actual cast, with the additional funds being allocated to the Housing Trust Fund for future use. If this project proves #o be successful, it could be repeated on another si#e. Various sites to be considered for the study have been discussed, and they include: Ulbrich property Mountain Bell tract Spraddle Creek, Parcel B Vail Heights Donovan's Park area Old Tawn Shops site Parcel H at Big Horn Big Horn sanitation site Katsos Ranch Tract "D" by Texaco North of Aspen Tree, east of Sandstone Park ~~orr1~ VI. Revision ~m~x-unum development standards for "dedicated" employee housing units. Discussion has been held regarding the potential of establishing certain development standards or density calculations which would pertain only to dedicated employee housing units. This is a potentially difficult area insofar as the need would be to maintain acceptable standards of quality and neighborhood compatibility, while at the same time recognizing unique needs of employee projects. In the event special standards were to be approved, they would likely address issues such as: • Open space • Parking • Setbacks • Density calculations for dormitory-style or "studio" units • Impact fee reductions • Maximum unit size (projects should not exceed a defined level or size} a • F- Employee Housing Unit Definition: Maximum GRFA 500 s.f. to 900 s.f. Maximum occupancy 2 persons per bedroom Density: employee housing unit equals .5 of a dwelling unit Parking: 1 space per bedroom Kitchen allowed Close proximity to bus or use of private shuttle required Permanent rental restriction Conditional Use review required for project in RC, LDMF, MDMF, HDMF, SDD, ABD, CCIII {possibly other zone districts} Dormitory Housing Unit Definition: Maximum number of ~5 units per building Maximum GRFA of 250 s.f. 1 shared kitchen/lounge per 5 units, 350 s.f. minimum far kitchen Maximum occupancy of 2 persons per unit Parking: 1 space per unit Density: .33 of a dwelling unit Close proximity to busline or use of private shuttle required Permanent rental retraction Conditional use review RC, LDMF, MDMF, HDMF, SDD, ABD. CCIII (possibly other zone districts) ~~ R4SAL~ REMMEN CARES . - : ~ ~.. VII. Ongoing Revenue Sources. In the event the Town wishes to expand the capacity of the affordable housing program to the level by which a predictable funding source is created, we have identified the following two techniques for further evaluation: 1} Employee "head tax" 2) Property tax In each case, the potential might exist to incorporate a "sunset" provision which targets a specific amount of funding to be raised over a 2- to 3-year period, with the tax then being eliminated upon reaching that goal. The purpose for such a program, if desired, would be to assist the community in closing the current deficiency which exists in the supply of affordable housing units through efforts coordinated by the Town, which ukilize private sector participation. • 9 • ,~ Beartree Lot Land Exchange as Proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tannenbaum BACKGROUND AND VASL TOWN COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE BACKGROUND PROPOSAL: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tannenbaum, part-time Vail residents, have proposed the purchase and exchange of approximately 2,000 acres of private land for one acre of United States Forest Service land on Rockledge Road at the base of Vail mountain. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION: Because this proposed Land exchange requires involvement of the United States Forest Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and private land owners, congressional action is being sought to expedite the process. The Tennenbaums hired the firm of Ray Kogosvek and Associates to assemble the acreage offerings, as well as lobby Congress to enact the necessary language. Congressional action must be completed by October 1990 if the exchange is to proceed as scheduled. If the congressional action is not completed, the legislative efforts will terminate and the specific language must be reintroduced in the following Congress. VIEWS OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL What is of consequence here are the undermining of Vail's efforts to preserve open space for its community and the State of Colorado, national land acquisition policy implications, the precedent set through such a land exchange maneuver, subjective weighing of one environment's "worth" vs. another's, and federal disregard for local land and zoning control. The following reflects the Vail Town Council's reasoning for opposing the Beartree Lot land exchange. These views are based on input derived from public meetings held recently and longstanding municipal policy regarding land exchange matters. r LOCAL TMPLICATTONS. • Vail Efforts to Preserve Environmental Quality and Open Space The purchase and preservation of land to be used as open space has been a high priority for the Town of Vail throughout the last decade. A total of $10 million in public funds have been spent to protect 1,400 acres from development in the Vail area. Maintaining Forest Service land as open space, even when it becomes private, has long been practiced and the Vail Town Council will not support a proposal which contradicts these local efforts and priorities. Preservation of Certain Lands at the Expense of Others The proposed land exchange threatens Vail's greatest natural resource, Vail mountain. To state that a parcel of land on this mountain is not as "environmentally significant" as parcels located in various other locations is a very subjective call, particularly since no formal environmental studies have been conducted. Proponents of the exchange contend that one acre of land on Vail mountain is expendable and can be sacrificed for environmental gain elsewhere. The Vail Town Council disputes this subjective judgement and urges public land proponents to work toward a net increase of protected public lands rather than the gain of specific acres at the expense of others. Local Control of Land and Zoning The Town of Vail, Vail Associates and the Forest Service have, in partnership, worked to preserve the outdoor experience which millions of individuals enjoy on Vail mountain annually. Local planning processes and zoning regulations are in place to ensure protection of this natural resource, while providing for controlled growth and development. The Vail Town Council will not support subversion of established avenues for such proposals and the dangerous precedent setting potential of this action. Nonbinding Legislation Those hired by the Tennenbaums contend the legislative language would be "site specific... and is not to be construed as precedent for similar exchanges." The fact of the matter is that no legislative language is binding to future congresses and such legislation, when approved, serves as later justification for similar action. The Vail Town Council will not support efforts which could result in such future proposals. • r NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS: Subversion of National Land Acquisition Policy The Vail Town Council believes public land acquisition should be dictated by national policy makers, under the auspices of established national land acquisition priority lists. The addition or removal of acreage from the public lands system should not be dictated by private sector agendas, as is the case with the Beartree Lot proposal. Subversion of Traditional Federal Land Exchange Process The administrative process is the traditional route for a federal land exchange, such as the one proposed, and involves studies, environmental impact statements, public input from affected parties, etc. Congressional action to implement such an exchange by-passes these important steps, leaving no information regarding the ecological significance of the parcels of land in question. The Town of Vail opposes the means being pursued to accomplish the proposed exchange. Vulnerability of All Public Lands If the Beartree Lot land exchange is accepted, it would seem that perhaps no acre of land is indeed protected.. It becomes evident that if the right offer is made, any parcel of land is fair game. The Vail Town Council will not support an action which undermines the essence of public ownership and leaves all parcels of public land vulnerable. Subjective Judgement of One Person's Wilderness Experience vs. Another's - Vail mountain provides an outdoor experience for millions annually and is indeed the extent of many individuals' outdoor exposures. This swap assumes that preserving acreage in undeveloped areas is mare valuable than preserving an undeveloped portion of a resort area. The Vail Town Council is opposed to the exchange as it devalues the nature experience of Vail visitors in favor of that experienced by individuals in other locations. Tennenbaum Currently Has No O tion on the Proposed Lands The land exchange proponents will not actually have a legal option an the lands to be swapped until congressional action is taken. Thus, the resulting acreage to be swapped could be quite different and even less desirable for the public good than that proposed. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 9, 1990 12:00 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from March 26, 1990 meeting. 3 2. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Block 1, Tract C, Site C (555 East Lionshead Circle) Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association TABLED 3. A request for a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais- Moseley Construction. 6 4. A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn Terrace Unit ~D-7, 4242 East Columbine Way. Applicant: Kathryn Benysh TABLED 5. A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase ITT) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem 2 6. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark) in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. ~ 7. A request for a conditional use for a Learning Center Lab in the lower level of the proposed parking structure and to add two new half levels of parking to the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (181 West Meadow Drive). Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. a: ~. F 5 8. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance, and conditional use far a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties 9. NWCC~G Mtg. - Wilderness Legislation; April 12, 1990 from 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Silver Creek) 10. Reschedule PEC meeting of May 28 (Memorial Day) to June 4th. • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1994 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Tom Braun Shelly Mello Mike Mollica Penny Perry The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Annroval of minutes for March 26, 1994 meetincr. t, ~~ ~'..,'....... pp\ ~ ~~~, . Motion for approval of minutes as written was made b~~ Jim Shearer and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Ttem No. 2: A request for an exterior alteration and a setback. variance for the Lifthouse Lodqe. located at Block 1, Tract C. Site C (555 East Lionshead Circlet Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association. Shelly Mellor presented the proposal explaining that there were two requests involved: an exterior alteration and a rear setback variance. The applicant was requesting the approval in order to construct an addition to the Lifthouse that would add approximately 217 sq. ft. of common space for a lobby and 45 sq. ft. for a common office addition. The addition would encroach 14 ft. into the 14 ft. setback over an existing storage shed. The variance was necessary because the expansion would increase the nonconformity of the building. The staff recommended approval of both the variance and the exterior alteration. The expansion would not be a grant of special privilege and there were no negative impacts that would result from the addition. The proposed alterations would improve the appearance of the general area and the building. John Rosolack, architect representing the applicant, stated that he felt he could not present much more than what Shelly already had explained. 1 Shelly explained that there was no additional parking requirement due to the fact the applicant was increasing a common space. Kathy asked John Rosolack if the space below the present deck, where it was currently wood, would be stucco as shown on the plans and John responded that it would be stucco. They would rebuild the foundation area as well. Dalton Williams asked if the area underneath the stairway could be closed off in some manner and John answered that it would be awkward to do so. Chuck Crist commented that he felt the proposal would be a great improvement. Motion for approval of a SETBACK VARIANCE ner the staff memo was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Motion for approval of an EXTERIOR ALTERATION tier the staff" memo with the following conditions was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Jim Shearer. 1. Stairs to lower level opening be improved. 2. The applicant rebuild the foundation and stucco the wall. VOTE: 7 - Q IN FAVOR. , Item No. 3: A request for a final plat for a maior subdivision and for SDD No. 22. a resubdivision of Lots 1-19. flock 2. Lionsridae Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Daunhinais. Daunhinais-Moseley Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant asked to have the item tabled to the next meeting. Motion to table the item to the next ~eetina was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. " Item No. 4: A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn . Terrace Unit #D-7. 4242 East Columbine Wav. AoAlicant: Kathrvn Benvsh Shelly Mello presented the proposal explaining that the applicant was requesting a variance from the 10' side and rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 228 sq. ft. addition on the north side of the building. The existing duplex unit consisted of approximately 928 sq. ft. of GRFA and had an allowed GRFA of 708.94 sq. ft. under MDMF zoning. The variance requested was for a 15' encroachment into the 20' rear setback and a 13' encroachment into the 20' side yard setback. Bighorn Terrace was a nonconforming subdivision. The applicant had also applied for ,additional GRFA under Section 18.71.030. The proposed addition would impact Lot 6 to the west and would increase the amount of shade that would be cast. The staff recommendation was for denial. The staff felt that the variance would be a grant of special privilege and that there were no exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to Lot 7 which did nat generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. Erich Hill, architect representing the applicant, presented a drawing which showed easements and parking. He felt this addressed the special privilege issue. Erich explained that the distance between structures on the side of the proposal, was 31'. They had a letter from Linda Moore, Lot 6 owner, stating she had no problem with the addition. Kathy Warren asked what the zoning was on the property and Eric responded MDMF. Regarding the shade problem, Erich explained that the shade did not affect the adjacent home, and only affected the lawn area in the dead of winter. Concerning the special privilege issue, Erich reiterated Shelly's statement regarding the fact that there had been 8 previous setback requests and of these, 8 were approved. There had been considerations for the setbacks. The proposal was a modest improvement to a modest home. Kathy Benysh felt that Erich had stated the proposal well and had nothing further to say. ~ ' Connie Knight asked to see the letter from Linda Moore, the - neighbor on Lot 6 and Dalton asked how the rest of the neighbors felt. Kathy Benysh explained that she had a few other letters and verbal approval from the rest of the neighbors. No neighbors were in opposition. Kathy Warren asked Erich to review the square footage and Erich reported that the lot was 2025 sq. ft. Under MDMF zoning 708 sq. ft. of GRFA would be allowed. Presently, there was 928 sq. ft. The additional 228 sq. ft. would be a total proposed of 1157 sq. ft. Kathy Warren commented that the property was zoned MDMF and that generally the setback applied to the whole property not each building. She felt this was a hardship. The zoning did not relate to the reality of development within the subdivision. Jim Shearer asked how typical the request was that most buildings encroach into the setback areas that they could build upon without vari; elaborated explaining that of 26 total homes, onto and 8 granted variances. Eric felt that that more variances had been granted prior to and Shelly answered and few lots have ~nces. Kathy Benysh 19 had been added it was possible annexation in 1975. Dalton commented that the entire area was cramped but that this was haw it was laid out. He felt that, since no neighbors opposed the project and there were hardships with setbacks, the project would not be a grant of special privilege. Diana agreed there was a hardship. A motion to annrove the request for a side and rear setback ner finding C-2 of the staff memo and the fact that MDMF zoning had been atiDlied to what is in reality a P~ residence creating a tihvsiaal hardshio and unusual circumstances was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. Jim Shearer felt that the proposal would be an improvement to the neighborhood and would like to see Kathy Benysh set a precedent by adding lavish landscaping and Diana explained to Jim that Mrs. Benysh would be required by the Design Review Board to landscape. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 5: A request for a maior subdivision and for a maior amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's R~.dae Sta.bdivisioxi. Filina Na. 2 fThe Valley - Phase IIII Antilicant: Brad and Susan Tiossem Mike Mollica explained that the applicant had requested to table the item. A motion to table the item was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathv Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item Na. 6: A request for a maior amendment to St3ecial Develoament District No. 7 lThe Marriott Markl in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 emulovee housina units. Aunlicant; Marriott Cortioration. Tom Braun presented the proposal for the staff describing a brief background of the project and the justification for using the Land Use Plan for direction. Tom reviewed the 9 design criteria used in evaluating a Special Development District. Based on the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, it was 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 was to evaluate whether the design was sensitive to all applicable criteria outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code. The staff recommended approval of the proposal amendment with the stipulation that the developers/owner meet the conditions found within the memo. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, explained the changes made since the January work session. The PEG, during the work session, had asked them to decrease the mass and to pull the bulk back from the creek. In response, the applicant pulled back 20' from the creek and stepped down the height. They had reduced the mass, increased the green area on site and created a roof garden area. They had also addressed the employee housing issue. The original application had proposed 3 employee units and they were now proposing 8. He felt this was a good percentage. Peter felt that the project was based on the Land Use Plan. They were following the Plan carefully as a guide. Several of the Plan's goals and policies supported a project of this type in this location. An addition next to a building that already offers restaurants, transportation, and shops as well as it proximity to the Gondola was sound growth. • A view analysis demonstrating the mass of the new addition was • presented. Regarding the density increase, the project would not be a precedent. Other high density buildings include the Christiania at 47 units/acre, Tivoli at 48 units/acre, and the Vorlaufer at 80 units/acre. In response to those who felt frustration that Vail was getting too busy, Peter asked them if they would prefer the "Day--skier". He felt that the "Day-skier" impacted the Community greater than the "destination-skier" and the Marriott project would help to decrease the "Day-skier" and increase the "Destination-skier." They expect 90~ occupancy in the timeshare project. Bili Burding, attorney representing the Vail Spa Building, stated he believed there was a document in their archives from the Mark that demonstrated that there was no intention to build the third wing. The owners of the Vail Spa purchased their units with that understanding. He felt the addition would create a large blockage of view. In evaluating the 9 review criteria, Mr. Burding felt there were many discrepancies. Criteria "B" included a density control and Mr. Burding felt the increased density was not justified due to the increase in traffic, traffic study, and the left turn lane that would be needed, Criteria "G" covered a circulation system addressing an and off-site traffic circulation. He felt that between the Marriott addition and the rumored highway off-ramp, • the Vail Spa Building will go from a "pristine" building to a "city building." Finally, considering the pure economics, the Vail Spa units would be very difficult to rent when in competition with a building such as the Marriott which would then have a superior view. Dalton commented that the Commission had visited the site earlier in the day and did not see many units that he felt would be impacted and Mr. Burding responded that he could provide the Commission with at least 30 units that would be impacted and invited the Commission to revisit the site, Ludwig concurred with Dalton regarding the views. Manuel Marcus, a Vail Spa unit owner, stated that he was involved in the construction and sales of the units in the Vail Spa Building. He sold 40 of the 55 total units. When they sold the units in Mexico, they were sold under the premise that the zoning would not change. The buyer's view was not to be affected. He instituted the rental program and until this time it had been great to the extent that it has been making the mortgage payments for the owners since the recession in Mexico. He was afraid that the blocked view would decrease rental revenues and therefore cause many of the owners to default on their payments. When they s ~ - built the Vail Spa, they were forced to make special designs to leave 28~ common area. They followed the PEC xuling and left the greenspace and felt that the Marriott shauld not be given exceptions. If the Marriott was allowed the proposed changes, the Vail Spa should ask for a density increase as well. The Marriott presented a lot of problems including noise from drunk people, yelling and traffic to mention a few. An addition would enhance these problems. Realistically, 57 units would be 3000 owners. Pedro Marcus, a Vail Spa owner, invited the Commission to his unit. He felt his view would be destroyed completely. Al Hauser, General Manager of the Vail Spa, felt that most of what needed to be said had been. He also wanted to invite the Commission to visit the Vail Spa and felt they would receive a different feeling of the view impact. Peter Jamar stated, in response to the Vail Spa representatives statement, that the Marriott had offered to do a view impact study and they had declined stating they were commissioning someone on their own. The result of the Vail Spa's study was not submitted by the Vail Spa and he had obtained the results and handed out copies of the report to the Commission. Thea Rumford, owner of 575 Forest Road, read a letter from the her neighbor opposing the construction. She had lived in her • home for over 25 years. In that time, the Antlers and the bulk of Lionshead had became a major impact. She stated the noise was terrible in the summer when they had their windows open. She also did not like the timeshare concept. The Marriott had already asked for 1 variance, she felt they should not be given another. Ed Mine, owner of unit 5A Crossroads, explained that he did not have a direct concern but rather a parallel concern. When he purchased his unit at Crossroads, he had a view. Since, the time the Mountain Haus was built and blocked his view. He felt this set a precedent. He had compassion for the adjacent owners' complaint concerning the crowds and noise. He wanted to know if the development truly served the needs of Vail. What were really the Town's needs and how far should the Tawn go to fulfill them? If the C~~,u~~ission appraved this project, when would they stop? He also questioned whether the number of employee units proposed was adequate and how the transportation overload would be handled. He felt that the degree of flexibility should not be given preference to larger projects. When a single family home wanted to expand, the flexibility was not given. Why should a large project such as the Marriott be given the flexibility? • Cindy Jacobson, a Forest Road owner, passed around a poster with _ pictures from her scrap book depicting the changes made to the area since 1967. She stated that she felt the West Day Lot was . currently zoned HDMF and that there was still development potential in that area. She felt there were probably many areas with the permitted zoning with development potential. Why allow expansion in areas that require variances. To quote the criteria, she felt that if this was not a Special Privilege, what wash As far as the noise impact, she had copies of many citations issued to the Marriott. She stated that the creek was not a buffer, it amplified the noise. Cindy quoted the Land Use Plan as stating that the Gore Creek should be maintained as open space. The current open space was not accessible because the Marriott made it that way. she stated that the Marriott did not offer a balance as referenced on page 31. As the appendix stated, she felt that the open space along Gore Creek should be preserved and left undeveloped. She felt the Land Use Plan was like statistics, it could be interpreted to meet an individuals needs. Her property was "down zoned" in 1977 and now they are "up zoning" the Marriott land. Tom Jacobson, owner of 765 Forest Road, explained that he built his home 23 years ago. The Marriott proposal said that the building was 3 stories by the Creek, he counted 5 and wanted to know how the number 3 was derived. He agreed with the other public comments that the noise level was unbearable. The noise would be worse due to the architectural design of the building. If the Commission is not going to following the zoning regulations then why oat throw them out. The Marriott was built to capacity and they had not done the landscaping promised with the last addition. It was not fair to people across the Creek, Vail Spa or Town of Vail. Greta Parks, owner of 303 Gore Greek Drive, first wanted to thank the neighboring properties for being present to express their opposition. She felt that the expansion was too large for the the Valley. Al Weiss, a West Vail owner, stated that he would not be directly affected, but felt that attention should be paid to what is necessary and what is not necessary, Where would the line be drawn setting the precedents. He felt that a preference had been given to the large projects. When he wanted to expand his home in West Vail, he couldn't get an additional foot aver the allowed 250 additional GRFA, yet here the Marriott proposed to go overboard and he found it hard to believe the Commission was even considering the proposal. He felt 8 employee units for the expansion was negligible. He would rather see 57 employee units and 8 timeshare units. a ~ Diana Donovan, in response to the public comments, stated that . the Marriott property had no underlying zoning. It was an SDD and with an SDD, flexibility was allowed. As far as the Mountain Haus was concerned, it was built under FAR zoning which was a legal alternative at the time. The construction of the Mountain Haus was what encouraged the Commission to change the zoning regulations. Diana wanted the public to know that it was great to have them at the meeting. However, the land use policies were established during a Town wide public process, and were now set. The Commission must follow the policies as they were currently set. • Jay Peterson wanted to respond to the zoning issue with a little history. He stated that in 1977 the Town of Vail began "down- zoning" property. The HDMF district was reduced from 50 to 25 units per acre. The "down-zoning" made many building non- conforming. The concern was more for other areas, not the core areas. He could understand the public's concerns, however, he could fill the roam full of people who agreed with the project. When the large density projects began to be built, the staff was concerned. Through a year-long process, the public developed the Land Use Plan. The growth should be in areas with transportation, and support functions already in place. Before the Marriott began the proposed project they looked toward the Land Use Plan for direction. He understood feelings of those affected. However, the project did comply with the Land Use Plan and the board should make their decision based on the Land Use Plan not public disagreement over private views or because it would set a precedent. Unless we were willing to say, no to growth, there would be changes. The direction should be controlled growth. Kathy Warren asked Jay Peterson what the basis was for the argument that an increase of destination skiers would decrease day skiers and Jay explained that the more destination skiers there were in the Valley, the less Vail Associates would market to attract day skiers and Peter Jamar concurred. Peter felt that Vail Associates marketing would adjust accordingly. Al Weiss asked what justified the rush for the Marriott project. Regarding the information presented, he asked how much was fact, how much was fantasy, and haw much was opinion as well as what was the offset to the Town? Ludwig commented that he agreed with Tam in his presentation that the additional development was needed and appropriate. He felt it was desirable to sustain growth and rejuvenate what the Town presently had. He hoped the public understood that the board did 9 not have concern for the Marriott's profitability. In terms of growth, he also agreed that controlled growth was needed. These • areas were designated and already developed, why start elsewhere. Concerning the promised landscaping not completed, the board can require that the improvements be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Dalton explained that when he ran for Town Council, he talked with many people and asked them if they felt the Town needed growth. The consensus was, not in my back yard, not in West or East Vail and that it was needed. Given this, he felt that the growth would be appropriate and that the board should look at the Land Use Plan for direction and the growth should be concentrated in infill areas. Concerning the criticism regarding the landscaping, he wanted to ensure those concerned that the proposed landscaping would be completed by requiring a bond (if the project was completed during the winter} or be in place prior to an issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Chuck Crist asked how many new employees the project would require. Jay responded that the infra-structure basically was in place with the exception of additional maids and 1/2 maintenance person. The project would not generate as many employees as was perceived. The front desk personnel would remain the same. Chuck also questioned haw employee parking was being addressed and Tom answered that the employee parking was factored into the . required parking for the project. Chuck questioned Peter's figures quoting expected occupancy of the timeshare project at 90~ and Peter explained that the figures were based on off season "bonus" time offered to timeshare owners. Jay continued the explanation stating that the numbers come from the Marriott and were based on the Marriott's experience with timeshare projects elsewhere. The Marriott used the timeshare projects to increase the use of their restaurants, health club facilities and other amenities during the off seasons. Chuck expressed his opinion that the current Marriott building was unattractive. He asked if the Marriott had any plans to make the property more aesthetically pleasing. Peter responded that the Marriott had a 4 million dollar budget for exterior improvements, Unfortunately, the Marriott recently painted the building and had not planned on repainting in the near future. The money was to be used to upgrade landscaping and other such improvements. Jay expanded by stating the Marriott had a chance to sell the property but had decided not to sell and made a commitment to the property. 10 Kathy Warren quoted the SDD purpose and stated that in this case, • there was no underlying zoning, She was totally unprepared to make a decision. She was not comfortable with the density with the GRFA proposed at 92$ of the site area. She didn't feel that additional GRFA was the most appropriate use of the land and felt that the Marriott was asking for a lot. Kathy didn't feel that this was controlled growth and was disappointed that there was not more of a decrease in density from the work session in January. Kathy felt the applicant could decrease the height more as they moved away from the building. Her two main concerns were that there had to be some type of underlying zoning and that the project needed to be reduced to a more reasonable density. Jim Shearer asked Mr. Lehigh, one of the Marriott representatives, if the Marriott was prepared to work with the Tawn on the left turn lane and Mr. Lehigh stated that the applicants had agreed to participate once the traffic counts had been verified and a percentage applied. A formula needed to be determined. Jim asked if the proposed pathways were to be lighted and Ned Gwathmey answered "yes". Jim also questioned what the colors of the walkways would be and Ned explained that the walkways would be pavers and colored concrete and the streamwalk/bike path would be asphalt. Asphalt was the appropriate material for a bike path. Jim inquired what type materials would be used on the roof garden and Ned responded sod and shrubs, no large trees. Jim also asked what impact would the Marriott's purchase of the Streamside at Vail timeshare project would have on the Marriott. Would they share transportation. Mr. Lehigh explained that the infrastructure was in place. Jim also asked Mr. Lehigh if they had planned to offer Marriott amenities to Streamside guests and Mr Lehigh responded "no". Jim explained that personally he had not decided whether to approve or deny the project. He would do the best he could in the interest of the Town of Vail to develop a reasonable position based on zoning and Town policies. In general, he wished the SDD process had more boundaries. The quoted over height limit of 10' didn't really exist since the underlying zoning was an SDD. He felt the addition would look better than a parking structure. He regretted the impact on the Vail Spa building and West Forest Road owners. He was not l1 i impressed with the look of the existing Marriott building. He said that it was part of the Town's overall goal to increase accommodation units and he did not know, nor want to know, haw • much an increase in Town revenue it would create or what the increased profits would be for the Marriott. It did give the Town 8 employee units and did seem to be compatible with the Town Land Use Plan. Connie Knight commented that she felt the proposed building looked great but that she aidnft see any architectural relationship and therefore why relate height and mass to the existing Marriott? Diana Donovan stated that she didn't have a problem adding density but not quite as much and the location made sense. She did not like the flat roof garden level and felt that architectural changes could be made to make the building seem less dense. She felt that more density could be added to the landscape garden. She explained to the Vail Spa's attorney that if he found the documentation he had spoke of earlier restricting the addition, the issue would be between the Marriott and the Vail Spa. The Town was probably not party to the agreement. Diana felt that the Commission had focused too much on the philosophy rather than the fact of the project and felt the board needed to study more of the neighboring properties. She would rather see the Garden level be omitted and the building spread nut and down. She would like to see the project tabled until the . Commission had more time to study the facts of the project rather than the philosophy o£ overall growth within the Town. Dalton Williams agreed with Diana that the discussion had become too philosophical. He also wanted to see the item tabled. Peter Jamar requested to table the matter to April 23 and Tam stated that the 23rd was feasible, but that date would not be confirmed until the applicant's presented revisions to their plans. A motion to table the item was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Kathv Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING 12 Item No. 7: A request for a conditional use for a Learnina Center Lab in the lower level of the Aronosed na.r_k..i.ncr structure and to add two new half levels of uarkina to the narkina structure at the Vail Valley Medial Center on Lots # and F. Vail Villaae 2nd Filina 1191 West Meadow Drive. AAnlicant: Vail Valiev Medical Center. Kristan Pritz briefly presented the proposal explaining that the Vail Valley Medical Center was proposing to add two 1/2 levels to the previously approved parking structure on the northeast corner of the property. In addition, a portion of the facility would be used for a Learning Center Lab that would focus on biomechanicai studies of athletes as a means of avoiding injury. She explained that she had letters from the applicant stating that no live animal research would be conducted in the facility. The staff recommendation was for approval of the conditional use request. The proposal was very complimentary to the overall master plan for the hospital site. There would be no negative impacts. If fact, the concept of providing additional parking beneath the approved parking structure was an efficient use of the hospital site. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they were exploring the break-out panel suggested by the staff. However, they would prefer not to make it a condition of approval. Chuck Crist commented that he had calculated a 17 space requirement for the Learning Lab and therefore a 9 space net increase and Kristan explained that the applicant had also added surface spaces making a total of 58 surplus spaces after the lab was removed. Connie Knight stated that the long range plan was to convert the space to parking and asked where the Learning Lab would go in the future and Jay explained that nothing was set at the present time. The applicant was in the process of completing a comprehensive long range plan. The Learning Lab could be moved to a future addition or in a present building area. Diana asked if the break-out panel to existing surface parking was still proposed and Mr. Feeney answered that nothing from the original proposal had changed. Diana still had a concern with Lot 10 being used in the parking space calculations and Jay responded that it had always been used in the calculations. Diana stated that she just didn't feel comfortable since the lease could be revoked with 30 days notice. 13 A motion for anoroval per the staff memo with conditions as _ follows was made by Ludwia Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer_ 1. No live animal testing be allowed ~n the Lea~ninq • Center Lab Facility. Diana commented that she would vote for the item but she felt that Lot 10 should not be included in the total parking figure. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR item No. 8: ~ reauest for an exterior alteration. strew setback variance, view corridor amendment. site coverage variance. and canditianal use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor ratio for the Red Lion Building. ~nnlicant: Frankie Tana and Landmark Properties Tom Braun presented the changes as outlined in-the staff memo. The vast majority of the proposed changes were positive. Jim Morter concurred with those items presented by Tam Braun. The basic changes included the elimination of another roof line, the deck addition on the back side, and the roof change to acc~.,u,~odate the Rucksack private view as suggested at the last meeting. Dalton Williams commended Jim Morter and the applicant for respecting the private view of the Rucksack Condo owner. Jim Morter showed the new configuration of the restaurant fans on the model and Diana stated that it looked like a good solution to a necessary evil. Jim Morter commented that he did nat like the proposal to be called a "deck enclosure". The area would be covered and conditions applied to the current windows would be continued with the Rekord doors. As far as the current conditions imposed on the windows, the applicant would like the opportunity to close the doors during inclement weather. Concerning the pocket park, he felt if they took the planter (by the Sczechwan restaurant) out and put the trees at grade, it would open the area up. The applicant's plans were to repair and point, not replace the brick wall. They would like to keep the character of the old brick wall. Jim Shearer pointed out that to fix the wall would be expensive and Jim Morter stated that they were aware of the cost involved. 14 Jim Morter, regarding the private condo entrance, felt it was inappropriate to have the entrance to a multi-million dollar condo came under the entrance to a Chinese restaurant. Regarding the 9' enclosure, if it was not approved, it was possible that the rest of the restaurant improvements would not be completed. Jay stated that he understood the staff's position to not consider the economics of a project. However, from a practical standpoint, the proprietor must maximize the revenue possibilities. He felt that the applicant had given a lot and was not asking for much as presently proposed. Jim Morter then explained the rear deck area and the extensive landscaping that was proposed. Yvonne Mullaly, Rucksack Cando owner, questioned the validity of Mr. Slifer's statement of the Mill Creek Condominium owners agreement with the project. She spoke with an owner within the last week who had no knowledge of the project. She stated that she and her husband had dinner with the Tangs and that during the course of the dinner, Mrs. Tang made the statement that they were expanding because she didn't like the view from her living room. Yvonne felt the project would reduce her property value. Yvonne also questioned how the trash would be removed and Diana explained to Yvonne that the trash would be handled in the same manner that it was currently being handled. • Tom Braun explained the other items requested in addition to the exterior alteration and view corridor amendment. The stream setback variance was for an area that already was in the setback. The Conditional Use Permit was for the rear dining deck and the site coverage variance was for a 2$ overage of what was allowed. The permitted coverage was 80g and the requested coverage was 82~. The applicant was proposing a 23 sq. ft. net gain which was a .25~ increase. General concerns were expressed regarding construction during the summer and Diana explained that the Town had strict guidelines for traffic control and managing construction impacts. Yvonne expressed concerns that even though the applicant reduced the building mass to provide some view, there was still a deck in the area. She was also concerned about the noise level that would increase from the rear dining deck. Yvonne questioned whether the applicant was using vaulted ceilings. She felt that if there were vaulted ceiling proposed, the applicant could lower the ceilings in order to provide her a view. 15 Jay, in response to Yvonne, stated that Rod Slifer had - represented that the proposal was accepted by the condominium association. That when asked at the last meeting if the condominium board or all owners had accepted the proposal Jay had stated that he did not know. Apparently, some of the owners within the Mill Creek Condominiums were not notified by the representative of the Association. Jay did not want the PEC board to feel that he had misled them. Sid Schultz, representing Bab Galvin the owner of 2 units on the 2nd floor of the Mill Creek building, stated that Mr. Galvin had no knowledge of the project until the last week. Sid read a letter from Mr. Galvin. The point Sid wished to make was that regardless of what Rod Slifer had represented as president of the condominium association, there were a number of owners who were nat.aware of the project. Greta Parks, representing Pepi Gramshamer, stated that Pepi was unable to stay for the meeting and had requested her to read a letter from him in opposition. (Letter attached} Diana Donovan added to the record a letter from Margret S. Burdick in support of the project. (Letter attached} Connie Knight felt that architecturally the 9' deck enclosure along Bridge St. was pleasing. However, she was not for the enclosure on the East side of the building. She was adamantly opposed to encroaching into the View Corridor. She was against the variance on site coverage, Basically she was against all of the request with the exception of the 9' desk enclosure. Jim Shearer asked the leasees of the commercial space what impacts the 9' deck area had and Jan Ray responded, She explained that they had been owners of the restaurant for a little over 1 1/2 years, She had been in the restaurant business for approximately 20 years. She explained that the 9' area simply did not work. It was like dining in a hallway. Most people do not like dining alone and consequently, her staff did not pay as much attention to the area due to the lack of customers who wished to sit there. If covered and enclosed, the space could be utilized in the winter and summer. Kathy Warren asked if the maximum ridge height was under the allowed 43 feet and Tom responded that it was 42.6'. Kathy wished to thank the applicants for their diligent effort in working with the PEC. In general she was in favor of the exterior alteration except the 9' deck enclosure. She felt the deck area did get used contrary to Mrs. Ray's statement. As far as the Rekord doors were concerned, she felt that the applicant should be allowed to close the doors during inclement weather. She felt it was acceptable to allow the applicants to repair 16 rather than rebuild the brick wall that the brick wall was • definitely a part of the total project. The brick wall should be addressed even if the Rays' did riot follow through with the commercial portion of the proposal. Kathy had no problem with the stream setback variance request and the conditional use for deck dining (on the east side) was acceptable. She appreciated the applicants keeping the rear deck on their own property. Regarding the site coverage, Kathy felt it was the "nature of the beast". Responding to Pepi's letter regarding the number of variances asked for, she felt that what was being asked far was small in proportion and the Town would be gaining protection from future expansion. Chuck Crist felt that the modifications to the rear dining deck were good. He was in favor of the conditional use permit for the deck. He was supportive of the site coverage variance and the stream setback variance. Regarding the exterior alteration, he felt the applicants had done a good job. Chuck liked the Rekord doors and felt the applicants should be allowed to close the doors during inclement weather as well as at late night hours in order to reduce the noise to the neighbors. Chuck also had no problem with the 9' deck enclosure. Dalton Williams was in favor of the stream setback, site coverage variance, conditional use permit, and the outdoor patio. He felt that the Red Lion building would not in reality encroach into the view corridor and therefore was not in opposition to the • amendment. He greatly appreciated the time the applicants had invested in working with the neighbors. Unfortunately, not all people can be pleased with a project of this size. Dalton felt the venting was a great improvement. He suggested investigating an acoustic material to be used if the vents were noisy. He suggested that the restriction on the doors be expanded so that they were required to stay open, weather permitting, year-round so as to offset the closing of them during inclement weather during the summer. As far as closing the doors at night for security reasons, he recalled that in many cases during the summer the Red Lion had typically closed as early as 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Dalton did not wish to see the doors closed any earlier than 10:30 yr 11:00 p.m. and would like to see them opened during the morning. Dalton was not in favor of the 9' deck enclosure. He felt that with the Rekord doors in place with the current structure, the 9' area would be opened up. Ludwig Kurz felt that most of his feelings had been reflected by the rest of the board. In general, some inconvenience was going to happen and he sympathized with the Mullalys. However, he felt that the developers/owners had shown sensitivity and restraint. 17 He agreed with Kathy Warren that the brick wall needed to be _ repaired by at least one of the applicants, If the Rays' did not follow up with the commercial improvements the Tangs should be responsible. Ludwig did not feel there was any appreciable infringement into the View Corridor, He felt the applicants needed to be complimented. Diana Donovan also wished to compliment the applicants and felt the impact on the Rucksack building was unfortunate. She felt that most of the requests were simple technicalities. However, the View Corridor amendment did concern her. She would leave the decision to the staff as to how to handle the amendment, whether to move the line or change the picture under the line. She would prefer not to see the line redrawn. Technically she agreed with the restaurant owners regarding the 9' deck enclosure. She asked in return the Town receive some benefits to publicly used areas. She suggested that the applicant change the approach to the stream tract on the east in order to make it more inviting to the public. As it presently looked, she felt it seemed too private. She would also like to see the applicant spruce up the plaza area by the private condominium entrance and the 5czechwan restaurant by adding a bench, more landscaping and reconfiguring the newspaper boxes. Jay responded that he felt the applicants would be willing to work in that area, Diana liked the old brick wall as long as it was repaired. She felt the restrictions on the windows needed to be continued to the Rekord doors. She felt a statement of inclement weather was too much a matter of interpretation and felt that the staff was reasonable and would not cite the applicant if they closed the doors during a thunderstorm. All windows located in stucco areas should be recessed 3"s. The vents should be state of the art. She appreciated the consideration given to the Rucksack views and felt the roof forms were much better. She felt it was imperative that the public area in the rear of the building look public. She~~suggested stepping stones be used to offset the hard straight walk presently there, She also liked the restriction the Tangs were willing to impose on the GRFA. In general Diana was in favor of the requests with the following conditions: 1. DRB require recessed windows 2. Red Lion Logo reapplied to the new building. 3. The applicants work with the Town to help find a solution to traffic problem in the Parking and Transportation Study. 4. Any trees killed be replaced. 5. The applicants work with Winston and Associates with improvements in the plaza area by the Rucksack including a curved wall, bench on planter wall, newspaper box improvements, condo entrance, and landscaping. 18 6. The stream tract improvements be redesigned to encourage public access and stream bank stabilization on both sides of Mill Creek. 7. The entry to the Bridge 5t. Condo should not be visible from Bridge Street. Jay wanted the board to know that the Tangs would make all exterior alterations except the two decks/enclosures. The brick wall and plaza would be redone. The only item that would not be completed based on the approval of the 9' deck enclosure would be the Rekord doors on the front and rear of the building. A motion far approval of the SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE; 6 - I WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSEp A motion for approval of the STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE oer the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 6 -1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED A motion for anoroval of the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR A motion for aooroval of the EXTERIOR ALTERATION per the staff memo including the staff recommended conditions of approval with the following additional conditions of approval was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Chuck Crist. 1. As ~ part of this redevelopment. the applicants agree to point and repair the brick wall along Bridge Street and in the area of the small plaza at the northwest corner of the site. Improvements to this plaza shall also include uoaradina existing benchest^tilantersL newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and landscaping. 2. The streetscape imorovements shown along Hanson Ranch Road are considered conceptual, and the applicants shall agree to work with the staff and Winston Associates in refining this design relative to the Vail Village streetscape Plan. This condition shall also apply to the olaza area referenced .i.n rond.i..ti..on No. 1 19 ar~d the landscape improvements proposed adiacent to - ~a_11 Creek_ 3. A11 windows ~;ocated on stucco wall planes shall be • recessed a n~nimum a~,,,,,,3" . 4. State of the art venting shall be used to reduce negative impacts ismell, smoke. etc.l emanating farom the site. 5. die awner/developers o~the residential development on this site shall agree to permanently ~estr~ct Gross Residential F~oar Area ~GRFAL, building height and, density or~,~this site to what is permitted by this approval. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this restriction and the restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Dffice at Eagle County. 6. Anv trees damaged or killed within two years o~ the comgletior} of this praieat shall be replaced with similar size and tune tree. 7. The Red Lion loco shall be retained as a part of this redevelopment in approximately the same size and location. 8. The developers/owners are strongly encouraged to participate in developing solutions to traffic, loading • ?a~c7, delivery pxoblems in Vail Village. 9. The Rekord doors (or other tvoe of window system. installed to the Red Lion Restaurant along Sri.dae Street shall remain totally apen during business hours between June 15 and September 15 of each veer. These windows ~tav be opened at env other time during the year at the discretion of the restaurant management,, 10. the applicants shall complete stream-bank stabilization, work on bot~i sides of Mill Creek over the entire length of the Red Lion propertyt The final design and. implementation of these improvements shall be subiect to review by the staff and the Design Review Soard. 11. The owners shall agree to participate in. and not remonstrate against. a special impr,.ovemPnt di_strirt {.n the Village if and when one is farmed., yOTE: 5 -- 2 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT AND KATHY WARREN OPPOSED ZO • A motion for the recommendation of apAroval to the Town ~!C11~nG7_?. ~f th;e VIEW CORRIDOR N0. 1 AMENDMENT Der the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathv Warren. 1. That the photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at a time when the expansion is completed. The Commission preferred this alternative as opposed to modifvina the line that delineates the View Corridor. 2. That the specific reasons -~ustifving this reauest be included in the preamble of the ordinance authorizing this amendment. VOTE: 6 -- 1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED Item No. 9: NWCCOG Mta. - Wilderness Legislation: april 12. 1990 form 9:OD a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Silver Creek) Kristan explained that the Federal Wilderness Legislation meeting would be held at the above mentioned time and place. The meeting was interesting though attendees where not allowed to . participate. Diana explained that there was a charge and the Town was expected to cover the cost. Item No. 10: Reschedule PEC meeting of Mav 28 (Memorial Dav] to June 4th, Diana stated that this change was apparent and asked the members to note the change. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. z1 ~asd~o~ Gramshammer, inc. Pepi Gramshammer Sheika Gramshammer April 9, 1990 Planning Commission Town of Vail. 75 S, Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Telephone: 3Q3/476-5626 231 East Gore Creek Drive 'Jail, Colorado 81857 Vail has become a very successful ski resort. We're constantly working to improve our town and mountain, and it is a wonderful place. Now is a critical time for us, and we must take the right steps to maintain the unique qualities of our town and control the growth of the Village that everyone loves. As many older buildings in Vail Village are remodeled, we must be careful to maintain the scale on which the Village was originally designed. The issue we're talking about today concerns the Red Lion's request for variances to add two stories to their existing building, which would almost double their square footage. If this is allowed to take place, the precedent will he set for the expansion of other buildings, which would add many, many square feet to the Village core. Where does it stop when so many variances are granted upon request? With increased density will come many negative impacts, in terms of deliveries, parking and trash removal.. These will be long term, not temporary, problems. For so many years, the Village has been a construction zone in the summer. Just when we thought all of the construction was completed, we're starting again! And, let us not forget that enormous increases in property taxes for all Vail Village business owners will result from such expansion. - If the Red Lion construction project - with 4 stories - is approved, other buildings will follow suit, and fridge Street will be like a shaft of high rises, with aniy a narrow walkway far foot traffic. With increased deliveries, etc., if there's one car parked on Bridge Street and another attempts to pass, there will be no room for pedestrians. X urge you to consider all of the implications of the Red Lion's request carefully, so that our town can grow gracefully and function properly. Sincerely, ' ~y ~~ l Pepi Gramshammer • dl'[az9aacE cS..L~. uu~lc~x ~. ~. 13oz 1250 ~ai~, C:uiomdo 51658 April 9, 1994 To: The Planning Commission Town of Vail Vail, CO From: Marge Burdick P.O. Sox 1268 Vail, CO 81658 I am writing concerning the proposed addition ta: The Red Lion Inn Apartment 3DG Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657 Mrs. Oscar Tang, owner Mortar Architects, architect The blueprints and mad el were just shown to me and I was told the GRFA of the proposed addition is 9,327 S.F., well under the allowed 11,166.32 S.F'. The massing is attrac- tively done and has a graceful flaw to it. There are three units proposed in lieu of eight units allowed. Frankie Tang has shown hez usual good taste in design, which pleased me. My deep interest in this project stems from the fact that Larry Burdick and I built the Red Lion Inn in 1962, and that apartment was my home. This plan brings a proud legend of a building back to life. The present owner of the apartment and the lessees of the restaurant seem to be working well with one another in the corporate plan of the front of the restauranC and the new expansion of the apartment. . It was brought to my attention that a small amaunt of space on the front, northwest side of the building is ~a~axst cS. 1~uzc(Eol~ Jam-. Ln. 1`3ox 7250 Nall, [.:oW'tano S?65S needed to be included in the covered patio. I understand that need and hope you will be able to allow it. The lessees will have a short time to recoug the lass of funds expended for the improvements, due to the remaining time in their lease. it is commendable to me that they are wi3ling to make sa great a contribution to this plan. Bridge Street was Vail's first street, our first block. The Red Lion Inn was the first privately owned restaurant and skiers from Vail and the world met there. It is part of Vail's history and did not deserve the shabby treat- ment it has recieved since being sold. Now, this proposed plan should bring Bridge Street the style it used to Crave and if it is acceptable to you, I, for an e, will be filled with gratitude. Sincerely, ~~ ~~~~t~ Margaret S. Burdick • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in CCII and a variance from the rear setback requirement for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Block 1, Tract C, Site C (555 E. Lionshead Circle). Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an exterior alteration and a variance from the 10' rear setback requirement in order to build an addition to the Lifthouse Building located in the Commercial Care II zone district. The addition would add approximately 217 sq. ft. of common space for a lobby and 45 sq. ft. for an office addition. The alteration will involve the enlargement of the existing lobby/office area located at the rear of the building on the east facade. There is an existing structure beneath the proposed common space addition. The addition will encroach 10 ft. into the 10 ft. setback. The expansion does not exceed the encroachment of the level below the proposed addition. The variance is necessary because the expansion will increase the nonconformity of the building. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this request: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Zone District: CCII Lot Area: 20,330 sq. ft. Site Coverage no change Setbacks: Front: 10' Side: 10' Rear: 10' Farking: No additional parking will be required as a result of this addition. • III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recammends 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 proposed deck enclosure should not create any problems to existing or potential uses ar structures in the vicinity. Currently there is a storage structure located beneath the deck which already encroaches 10' into the required 10' setback. The proposed enclosure will not encroach any more than the existing storage area. 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 ti_tl_P without crr~n,t of s,neci_ai triv,ileae, The staff feels that the approval of this variance will not be a grant of special privilege. The proposed addition remains within the existing foot print of the building. Xt is not reasonable to require the applicant to locate the addition to the north or south because of the sloping roofs in these areas. The architect has stated that the underlying structure of the building in the sloped roof areas is not capable of supporting any additional load. We feel that the request is reasonable as the expansion does not exceed the existing setback encroachment. 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 requested variance will have no significant impacts upon any of the above considerations. Expansion in either of the sloped roof area would also block the windows into a . hallway. . IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings hPt~re grartir~g__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 ar 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. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II 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 IT 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. This proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core II Zane District. . Vx. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD OR VAIL VILLAGE. There are no sub-area concepts which relate directly to this proposal. • VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD. A. Height and Massing: The proposal involves adding an additional level above the existing garden level storage area. The addition will have little affect an the height and massing of the building as it now exists. B. Roofs: The addition will have a gable roof making it slightly higher than the existing lobby's shed type roof, but with more texture and visual interest. C. Facades - Wa11s/Structures: The proposed addition will improve the existing facade in this area. The exterior walls will be stucco with woad trim to match the existing building. The existing storage will also be stucco, which is an improvement over the unfinished exterior of the storage space. D. Facade - Transvarencv: U The transparency of the area will be increased with the installment of more windows on the east facing elevation and the enlargement of the entry element. E. Decks and Patios: 240 sq. ft. of existing deck will be enclosed for the. new lobby area. 435 sq. ft. of deck will remain. The additional office area will not remove any deck. F. Accent Elements: All accents will match the existing building. The metal railing and lighting fixtures on the deck area will remain. G. Landscaoina: No new landscaping is proposed. No landscaping will be removed due to the expansion, H. Service and Deliverv: This addition will not have any significant impact on the existing level of loading and delivery. .~ VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of both the variance and the exterior alteration request. The expansion is not a grant of special privilege as the existing building encroaches into the setback. There are no negative impacts that result from the addition on other properties. There are also site constraints which make it difficult for the applicant to locate an expansion that would not encroach into any setback. We feel that the proposal complies with all the applicable Design Considerations of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. The proposed alterations will improve the appearance of the general area and the building. • n U 1r u U u~ ~ ~~ i 14 ~j ~] , x ' ~ r+~ %~ u~ s , ~j ~ >_ t' d ~l~ ~~ ~ ~I~ 9s ~ ~ s,- I J Q. L '7. ~ ` xU i.. s+ ci dl y :~ 11 1 ' r lY I.nl}fi ~jl :' ~.~~; ~: lr w4, JI~_~ iiii ' r p~ U61,1 I~ ~ ~~ i'~ ~ ,~ ~ '" '~u~ru~lll W i I ~~y, ~y'. !I ~~ • • 4 2 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ f ~~. ~ _ ~ .~ L ~„ ;k p 'ti i ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1 - ~ .. 'S ~ r i ~ 3 Q _ ~ ~ ~ I , ~ rt ! i~: ~ :. o .. 11] ,I~ ~ T r ~ " ' ~ .r - ~ ,~j. , ~ ~ U I} I} i ~ _ ._ . -. i ~ J~h 7 J 'Vnr o a +~ fY SA ~ ~:4~:~j.,~ 4~9~~1t ~L.~ _ O `f L~ o l r' f, _~ mss- _.. u' ".,5, . ^'ft?T~~~. / i^ - J _ ~ _ ~` ~ o ~ _ ~~ _ ~ 1~ ~ ~ I "~ U n i~ ~~, ~~ ~ ', ,~_- T~ ~ ~ i l ll n iG ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ f .~ L•Y- ~~ 1 1, N ~. 11I~.„~._. *d ~ J sv t~ • ~_ 0 d iii ~~ r • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to the Medium Density Multi-family zone district on Lot 7, Bighorn Terrace (4242 East Columbine Way) Applicant: Kathryn Benysh I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is the owner of Unit D-7 in the Bighorn Terrace subdivision which is located on East Columbine Way. The existing duplex unit consists of approximately 928 sq. ft. of GRFA and has an allowed GRFA of 708.94 sq. ft. under MDMF zoning. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 20' side and rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 228 sq. ft. addition on the north side of the building. The addition will involve adding a second story above the • existing kitchen and enclosing the deck to the west of the kitchen with a 2 story structure. The variance request is for a 15' encroachment into the 20' rear setback and a 13' encroachment in to the 20' side yard setback. 11. BACKGROUND Bighorn Terrace is a nonconforming subdivision because it was annexed into the Town after it was platted. Under the MDMF zoning, 20' setbacks on the front, rear and sides were imposed on the existing lots. Building D-7 currently encroaches 18' into the rear setback and 12' into the side setback. 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 18.71.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In 1977, the applicant received a side setback variance of 8' and a GRFA variance of 130 sq. ft. in order to construct a kitchen addition. YIT. 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 reauested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The 228 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 6 to the west. The existing building encroaches 12' into the 20' side setback. The requested variance will allow the corner of the proposed 2 story addition to be within 7' of the property line. 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. Staff has been unable to determine a physical • hardship regarding this variance request and feels that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. Although the lot is greatly limited by the imposed setbacks, the staff feels that the existing minimal distances between buildings should be maintained and not decreased. Over the past 13 years there have been 8 requests for setback variances in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. Of the 8, 4 have been recommended for denial and all have been subsequently approved by the PEC. 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 proposed incarease the amount of shade that the neighboring lot. Tt will not significant effect upon any of the considerations. IV. FINDINGS addition will will be cast on have any other . The Planning and Environmental Cu~«~,~ission 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 ar 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 recommendation is for denial of the request for a 15' encroachment into the rear setback and 13' encroachment into the side setback. The staff feels that this variance would be a grant of special privilege and that there are no exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to Lot 7 which do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development ^epartment DATE: April 9, 1990 RE: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #7 (The Marriott Mark Resort) in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST As proposed, this amendment would allow for the development of 57 timeshare units and 8 employee units. This addition would be located on the west end of the property and built primarily over the existing parking structure. New GRFA proposed in this development totals 74,205 sq. ft. Other elements of this proposal include 122 new parking spaces, landscape and site improvements throughout the SDD and a pedestrian connection to the existing Gore Creek bike path. The first phase of the Marriott Mark Resort was constructed in 1973 and SDD zoning was first adopted in 1977. There is no official documentation of the sites underlying zoning. Subsequent amendments were approved to SDD No. 7 during the 1980's. This application would amend the existing SDD to allow for additional development on the site. The nine design criteria outlined in the zoning code provide the primary basis for evaluating this request. Development Statistics Site Area: 5.17 Acres 225,205 sq. ft. Existing Proposed Development Development Total Accommodation Units 248 0 248 Dwelling Units 53 57 110 Employee Units 0 8 8 GRFA 134,000 74,205 208,205 Meeting Room (sq.ft.) 12,000 0 12,000 Ancillary Retail (sq.ft.) 1,500 0 1,500 Restaurant/Bar (seats) 426 0 426 ~arking Spaces 273 122 395 The eight empioyee units range in size form 375-576 sq. ft. and total 4005 sq. ft. The 57 dwelling units are all 1,200 sq. ft. and total 68,400 sq. ft. As outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code, the following nine criteria are 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 ar demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. ZI. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Design combatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adiacent uroperties relative to architectural design. scale. bulk, building height. buffer zones, identity, character. visual integrity and orientation. The site planning, height and massing of the proposed addition have in many ways been determined by the existing hotel and parking structure. The mass and height of the proposed addition have been designed to "step down" from the existing seven story hotel to a three story element along Gore Creek. The timeshare development maintains a minimum of 20 foot setbacks on the south and west property lines. The existing parking structure is built within 5 feet of the westerly property line. The expansion of the parking structure would continue this 5 foot setback. At its highest point, the proposed building height is 58'. The highest building height permitted in any established zone district is 48'. However, the staff's review has focused on the transition between the existing building and the proposed addition. The staff feels it is important that the addition respond to the seven story mass of the existing building, and that the height gradually decreases toward Gore Creek. The proposed addition accomplishes this objective. View studies have been done from a variety of vantage points. While the addition of any new structure will have some degree of impact on views, there are no negative impacts on views from public spaces. There is potential for impacts on private views form the Antlers (toward Red Sandstone Mountain) and the Vail Spa (toward Vail Mountain). However, any impacts of this addition do not appear to be appreciable. • While there are some common design features, the architecture of the proposed addition does not mimic the existing hotel. A departure from the design features of the existing hotel is probably warranted, If approved, it will be the role of the Design Review Board to evaluate colors, materials, fenestration, decks and other design features in order to maintain continuity between the addition and the existing hotel. B. Uses. activity and density which orovide a compatible. efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The residential uses proposed for this facility are consistent and compatible with surrounding development. Located in the Lionshead area, overnight lodging acc~~~„~~odations are appropriate for this site. One of Van's major mixed - use activity centers, Lionshead is centrally located and well served by the Town's transit system. At the present time, the site is developed to approximately 32 units per acre. The development proposed with this amendment would increase the site's density to approximately 46 units per acre (this includes the 8 employee units). This level of development exceeds that permitted by the town's highest density residential district (PA and HDMF, 25 D.U.'s/AC). However, 46 units per acre is not unprecedented. The Lionsquare Lodge is developed at 49 units per acre, the Landmark Condominiums is at 38 units per acre, the Doubletree is 50 units per acre and the Vail Village Inn will be 43 units per acre at build-out. 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 Lionshead core area development. C. Compliance with parkina and loadina requirements as outlined in Chapter 18,52. Assuming 1 parking space for each of the eight employee units, and two parking spaces for each of the 57 timeshare units (as per zoning requirements), the new parking requirement far the proposed addition is 122 spaces. The expansion of the existing structure will satisfy this requirement. 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. D. Conformity with aoolicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Town uolicies and Urban Design Plans. The Vail Land Use Plan is the mast 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 an 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 acc~,~~~«odating 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. E. Identification ~n,~, maticx~.ti_nn of n,~,t~tral and/or geologic ha.za,rdG that. ~ffpwt the nrn~,~rty on Jwhich ,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 elan, building design and location and oven space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features. vegetation and overall. aesthetic auality of the community. The site planning of this addition has changed dramatically since the PEC reviewed this proposal at a work session in January. The major portion of this addition is located over the existing parking structure. This location not only screens the parking structure, it has also helped to reduce the building mass that was proposed along Gore Creek. Residential development is now located within 20' setback lines on the west and south. A portion of the new development is proposed on what is now undeveloped open space directly south of the existing parking structure. 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 are to functional green space will more than offset the loss of open space south of the parking structure. A major concern of the staff is the physical, relationship of the building addition and the Gore Creek Recreation Trail, Originally proposed at 5 stories and within 5 feet of the property line, this addition would have seriously impacted the enjoyment of this trail. The building is now located 50-60' from the trail and has a 3 and 4 story facade adjacent the trail. The location and mass of the building now provides for a comfortable relationship with the trail. • G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and . pedestrians addressing on ~n~ off-cite traffic 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. 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 Raad 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 sale 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 fund and construct 100 of this improvement. The Marriott is responsible far, 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 same 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 outimize 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 court 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. • I. Phasing Ulan o.r. sU,~~iv_i~iCD n] an that will maintain a workable. functional and efficient relationship throughout the development csf th,P sna.c:]_?~]_ ~~vpl~pment district. As proposed, the addition and all related site improvements are to be completed in one construction phase. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In evaluating this proposal, one must first consider the fundamental question of whether or not additional development should be considered in Lionshead. 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. The staff recommends approval of this proposed amendment with the . stipulation that the developers/owner meet the following conditions: 1. Deed restrictions limiting the use of the eight employee units to long term employee rentals in perpetuity shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 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. 3. Working in coordination with the staff, the applicant shall fund and conduct a comprehensive traffic study of the West Lionshead Circle area suitable for determining the Marriott Mark's fair share contribution to the cost of constructing a left turn lane on the S. Frontage Road to West Lionshead Circle. Preliminary design and cost estimates for the left-turn lane shall be provided. The applicant shall be responsible far contributing this agreed upon amount toward the cost of this improvement. 4. A preliminary design and funding strategy for • constructing the left turn lane shall be established prior to the issuance of any building permit, and the left turn lane shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 5. A11 aspects related to the timesharing of this facility shall comply with all applicable town ordinances that regulate timeshare activity. • • PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, nEV(:LOPNENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH January 5, x.990 Dear Forest Road Property fawner: As you may be aware, Marriott is proposing to add 67 units to their existing Hotel located in Zionshead. 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 $4 million worth of improvements, renovating and upgrading is proposed for the existing buildings, landscaping, and amenities. These improvements' are badly needed and important for Marriott to keep the Mark Resort functioning on the same quality level as the other first class Hotels in Vail and Beaver Creak. We believe that the addition and renovation does not in any way negatively affect your property but rather will be an enhancement to the neighborhood and surrounding area. The purpose of this letter is to invite you to contact me regarding any questions that you might have regarding the proposal. You can also contact Jay Peterson at 476-0492. We represent the Marriott and would be happy to provide you with additional information ar meet with you to discuss the addition and renovation at your convenience. Once again, please feel free to contact us regarding any questions that you might have. Sincerely, l Peter Jamar, AICP PJ:ne cc: Jay x. Peterson • Suite 30$, Vaii fValional Bank Building 108 South Fronlage Road West Vail, Colorado 81857 {303} 476-7154 Y • VAIL SPA 710 west I_ionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 f3031 476-0882 March 5, 1gg0 • Planning and ]~vironmental 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: The Vail Spa Board of Managers, on behalf of its 55 members, hereby objects to the proposed amendment to the special development district for the Marriott Mark Proposed by the Marriott Corporation to add sixty (60) time-share units and five (5) employee housing units on the west side of the Marriott Mark. The Vail Spa lies immediately north of the proposed location of the addition to the Marriott Mark. The location, height and bulk of the proposed addition will substantially and adversely affect the Vail Spa. The addition will obliterate the mountain view from virtually all of the rooms at Vail Spa. Moreover, the increased traffic that will be generated by the addition will overload the existing internal roadway system adjacent to the Vail Spa. Traffic is already a problem in and around Vail Spa and this addition will make that problem even worse. 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 thy: 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. (2 ) Planning and Environmental. Comc~ission 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 SSA-BOARD QE` ~ 7 ~, Mark stl.icht President MF'/lh CC: James Kurtz-Phelan ~C ~ F~ D ~', /: 190 • 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 81.657 Mr. Jamar: • In response to your recent correspondence, Imust confess it has been m ho e for some IS Y P 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 wander. Is no one minding the store? S/i~n~cerely, C~~~~ ~, Caryn Deevy ec: Vail Associates: George Gillette West Forest Road Homeowners Association Vail Town Council: Rondall Phillips, Town Manager • ~' ~ ~ ~• c vc c• c~o~ C: . ~_ O [ ~~ ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR. ONE FINANCIAL PLACE SUITE 916 CHICAGO, IL. 60605 TEL.: (312) 663-7086 aanuary ~, 199Q btr. Peter Pattern, Town of Yail P1,a.~*~~ng Director 75 Frontage Rom Vail, Colorado 8165?' Dear Mr. Pattern: i ~~~ ~~~ Twemty-dive years ago We built our res~demce at 655 West Forest Road, and, as long term residents o~ Vail, we war~.t to register a strong objection to the pro}~osed zoning variations requested by the Marriot Hotel. I suggort fully all the ob~ectioms raised im the letter you have received t~~ Cindy aacob son. 4~~~, ~~ ~~ ~~ Sincerely, d S. ~ , Sr. Q ~ p~ C~ C,Q{ t'.' 1 ®~ L. © + RSE~msh c.c. Ms. Diana Donovan - P,O. Box 601, Vail. Colorado 51658 Mr. Charles Crist - P.O. Box lI+$2, Vail Colorado 81658 • PERFORMANCE ~PO,RTS • 531 LionsHead Mall Vail, Colorado 81657 (3Q3) 476-1718 ~~~~~ j ~~-~~~~ 1 ~ ~ c-7q !~ ~ ~ ~ WI WI ff Tf t 7~1 {J~fe(,,~ ~jYl~~'''~! 7 7~W ~ p~- U~-i L `~i 2~~~ f 1~ 1'~~~-2 ~ o~ ~ ~'~°~N ~ ~ ~ti 1 ~ Li 6~s+3-~`'~~ ~N1J ~iIM !~~~~77~~r~ 71~ r s ~ ~~ -r ~ ~ ~~ ri ~ P ~-~~ S r- i/ t=vu ~ v ~ ~~ ~- ~' o T-( ~Es~s P~a7~~~, ~d~~a ~r~r~ ~}~vr~~o~ o ~ iii !'6~eP~~~~ ~~ ilNi-a'S ; 7~~z P6~a-~~« W~~L ~h ~ ~~,r~~~~. .1~P4c7 ~~12 L~or~si~~-~~ A ,gav n 7 ~~,f e~ Uri ~~ r~-~ W~L~ , ~a~Z ~~~t-r~~ o~ 7rn~r~ s~-~.~ N~- ~~cTs rs C~~s~s7~~~ f,-}~-~~ '~~~ N~~ '~~2 R'~i'7i7ior-+'+-~ 3[~-d2-~ ?'~~-~ LvhFt ~- ~r ~c:CVrhlk-T~ ~N3 ~~ "7rh¢ Lt ~NSi~~ l~2E~ Sr ~~ t~~-~-- ~F~~~~ 0~~ n u • • • SERV~CESrkc. January 19, 3990. 427 ~CUEGUE csquaze e~fe. SOo 1'a aoC~, ~. g2o3? Mr. Peter Patten Town of Vail Planning Director 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 83657 Dear Mr. Patten: I have a residence at 636 West Forest Road attention that it is Marriatt's intention to the town of Vail's planning staff to build time share building with sixty-seven units right on Gore Creek. G7'T: LLILG~LEt~ ~'liElT/TS 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 thin project. Very truly yours, H. Lindley r bbs HLG:wer (~Htoc (drgf gq6-zgz6 c~{oms (6rq) 739-r4s9 L'at (bTg) 9&0-9746 ~x (61q) ¢S9-zSTz . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit to expand the proposed Parking Structure and to add a Learning Center Lab within the lowest level of the parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center located at 181 West Meadow Drive, Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center I DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Vail Valley Medical Center is proposing to add two 1/2 levels to the previously approved parking structure on the northeast corner of the property. The north end of the structure is located on Doubletree property. The applicant states: Initially, one of the 1/2 levels would be used as parking providing 26 additional parking spaces. The second 1/2 level (elevation 8140) would be used as a Learning Center Lab. The facility (approximately 6500 . square feet in size) will be staffed by six people who will coordinate and review the results of research activities conducted at various associated centers throughout the nation. In addition, a portion of the facility will focus on biomechanical studies of athletes as a means of avoiding injury, as well as assisting in quicker and fuller rehabilitation once an injury occurs. This will entail videotaping, measuring and study of physiological actions used in activities of skiing, throwing, kicking and running. Work will be conducted on tissues and cell cultures in a small portion of this facility, as it relates to these above activities. I would like to emphasize, however, that no live animal research will be conducted in this facility, or any other facility in Eagle County by Dr. Steadman. Parkina Requirement: 6 employees 6 spaces Human Performance Gym 3.8 spaces (930 s.f.) Study Lab (1530 s.f.) 6.4 spaces 16.2 or 17 spaces Formula = S.F./15/8/2 = Required Parking (Same formula as used for conference space) . The long range plan is to convert this bottom half level to parking, when needed to support future hospital growth. This conversion would provide an additional 4& parking spaces. The two new 1/2 levels would be constructed beneath the parking structure presently approved and would be entirely below grade. The above grade appearance of the parking structure is unchanged from the drawings and model previously reviewed and approved by the various Town boards. The expansion approved by the Tawn in 1989 has a total parking requirement of 278 spaces. 20 spaces must also be provided for the Doubletree Hotel per the parking agreement. This results in a total parking requirement of 298 spaces. The revised figures for total available parking on site are as follows: Available by Future Conversion November 1990 of Elevation 8135 Parking structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface parking 105 spaces 105 spaces • Lot 10 Total 18 327 spaces s aces 18 373 spaces p spaces Available parking 327 spaces 373 spaces Doubletree parking - 20 spaces - 20 spaces Learning Center Lab - 17 spaces - 17 spaces Required for existing hospital and expansion - 278 spaces - 278 scares Surplus 12 spaces 58 spaces 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. Relationshib and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. a. Parking Expansion: • This proposal is extremely positive. Town boards and planning staff encouraged the hospital to plan for additional parking within the structure for • any future expansions of the hospital facility. As long as the parking structure was being constructed, it was felt that it made good planning sense to provide as much parking at this location as possible. The Vail Valley Medical Center is furthering the development objectives of the Town by providing additional parking in an efficient and logical location that is easily accessible. b. Learning Center Lab: When the hospital expansion was approved last year, a condition of Council approval was that "any usage of live animals for research in the facility must go through a conditional use review," Two representatives for the VVMC have stated in writing that "no live animal research will be conducted in this facility or any other facility in Eagle Co. by Dr. Steadman." (Please see attached letters from Dan Feeney dated March 21, 1990 and Jay Peterson dated April 4, 1990). The lab is a type of use commonly associated with a medical facility. The description of the operation of the lab is a use which is certainly compatible with a hospital use and does not conflict with any development objective of the Town. Yn fact, the use is very positive for the community because of the emphasis on rehabilitation and research related to athletics. 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. a. Parkina Expansion/Learnina Center Lab: The appearance of the parking structure will be exactly the same as the approved plan and will not effect these criteria. • 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to . congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and, convenience, traffic flow and control. access. maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and narkina areas. r1 U a. Parkins Exbansion/Learning Center Lab: Certainly some additional traffic will be generated due to the increased number of parking spaces. However, Colorado Division of Highways will not require additional improvements as all possible roadway improvements were required during the previous hospital approval. Staff discussed the proposal with Rich Penske from CDOH and no additional Frontage Road improvements were deemed necessary. The hospital's structure will connect to the Doubletree parking at level +/- 8162 sq. ft. A break-out panel will be built at level +/- 8151 sq. ft. At this time, no connection or break gut panel is proposed at the lowest level +/- 8140 sq. ft. For this reason, the Doubletree will need to construct a ramp to connect their lowest level of parking to the level above. This connection will be underground and is possible to construct according to the Doubletree's architect. The owner of the Doubletree has also acknowledged that this connection will need to be built completely on Doubletree property. (Please see attached correspondence from Palm Aire Doubletree, Inc. dated April 4, 1990 and sketch form Anthony Relechia Architects.) In order to allow for the ramp, the Doubletree will need to submit a minor amendment to their Special Development District. Staff encourages the hospital to provide a break- out panel or connection at level 8140 (lowest level) to the Doubletree structure to allow for the possibility of shared parking. Even though a proposal to share parking would still require Town approval, it seems to be a lost opportunity to not allow for this possibility. ~J 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the bronosed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the nronosed use in relation to surrounding uses. a. Parkinu Expansion/Learning Center Lab: There will be no change in the mass and bulk of the parking structure as the additional floors are below grade. IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request. The proposed location far additional parking and Learning Center Lab is very complimentary to the overall master plan for the hospital site. There will be no negative impacts due to the additional floors of parking or the Learning Center Lab. In fact, the concept of providing additional parking beneath the approved parking structure is an efficient use of the hospital site. If possible, staff encourages the hospital to incorporate the break-out panel into the lowest level of the structure to allow for future access to the Doubletree Structure. The fact that the spaces are below grade will benefit the aesthetics of the site for the hospital as well as adjacent property owners. Staff would like to commend the Vail Valley Medical Center for making the extra effort to provide as much parking as possible in the location of the parking structure. This effort makes good planning sense for the hospital as well as for the entire community. • • FREdERICK S. OYl'O JAY K. PETERSON WILLIAM J. P65T W ENDELL B, PO RTER F1ELp~JR. April 4, 1990 Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 OTTO, PETERSON & P05T ATTOaiv~~s ~r z,~w PAST OFFICE BOX 3149 VAII., COLO~ApO 81658-314 9 RE: Vail Valley Medical Center Conda.tional Use P_pplicat.ion Dear Kristan: FAX LINE (303) 479-0467 Pursuant to your request I have discussed the uses of the lower 1/2 level of the parking structure with the medical center. As stated in Mr. Feeney's letter of March 21, 1990 the facility (approximately 6500 square feet in size) will be staffed by six people who will coordinate and review the results of research activities conducted at various associated centers throughout the nation. In addition, a portion of the facility will focus on biomechanical studies of athletes as a means of avoiding injury, as well as assisting in quicker and fuller rehabilitation once an injury occurs. This will entail videotaping, measuring and study of physiological actions used in activities of skiing, throwing, kicking and running. Work will be conducted on tissues and cell cultures in a small portion of this facility, as it relates to these above activities. I would like to emphasize, however, that no live animal research will be conducted in this facility, or any other facility in Eagle County by Dr. Steadman. On occasicn, a portion of the facility will also be used for continuing education programs such as lectures, slide and video presentations. If further explanation or clarification is needed please call. Sincerely, rson VAfL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (303) 478-0092 ~~Q vail vaffey r ~' medical center 21 March 199Q ' Kristen Pritz Senior Planner Town of Vail -~ Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kristen: 181 Wesfi Meadow drive, Saite 100 Vail, Colorado 8157 {303) 476-2451 In response to your question regarding the purpose of the Learning Center we propose to construct for Dr. Steadman in the lowest one-half level of the parking structure: As a surgeon whose innovative techniques are of wide--spread interest throughout the sports medicine community, Dr. Steadman is frequently visited by orthopedic surgeons from this country and abroad. The Learning Center will be a place where such visitors to Vail can review video tapes of past surgical procedures of particular significance, as wail as live "feeds" of procedures in progress in the operating room at the moment. It wil] also be a facility where a full-time staff of six persons will coordinate and review the results of research activities being conducted at various associated centers throughout the nation. There will be several small rooms on--site where work wi11 be conducted on tissues and cell cultures. However, pr. Steadman stands by his previous commitment that he will conduct no live animal research in Eagle County. In addition, Dr. Steadman will use the Learning Center to develop and evaluate conditioning techniques with human subjects, as a means of avoiding injury, as well as assisting in quicker and fuller rehabilitation, once an injury occurs. Please call if I can provide any further clarification on our application for amendment to our Conditional Use permit. car .~~ r. y feet agar D,lH:bh cc: Ray McMahan Jay Peterson n Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer ~1 ~a.sa~r~~~t,.r MEMOR,~,N ~U'M T0: TOWN OF VA1LfATTN: ICRIS'~AN PRITZ FROM: PALM 1~,IRE DDU$LETREE, It~C. DA~'Et APRIL 4, 1990 RE: DDCT$LETIZEE/V~iI~+ VA.S.L~'~ MEDICAL CEN'L'E~t Deax Kristen: The Faalvwing ztez~s have been agreed to between tk:e owzaers bf the DQUbletree Hotel and Vail Vatiley Medical Center: r~ . ~+~ ~.. 'IhSt the undersigned $s in agreement wfth the parking structure as designed and submitted t0 thy: TQWn of Vail., and that Such structure is in comp3S.ance with the agreement between vaik Holdings and VA~kl CZfnic, ~z~c., dated June 29, 19&9. 2. Th~rt the undersigne~t has no ob~ectian t4 a building pex~it being issued for the parking structure. ~. That the access to the lower Ievel of paarkit~g for ~.he AOUb~.~tree Hc~te~. shaxi rema~.r, on 'khc Dvubletree pxoperty. ~. That the undersigned consents to the applic~-tit~x~ df Vail valYey Medic~,X Center and hereby waives any technical d+~fect of ns~tice as aCtua~. notice k~as bQen received by the undexs5.gz~ed. PALM AIRE DOU$LETREE, INC, on SexnstB,itl - / RB: n9 T~T~I~ P. ~~f c riiEMORAN Di7Nd S~~T~: A,Pk2TI. 4, 190 ,i~l".~r' a.~~.~Wa.+iiC_~.i 3{.?'s~% ~,1.. ~.~d`..'.: .'-`. '- ... A7 ~, }'~a.,: ~r Rv ~.r ne~~ Krx~~•t~ra: °1'a"1:~ ~~~~fl~~.a1~3 ..i_~, a;e=w., ~u~j>~- X.~'~-_. ~. .:i`_.=:'k~ ~_« ~~~w~.~iis~~`~ ~'h'?~ t')t~~~?'~'~~ L~'~' i.,3.~ licaUY~~.~r:rwc~ ~'~~~=~~`~lr;;~ ~~t~' ~:'~",_:~f F~~e,`aC:~1 ~`,~:X1~~Y': r~.3 •:~i:'. 14;kAtx:'~ ...a_~ ~iL~'f1#~ ~? ~~ ~ -!_' ~,~fs '~r~i;FSf [t"~ "':~3 j s `=Sl'"~. ~3.?i~~ °.=d7S¢~~1 • ~~~~~._3.~.a'~"~~ i $.~ ~~:3 ,3t~ ~{~~_.~ ~~ ~e?r ts~, :ms s Yr~ra;-}n~ ~~w~., ~~! ~~~.e.~ a i7,~3Ci.~.~~C,~;ra :~(lfi «~ y Y~~ ~ 7 ~:,I,. ,. ~- ~ ~ {~ ~~{{#- ..ar Yt r '7 Ca ~ 7 7 f~CS~ N ~, . 2~~k ~, i~- ~: ~ -y s' .~ i`; `.) vS1 ~ f- ~-',L~Y`a s~~i ~ ~?11 i. ~..~~.~~ ~~~~`Td:~.`~;. ti~~ l ]'Tr" is ~ ~:S 1`,c~.t. '~ ~ "~~~':~ u.:' l~st.1~.'.C~ ~VY 'C-i1C: ~~~?;(~K•_.~- €~.`~] ~>~»,~'~~~r•~'F-'~.X3^~' x .j '1'~]t`~.G a.•~~t` L~rt~l~t:~ _ ~rt,3 '_~~~ ~ ;d~'dv~~ E ~`~~'~. CYA~. ~~$~~t!_~f~ ~~~' •~.h~., f'~'.~~,4~:~ ~°'~.1. . •i ' i',~~a iif:~~i i- i. _ ~-Ea^;~. ear v~:L'~£'.i:~ ~'b~> .,~~~ 3i'•~t~,~E~~=1.C~r!.~~-o Pl'11JL`3 ACRE ld~Ui3~kd 1. Ali fi,J3 TL'~Ua C3Ti ~~XIIfi~B.~IZ f R8: ne Ti =iTF~L F' . T0: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department April 9, 1990 RE; A request for an exterior additions to the Red Lion Applicant: Frankie Tang alteration in order to make Building. and the Landmark Properties. This application was last considered by the Planning Commission on March 19, 1994., At that meeting, this request was tabled by the applicant in order to allow them the opportunity to respond to issues and concerns raised by both the staff and the Planning Commission. A number of changes have been made to this proposal over the past three weeks. This memorandum will outline the staff's response to these changes. A SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES Based on input received during the March 19th meeting, the following items highlight the major areas of concern relative to this proposal. Dinincr Deck Fnr_,l r~surp a Ionic Bridge Street As proposed, this element of the project has remained unchanged and would enclose an additional 100 s.f. of dining deck along Bridge Street. The staff remains strongly opposed to this element of the proposal. To allow for the continued enclosure of this dining area is contrary to the fundamental goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan in the Village. While there are positive aspects of installing the rekord doors on the walls of the existing restaurant area, this door system cannot justify the continued enclosure of this dining deck. In every case where rekord doors have been installed to restaurants in the Village, legitimate outdoor dining area has remained in front of the enclosure. Operable doors do open up the interior space to the street, but they do not duplicate the vitality of outdoor dining along Bridge Street, One additional factor to be considered is the enclosure's relationship to the adjacent pocket park. This portion of the building will create an uncomfortable sense of enclosure in the pocket park and cast increased shadow pattern in this area. . The use restriction on Red Lion windows. The 1982 approval that permitted the original Red Lion deck enclosure required that the windows be removed between June 15 through September 15. This condition was applied to ensure that the deck remain open during the summer months. The staff would recommend that this condition be modified to allow the Red Lion to close up the windows daring non- business hours during the summer hours. Little has changed with this space to justify modifying this condition of approval. Given the existing solid roof enclosure over this dining deck, requiring the windows to be open is the minimum that can be done to replicate the experience of outdoor dining. Transnarencv Considerable changes have been made to the fenestration on the upper levels of this building. A major improvement is that all windows on stucco wall plans will be recessed 3-4". The current proposal is now much more consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. As was stated in the previous memo, this design element is typically the purview of the Design Review Board, and any final approvals concerning window treatments will be made by the DRB. Given the . changes that have been made, the staff would recommend the final decisions pertaining to fenestration be dealt with at the Design Review Board level. Entrv to Bridge Street Condominium Concerns were raised regarding the proposed condominium entry that impacted an existing planter adjacent the pocket park. While the original design has been modified, the revised entry still affects the existing planter area. Maintaining the existing stairway to this condominium would have no affect on the planter area, Staff would recU~~~~~~end that this alternative be used in lieu of the current proposal. Restaurant Vents The proposed venting solution will consolidate the three vents that serve the two restaurants in the building. The duct system will be totally enclosed and the fans themselves will be screened with siding to match the building. The fans will be located approximately 10' above their existing location. This location should help the dispersal of odors emitted from these fans. • Views from the Rucksack Building A number of Commissioners encouraged the applicants to study design alternatives that would reduce the view impact of this proposal on the Rucksack building. The applicants have responded by pulling back the east face of the building between 8 and 9 feet directly adjacent to the Rucksack property. This design change will lessen the view impact of this proposal on the Rucksack Building. Roof Forms Very positive changes to the building mass and roof form have been made on the south-east side of the building. This design change consolidates the building mass and entirely eliminates one roof plane. This has reduced what the staff has considered to be a "busy" roof form. Portions of the west elevation will still have a "stair stepped/wedding cake" type of look. However, the staff feels this is acceptable given the many design parameters that have had to be addressed as a part of the design process. Dining Deck/Walkwav along Mill Creek A number of changes have been made to this element of the proposal. The dining deck has been significantly reduced in size and is located entirely on Red Lion property. The proposed walkway along the stream has been deleted, however nothing is proposed that would prevent this walkway from being constructed at a later date. The existing pine trees along the back side of the Red Lion will remain in their current location. In lieu of the walkway, the applicants have proposed an informal open area in between the dining deck and the stream. This should provide a small, but pleasant informal seating area along the creek that can be accessed from the existing sidewalk on the east side of the building. The staff remains a strong supporter of a walkway along this side of Mill Creek. However, we understand the difficulty in developing this portion of the walk without a design solution behind the Rucksack property. The staff considers this proposal a very positive improvement for this area. The rekord doors and outdoor dining will still provide activity along the creek, and the design does not preclude the development of a walkway in the future. • r1 LJ Restrictions on Remaining GRFA At the March 19 meeting the applicant offered to place restrictions on the property that would prohibit the development of any additional GRFA beyond what is approved by this plan. While the staff had not contemplated impaling this restriction, they would certainly be willing to work with the applicant to facilitate this restriction. Amendments to View Corridor No. 1 As stated in the March 19 memorandums, the staff supports proposed modifications to View Corridor No. 1. After evaluating the wording of the Ordinance and the other four view corridors, staff feels the mast prudent way to facilitate this amendment is to adjust the line on the photograph that depicts View Corridor No. 1. To modify the wording in the Ordinance would create further complications that may threaten the integrity and interpretation of other View Corridors. Simply resurveying the line to run directly over the top of the new Red Lion roof ridge (this line would still be below the existing Golden Peak House roof ridge), appears to be the most appropriate way to modify this corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Located on Bridge Street in the heart of Vail Village, the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building is certainly one of the most high profile projects to be proposed in the Village over the past decade, Numerous issues and concerns have been discussed by the staff and Planning Commission in response to this application. Many positive modifications to the design have been made in response to these concerns, and the staff is now supportive of the proposed design that is before the Planning Commission. Our support, however, is predicated on two changes. These included: 1. The deletion of the 1.00 s.f. of additional deck enclosure along Bridge Street. 2. Further modification to the entryway to the condominium along Bridge Street. With these changes, the staff would recommend approval of this exterior alteration. The staff would also recommend the following conditions of approval: L~ 1. The proposed landscape/streetscape treatment along the south side of the building ~s considered conceptual. The applicants agree to work with Winston and Associates and the staff during the development of the Vail Village Streetscape plan and will agree to modify this design as necessary in order to comply with the Vail Village Streetscape Plan. 2. The rekord doors (or other type of window system installed} to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge Street sha11 remain totally open during business hours between June 15 and September 15 of each year. These windows may be opened at any other time during the year at the discretion of the restaurant management. 3. The applicants sha11 be responsible for all improvements shown to the Town of Vail stream track between Mill Creek and the Red Lion Building. The final design in this area shall be subject to a review and approval by the Design Review Board and Town staff. 4. The applicants shall be responsible for re- photographing and resurveying view corridor #1 after the building ridge has been erected. this work shall be coordinated with the Community Development staff and shall be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. w • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATL~: April 9, 2990 SUBJECT: A request for a stream setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Red Lion building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties I. DES('RTPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The 30 foot stream setback is measured from the center line of Mill Creek. The existing Red Lion building is located within this 30 foot setback (encroachments range from one to eighteen feet). Proposed improvements within the required stream setback are limited to a small addition to the building. The building addition adds between one to five feet of encroachment. 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 re«uested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Stream setbacks have been established to ensure buffers between buildings and stream tracts. However, the expansion is a minor one and the building is already located within the stream setback. The building addition wi11 not impact existing ar potential uses in this area. 2. The dPCxrPP t~ Whir_h relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a speci.f.i_PC~ regulat.~nn ;~ necPsc~ry_to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amon« sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob~iectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The proposed building expansion is a part of a redesigned entry to an upper level condominium. The degree of encroachment ranges from one to five feet, and accommodates an entry vestibule, ski storage lockers, and a small portion of a proposed • elevator. Given the existing location of the building, the relatively minor encroachment, and the recently approved A & D redevelopment, this request would not be a grant of special privilege. R + 3. The effect of the recruested variance on light and . air. distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safety. This building expansion would not affect any of the above considerations. III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the development of a stream walk in this area. The building expansion would not preclude the development of this walk. 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 Staff rec~.~„~~endation for this request is approval. The slight building expansion will have no appreciable affects and is not considered a special privilege, .. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance in order to construct an addition to the Red Lion building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED Permitted roverage in Commercial Core I is 80% of the lot area. In Commercial Core T, site coverage means "a portion of a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios and decks". Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83%. This proposal wi11 add site coverage in one area: 1. 50 square feet of building expansion along Mill Creek. Construction in this area will actuaiiy eliminate 27 sq. ft. of existing site coverage, resulting in a net gain of 23 sq. ft. of coverage. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section ?.8.62.060 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 reauested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The 50 square feet of additional site coverage for the building expansion is partly offset by a deduction of 27 feet of existing building in this area. This small amount of new building will not impact adaacent uses or activities in the area. 2. The deareP t.ri 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 ob~iectives of this title without grant of special privilege. . The site coverage variance is a net increase of 23 square feet with no appreciable impacts. While there is no apparent physical hardship to warrant this request, the .2 ~ increase in site coverage is certainly negligible. . 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air, distribution of uooulation. transportation and traffic. f~,r.ilities ublic facilities and. utilities. and public safety. There are no affects on any of the considerations listed above. TTT. RELATED POLTC:TFS IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN There is one element of the Vail Village Plan that is directly related to this proposal, Policy 3.4.1., which reads: "Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts should not further restrict public access." This design would not restrict pedestrian access to this side of the Mill Cree stream tract. 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 far 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 RECOMMENDATTON • Staff rec~~«~«endation for the site coverage variance request is approval. The proposed expansion will have na negative impacts on the surrounding area and the amount of increase is negligible. LJ "~ r • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRDM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an outdoor dining patio at the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REQUESTED This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion Restaurant on the east side of the building directly adjacent to Mill Creek. The proposed deck encompasses approximately 100 square feet and is located entirely on Red Lion land. "Rekord" type folding doors will be installed an the building to allow the existing dining room to open onto the dining deck. The deck will be accessed by an existing walkway from Hanson Ranch Road. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL Commercial Core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in evaluating conditional use requests. These include the following: A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I. District. This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core T. This proposal should nat appreciably reduce vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking. Not Applicable. D. Control of delivery. Dick--up and service vehicles. The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway. Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail loading zone. This loading zone will remain unchanged by this proposal. As proposed, trash dumpsters for the entire Red Lion Building are located next to the proposed dining deck. The physical relationship between these two uses is certainly not compatible. However, trash pick-up in the Village has traditionally occurred during the morning hours prior to restaurant openings. This situation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Village is such that there are no "back doors" to provide for these operations. E. nevelopment of public spaces for use by pedestrians. Improvements along the stream and adjacent to the deck will be accessible to the public. This area will provide a small, but pleasant informal seating area along MiII Creek. Staff would encourage the placement of a bench or large boulders in this area for public • seating. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to, maintain the existing character of the area. The proposal will strengthen the pedestrian character of the Village. The proposal does not include the development of a streamwalk, but nothing in this proposal would prevent the future development of this walk. The staff still supports the concept of this walk, but does recognize the site constraints involved in "connecting" this area with the A & D building segment. This proposal is a goad interim solution until a design for the entire length of the walk can be developed. G. Control duality of construction, architectural design and landscape design in Commercial Core I so as to, maintain the existing character of the area. This criteria is addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum. • ~ R III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this conditional use "opening" the restaurant up to the creek with a positive step towards improving pedestrian Creek area. The informal landscape treatment wi11 increase public access in this area. • permit is approval. this dining deck is activity in the Mill along the creek r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 23, 1990 1:30 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from April 9, 1990 meeting. TABLED 2. A request far a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No, 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais- Moseley Construction. 1 3. A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem 3 4. An appeal of a decision of the zoning administrator, pursuant to Section 18.66.030 of the zoning code, regarding the Town's definition of "site coverage" (Section 18.04.360}, specifically as it relates to Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Jim Morter, for H. Ross Perot. 2 5. A request for a work session for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Mark} in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. 6. Appointment of PEC member to Parking and Transportation Task Force. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APRIL 23, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Tom Braun Connie Knight Mike Mollica Ludwig Kurz Penny Perry Jim Shearer Betsy Rosolack Kathy Warren Staff Absent Members Absent Shelly Mello Dalton Williams The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from April 9, 1990 meeting. Diana Donovan felt there were some changes she needed to discuss with Tom before approving the minutes. A motion to table the minutes from the April 9, 1990 was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Kathy Warren. • VOTE: 6 - 0 TN FAVOR Item No. 2: A reauest for a final plat for a ma~ior subdivision, and for SDD No. 22. a resubdivision of Lots 1-19 ,_ Block 2. Lionsridae Filing No. 3. AAblicant: Pat Daunhinais, Dau~ahinais-Moseley Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant requested to table the item until the next meeting. Motion to table the item until Mav 14, 1990 was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTF: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 3: A reauest for a ma-ior subdivision and for a ma-ior amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A,, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 (the Valley, - Phase III Applicant: Brad and Susan T-iossem Mike Mollica presented the project explaining that the applicant was requesting two separate items: a preliminary plan for a major . 1 subdivision and a major amendment to SDD No. 16. Mike reviewed . the appropriate criteria relating to the requests found within the memo. The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plan for the Elk Meadows subdivision and the amendment to SDD No. 16 with conditions. The proposal basically followed the underlying Residential Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning originally approved by Eagle County. Kathy Warren asked to see the previous plat that had been approved and inquired whether the small setbacks and roof overhangs had been addressed and Mike explained that all of the building, including the overhangs, was required to be within the confines of the building envelope. Kathy asked if the GRFA of the employee dwelling units was in addition to the allowed GRFA and Mike answered that there would be no additional GRFA, the employee units would be included in the x.6,000 sq. ft. of GRFA allowed. Ludwig Kurz felt there were many positive points regarding the proposal. He liked the reduction in density. He also liked the alignment of the road the way it was proposed, in order to preserve the meadow area as much as possible. Chuck Crist asked if there would be an additional tap fee for the employee unit and Mike explained that the tap fees would be up to the discretion of the Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation . District. Chuck also asked if a home that included an employee unit would require covered parking and Mike explained that under current regulations covered parking would indeed be required for a home with an employee unit. Kathy Warren asked what the setbacks were on the previously approved plat and Mike explained that they were approximately the same. Kathy stated that since the setbacks were the same she could approve the project. In addition, she wished to know how additional parking would be handled and Kristan explained that there were no provisions for additional parking. Each home had a number of parking spaces required relating to GRFA. All required parking must be on site. Kathy commented that she thought the project "looked good". Jim Shearer had no major concerns with the project. He was also concerned about the parking but was more comfortable due to the previous explanation by Kristan. Connie Knight wished to clarify whether the Dauphinais Subdivision employee units were in addition to the allowed GRFA per the SDD. Kristan explained that they were in addition to the allowed GRFA of the new SDD but did not exceed the GRFA that would have been applied with the underlying zoning. • • Diana commented that the building envelopes where not all the same size, yet the allowed GRFA per envelope was the same throughout. She questioned how this worked and Kristan explained that the variation in the size of the building envelopes would present no problems building. Chuck Crist asked what the site coverage was and Kristan explained that they were allowed to build on essentially the whole site with the exception of the setbacks. A motion for approval of the preliminary plan with conditions per the staff memo as follows was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist.. 1. The development of each buildina envelope will comply, with the rockfall mitigation reports prepared by Nicholas Lampiris, Project Geologist. and Donald G. Pettvarove. P.E.. Pro~iect Manager with Banner Associates. Inc. Such reports are dated February 23. 1987, February 25, 1987. June 12. 1987. June 15. 1987., July 22. 1987 and March 12, 1990. and will be kept on file in the Town's Community Development Offices. Each individual lot owner will be responsible for completing the hazard mitigation for their lot. per the above named reports. This restriction shall be noted on the, Final Plat. VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR A motion for a recommendation to the Town Council far approval of the mayor amendment to SDD No. 16 with the. fallowing conditions Aer the staff memo was made by Kathy. Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. 1. That approval of the ma'ior amendment to SDD No. 15 be, contingent upon PEC approval of the Final Plat for the subdivision. 2. That the developer construct a minimum of one empla~~ee dwelling unit, and that said employee dwelling unit be a part of either the first or second buildina permit, for the project. A11 employee dwelling units shall meet the criteria listed in Section V,B.2 of the staff memo. 3. That no portions of any buildina shall extend over the buildina envelope boundaries. n U • • • VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 4: An aopeal of a decision of administrator, ~aursuant to the zoning code. regarding of "site coverage" fSectio specifically as it relates Vail Village First Filing. Aoolicant: Jim Morten. for the zoning Section 18.66.030 of the Town's definition n 18.04.3601. to Lot 31., Block 7,. H. Ross Perot. Mike Mollica explained that Jim Morten was representing Mr. H. Ross Perot. Jim was appealing the decision of the staff concerning the definition of "site coverage." The request before the PEC centered around the Town of Vail Zoning Code definitions of "site coverage" and "Building." The applicant's position was that "because the garage would be totally covered by existing grades (the site over the garage will be taken back to its original grades and landscaped conditions}, the garage was not covering the site." The staff believed that the garage was indeed a building as defined in the code, the garage required new grading and did not meet existing grades, and did not support the applicant's position that the garage should be considered as a landscape feature. The staff could not support the applicant's request and felt the garage should be included as site coverage as defined in the Town's zoning code. Jim Morten explained that he was not disagreeing with the definition of "building." He felt the garage was definitely a building. He was disagreeing with the definition of "site coverage." He felt the building did not cover the site, the site was covering the building. He also wished to point out that currently there was no parking on the site. Yf the appeal were not granted, the only option would be on-grade parking and to carve into the site. He showed an elevation of how the cut would look. The retaining wall would increase 14 to 19 feet. Jim stated that regardless of the on-grade parking implications, the proposed garage would not cover the site. The site would cover the garage. Jim explained that Mr. Perot was offering to landscape the area across the street where he presently parked on the Town's property. The disagreement was the definition of "site coverage." Chuck Crist asked Mike if, in fact, according to Mike's calculations, the proposed grades would not be exactly as existing, rather it would be 2' higher and Mike concurred. Jim explained that they would be mare than happy to bring the grade back to the original height but he felt that if they were going 4 to complete the project, they should do it correctly by making it • more aesthetically pleasing. Kathy Warren felt she had to agree with the staff. She viewed the project as an earth shelter. Simply because the building was buried was not justification for determining it not to be site coverage. She felt that if it was completely below grade rather than on grade, with an entry, it was site coverage. Jim Shearer felt it was site coverage. He did not want to set a precedent and felt it would be very dangerous and could be costly overall. On the other side, he felt the Commission had an obligation to the Town of Vail to ensure that projects "looked good" and felt that the proposal would Look better than what was presently there. He felt the project needed a solution but that an exception to the definition of site coverage was not the appropriate means. Connie Knight asked what the square footage of the garage was and Mike answered 1100 sq. ft. Connie stated that the proposal brought back to mind the Briner petition to do new construction underground with a garage bay. This was a setback request, but, she felt it was relevant. Briner's request was denied and she felt she needed to be consistent and deny the Perot appeal. Ludwig Kurz stated that in general he agreed with Jim Shearer. • The Briner request was for new construction and the Perot proposal was for an addition to an existing building. He did hope to see the project accomplished in a way to provide on-site parking but did not feel the site coverage appeal was the correct avenue. Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy Warren that the garage was definitely a building and must count as site coverage. She suggested that Jim Morter look for another avenue and Jim asked if Diana was referencing a procedure or design and Diana answered rrboth. " Discussion centered around clarifying "ground level" and general agreement was reached that "ground level" was that area where a person could drive into the garage. A motion to deny the abt~eal and ut~hold the staff decision, per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 6 - 0 TN FAVOR OF DENTAL OF THE APPEAL While the applicants for ltem No. 5 were setting up visual aides, the Commission skipped to Ttem No. 6. • 5 Ztem No. 6: Appointment of PFC member to Parking and, Transportation Task Force.. Chuck Crist Volunteered for the Task Force. Ttem No. 5: A request for a work session for a maior amendment, to Special Development District No. 7 (The, Marriott Mark1 in order to add 57 timeshare units, and 8 emplovee housing units., Applicant: Marriott Corporation. Tom Braun explained that the item was tabled at the applicant's request after lengthy discussion at the PEC's April 9th meeting. A number of design changes had been made in response to comments made by the Planning Commission and the applicants had requested a work session prior to finalizing the redesign. Tom highlighted design changes as found in the staff memo. Peter Jamar wished to clarify that the Marriott did intend to • continue working with the staff and the Commission. They wished to work within what was reasonable and meet the goals and objectives of the Town. They had taken suggestions from the last meeting and made changes. He believed that they had sincerely tried to responde to all the issues. Ned Gwathmey explained that he had reduced the mass by moving the roof garden to the edge to cover the garage and removed 1 floor level. Ned pointed out the changes on the elevation plans and compared the changes on the before and after models. Regarding the recoloring of the existing Marriott, the applicant had agreed to commit to the tie-in between the two buildings and to eliminate the dark wood color. The initial thought was to flip the color to be light with dark trim. They had not committed to the color and were open to suggestions. Kathy Warren felt there was still too much GRFA and too many units. She did like what they did with the mass, however architecturally, she liked the other building better. She was still not comfortable with 93% site coverage and 47 unit/acre. The buildings represented on the comparison chart presented in the staff memo were built prior to zoning enactment. There were reasons the zoning was changed to avoid high density projects. Fundamentally, she was not opposed to additional density, but not so much. • 6 In response to Kathy's opposition to high density, Jay felt that the down-zoning was aimed more at the outlying areas, not the core areas. Peter Jamar stated that one Town of Vail Goal is to try to acquire this type of unit, and that the project fit everything else except density and GRFA. Jamar also felt that this project would pump vitality into Lionshead. Kathy said that they had input from people against the project because they were concerned about the increase in density. She wanted to know if there was any support for the project. Jay responded that a hugh number of people in Lionshead support the concept. Jay added that he didn't like to bring them in during this part of the process. Peter Jamar pointed out that the Land Use Plan also supported the project. Discussion of updating the Land Use Plan followed and Tom said that the document was designed to be long-term and revised every three to five years. Tom also added that regarding the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan, it did support this type of proposal. Kathy said that she would feel more comfortable if people were brought in who said they were in support of the project. Peter Jamar said that they had actually told people to stay away. Kathy replied that the people could write letters or sign a petition. Rob Levine said that he presented the idea to his board and that they supported the idea and that they did feel it would add vitality to Lionshead. Kathy said that knowing that did make a difference to her. Kristan said that she was very glad that the applicants were not bringing in lots of people to push for the project. Tt was important to look at the Land Use Plan and Special Development District criteria and base the decision on that. When the staff makes a decision, they must base the decision on goals and policies that are in place. She felt it was important that the Planning Commission use existing regulations and policies. Jay said that you have responsibility to the neighbors. He added that he did have adjacent property owners give input and have come back with revisions. He felt the project did reflect many view points. Connie asked if there was anything to evaluate the SDD on and • 7 Kristan responded that there were nine design criteria. Kristan added that the staff recommendation was based on the fact that the plan was in compliance with all nine criteria. Peter Jamar pointed out to Connie that the chart on page 8 of the memo was a comparison and that they were trying to fall within those parameters. Connie replied that she felt there was still too much GRFA and she also felt that the design was not as goad. Donnie felt that the landlord was being too greedy and blocking some of their own views. Ned responded that people did not buy an assigned unit, they purchased a floating unit. Jim said that he had forgotten to mention that he would like to see a massive planting on the west elevation to hide part of the parking structure. Diana said she would like to have underlying zoning to utilize when an applicant, at a later date, asks for other approvals. She felt that it was essential. She did feel also that the new design was a great improvement. Diana felt that there was no problem with the density, that the Land Use Plan stated that you should add density where same already exists. Diana wondered what the Town of Vail was getting. She was hoping the Town would gain more landscaping and more employee units and she would J,ike to see mare landscaping on the end toward the bike path. Kathy was hoping that part of the top floor could be moved back • to increase the view from Vail Spa. Ned replied that he could change the proportion of rooms and could push it back 15'. Diana felt that it was a negative impact on the bike path at present. Peter Jamar said that there would be a batter model at the next meeting. Bill Burding, attorney representing Vail Spa, step in the right direction that the building back. He still felt a 58 unit increase would dramatically. He added that with the off-ray added traffic to the Marriott, there would be in the neighborhood. felt this was a was being pushed increase traffic np added plus the a definite change Jay Peterson asked Bill Burding if there were any other concerns and Mr. Burding responded that there were not any more concerns and that they appreciated the applicant's interest. Jay added that the Town was changing, that what we see now is not what we were going to see over the next 10 to 15 years. Diana stated that she would rather see the exterior unit be employee units and if you need more density she would rather see it in Lionshead than in the Village and would rather see it near the Frontage Road if in Lionshead. She felt that if more density • 8 was going to be added that this location had merit. She stated • that she felt that Forest road was zesidential, this was commercial and that the added density here had less impact than if density were added to any other building along Gore Creak. Kathy felt the southeast corner looked more like a motel. She was concerned about the appearance on the west elevation. She did not want it to look like a parking structure. Kristan stated that if this was going tv go to the Planning Commission on May 14, she needed all drawings and application materials in her office by April 30th in the morning to allow time to review. Kristan questioned the use of an underlying zone district, Jay suggested High Density Multiple Family. Diana stated that if underlying zoning was used she did not want the memo to say that this project did not fit the zone district. Peter Jamar stated that an SDD does become very specific, and therefore it might be simpler to have merely an SDD, that his personal preference was not to da an underlying zoning. Tom reminded them that if they did not do the building they would have to come back and reapply. Kristan stated that was why she would like to see same underlying zoning. Diana felt that anyone could adopt an SDD. She added that it would not be smart and that it would be complicated to add underlying coning now. She would like to da the SDD and then add underlying zoning. Tom reminded the board that the underlying zoning would need to be part of the ordinance. Jay stated that 80% of the site was HDMF. Tam explained that Larry Eskwith's opinion was that existing SDD was not necessary or required to adopt an underlying zoning. Kristan felt that the list of uses was the most important part of having underlying zoning. Tom said that the rest was all determined through review process of an SDD. Diana felt that usually the uses on the underlying guidelines were the main issues, Diana said that in this particular project it doesn't, but that if they came back for other requests, it might help. A motion to table until Mao 14. 1990 was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 6 - 0 The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. • s n Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM7SS1ON APRIL 23, 1990 Members Absent Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Tom Braun Mike Mollica Penny Peary Betsy Rosolack Staff Absent Shelly McI1o The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Aonroval of minutes from Anrii 9. 1990 meeting. Diana Donovan felt there were some changes she needed to discuss with Tom before approving the minutes. A motion to table the minutes from the AAril 9, 1990 was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Kathv Warren. VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR c;<:.__. ~~~~ Item No. 2: A request for a final plat for a major subdivision and for SDD No. 22. a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridae Filing Na. 3. Annlicant: Pat Daubhinais, Daunhinais-Moselev, Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant requested to table the item until the next meeting. Motion to table the item until Mav 14. 1990 was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer., VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVDR Item No. 3: A request far a major subdivision and far a major, amendment to SDD No. 15 on a portion of Parcel A~ Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2 (the Valley - Phase IIII Annlicant: Brad and Susan T~iossem. Mike Mollica presented the project explaining that the applicant was requesting two separate items: a preliminary plan for a major • subdivision and a major amendment to SDD No. 16. Mike reviewed the appropriate criteria relating to the requests found within the memo. The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plan ~D for the Elk Meadows subdivision and the amendment to SDD No. 16 with conditions. The proposal basically followed the underlying Residential Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning originally approved by Eagle County. Kathy Warren asked to see the previous plat that had been approved and inquired whether the small setbacks and roof overhangs had been addressed and Mike explained that all of the building, including the overhangs, was required to be within the confines of the building envelope. Kathy asked if the GRFA of the employee dwelling units was in addition to the allowed GRFA and Mike answered that there would be no additional GRFA, the employee units would be included in the 16,aaa sq. ft. of GRFA allowed. Ludwig Kurz felt there were many positive points regarding the proposal. He liked the reduction in density. He also liked the alignment of the road the way it was proposed, in order to preserve the meadow area as much as possible. Chuck Crist asked if there would be an additional tap fee far the employee unit and Mike explained that the tap fees would be up to the discretion of the Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District, Chuck also asked if a home that included an employee ~~ unit would require covered parking and Mike explained that under current regulations covered parking would indeed be required for a home with an employee unit. Kathy Warren asked what the setbacks were on the previously approved plat and Mike explained that they were approximately the same. Kathy stated that since the setbacks were the same she could approve the project. In addition, she wished to know how additional parking would be handled and Kristan explained that there were no provisions for additional parking. Each home had a number of parking spaces required relating to GRFA. All required parking must be on site. Kathy commented that she thought the project "looked good". Jim Shearer had no major concerns with the project. He was also concerned about the parking but was more comfortable due to the previous explanation by Kristan. Connie Knight wished to clarify whether the Dauphinais Subdivision employee units were in addition to the allowed GRFA per the SDD. Kristan explained that they were in addition to the allowed GRFA of the new 5DD but did not exceed the GRFA that would have been applied with the underlying zoning. 2 Diana commented that the building envelopes where not all the same size, yet the allowed GRFA per envelope was the same throughout. She questioned how this worked and Kristan explained that the variation in the size of the building envelopes would present no problems building. Chuck Crist asked what the site coverage was and Kristan explained that they were allowed to build on essentially the whole site with the exception of the setbacks. A motion for approval of the Preliminary elan with conditions Per the staff memo as follows was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. ~.. The development of each building envelope will comply with the rockfall mitiaation reports prepared b~' Nicholas Lampiris. Proiect Geologist. and Donald G. Pettvarove. P.E.. Project Manager with Banner Associates. Inc. Such reports are dated February 23, 1987, February 25. 1987. June 12. 1987. June 15, 1987. July 22. 1987 and March 12. 1990. and w~>> be kept on file in the Town's Community Development Offices. Each individual lot owner will be responsible for completing, the hazard mitiaation for their lot, per the above • named reports. This restriction shall be noted on the. Final Plat. VOTE : 6 ., 0 IN FAVOR A motion for a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the maior amendment to SDD No. 16 with the following conditions per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. 1. That approval of the maior amendment to SDD No. 16 be contingent upon PEC approval of the Final Plat for the subdivision. 2. That the developer construct a minimum of one emvlovee dwelling unit. and that said employee dwelling unit be a Hart of either the first ar second building permit. for the Proiect. All employee dwelling units shall meet the criteria listed in Section V,B,2 of the staff memo. 3. That no Portions of any building shall extend over the building envelope boundaries. r ' VOTE : f -- 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 4: An anneal of a decision of administrator. pursuant to the zoning code. reaardir~a of "site coverage" (Section sbecifica].1v as ~,rel~tes Vail Villacre First Fi1~.ntt. Abblicant: J~Morter. for the zoning Section ~8.6G. Q3Q q,~, the Town's definition 18.04.3.~Q} . to Lot 31, Block 7L H. Ross Perot. Mike Mollica explained that Jim Morter was representing Mr. H. Ross Perot. Jim was appealing the decision of the staff concerning the definition of "site coverage." The request before the PEC centered around the Town of Vail Zoning Code definitions of "site coverage" and "Building."~ The applicant's position was that "because the garage would be totally covered by existing grades (the site aver the garage will be taken back to its original grades and landscaped conditions), the garage was not covering the site." The staff believed that the garage was indeed a building as defined in the code, the garage required new grading and did not meet existing grades, and did not support the applicant's position that the garage should be considered as a landscape feature, The staff could not support the applicant's request and felt the garage should be included as site coverage as defined in the Town's zoning code, Jim Morter explained that he was not disagreeing with the definition of "building." He felt the garage was definitely a building. He was disagreeing with the definition of "site coverage." He felt the building did not cover the site, the site was covering the building. He also wished to point out that currently there was no parking on the site. If the appeal were not granted, the only option would be on-grade parking and to carve into the site. He showed an elevation of how the cut would look. The retaining wall would increase 14 to 19 feet. Jim stated that regardless of the on-grade parking implications, the proposed garage would not cover the site. The site would cover the garage. Jim explained that Mr. Perot was offering to landscape the area across the street where he presently parked on the Town's property. The disagreement was the definition of "site coverage." Chuck Crist asked Mike if, in fact, according to Mike's calculations, the proposed grades would not be exactly as existing, rather it would be 2' higher and Mike concurred. Jim explained that they would be more than happy to bring the grade back to the original height but he felt that if they were going /~ 4 ~' to complete the project, they should do it correctly by making it . more aesthetically pleasing. Kathy Warren felt she had to agree with the staff. She viewed the project as an earth shelter. Simply because the building was buried was not justification for determining it not to be site coverage. She felt that if it was completely below grade rather than on grade, with an entry, it was site coverage. Jim Shearer felt it was site coverage. He did not want to set a precedent and felt it would be very dangerous and could be costly overall. On the other side, he felt the Commission had an obligation to the Town of Vail to ensure that projects "looked good" and felt that the proposal would look better than what was presently there. He felt the project needed a solution but that an exception to the definition of site coverage was not the appropriate means. Connie Knight asked what the square footage of the garage was and Mike answered 11x0 sq. ft. Connie stated that the proposal brought back to mind the Briner petition to do new construction underground with a garage bay. This was a setback request, but, she felt it was relevant. Briner's request was denied and she felt she needed to be consistent and deny the Perot appeal. . Ludwig Kure stated that in general he agreed with Jim Shearer. The Briner request was for new construction and the Perot proposal was for an addition to an existing building. He did hope to see the project accomplished in a way to provide on-site parking but did not feel the site coverage appeal was the correct avenue. Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy Warren that the garage was definitely a building and must count as site coverage, She suggested that Jim Morter look for another avenue and Jim asked if Diana was referencing a procedure or design and Diana answered "both . " Discussion centered around clarifying "ground level" and general agreement was reached that "ground level" was that area where a person could drive into the garage. A motion to denv the anbeal and uphold the staff decision, per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 6 - 0 IN FAVOR OF DENTAL OF THE APPEAL While the applicants far Item No. 5 were setting up visual aides, the Commission skipped to Item No. 6. item No. 6: Abpointment of PEC member to Parking and ~~ Transportation Task Force. Chuck Crist Volunteered for the Task Force. item No. 5: A request for a work session for a mainr amendment. to Special Deve~,opment District No. 7 (The. Marriott Mark}~n order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units., Applicant: Marriott Corporation., Tom Braun explained that the item was tabled at the applicant's request after lengthy discussion at the PEC's April 9th meeting. A number of design changes had been made in response to comments made by the Planning Commission and the applicants had requested a work session prior to finalizing the redesign. Tom highlighted design changes as found in the staff memo. Peter Jamar wished to clarify that the Marriott did intend to continue working with the staff and the Commission. They wished ~~ to work within what was reasonable and meet the goals and objectives of the Town. They had taken suggestions from the last meeting and made changes. He believed that they had sincerely tried to responde to all the issues. Ned Gwathmey explained that he had reduced the mass by moving the roof garden to the edge to cover the garage and removed 1 floor level. Ned pointed out the changes on the elevation plans and compared the changes on the before and after models. Regarding the recoloring of the existing Marriott, the applicant had agreed to commit to the tie-in between the two buildings and to eliminate the dark wood color, The initial thought was to flip the color to be light with dark trim. They had not committed to the color and were open to suggestions. Kathy Warren felt there was still too much GRFA and too many units. She did like what they did with the mass, however architecturally, she liked the other building better. She was still not comfortable with 93~ site coverage and 47 unit/acre. The buildings represented on the comparison chart presented in the staff memo were built prior to zoning enactment. There were reasons the zoning was changed to avoid high density projects. Fundamentally, she was not opposed to additional density, but not so much. 6 .' I~ ~~ In response to Kathy's opposition to high density, Jay felt that the down-zoning was aimed more at the outlying areas, not the core areas. Peter Jamar stated that one Town of Vail Goal is to try to acquire this type of unit, and that the project fit everything else except density and GRFA. Jamar also felt that this project would pump vitality into Lionshead. Kathy said that they had input from people against the project because they were concerned about the increase in density. She wanted to know if there was any support for the project. Jay responded that a hugh number of people in Lionshead support the concept. Jay added that he didn't like to bring them in during this part of the process. Peter Jamar pointed. out that the Land Use Plan also supported the project. Discussion of updating the Land Use Plan followed and Tom said that the document was designed to be long-term and revised every three to five years. Tom also added that regarding the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan, it did support this type of proposal. Kathy said that she would feel more comfortable if people were brought in who said they were in support of the project. Peter Jamar said that they had actually told people to stay away. Kathy replied that the people could write letters or sign a petition. Rob Levine said that he presented the idea to his board and that they supported the idea and that they did feel it would add vitality to Lionshead. Kathy said that knowing that did make a difference to her. Kristan said that she was very glad that the applicants were not bringing in lots of people to push far the project. It was important to look at the Land Use Plan and Special Development District criteria and base the decision on that. When the staff makes a decision, they must base the decision on goals and policies that are in place. She felt it was important that the Planning Commission use existing regulations and policies. Jay said that you have responsibility to the neighbors. He added that he did have adjacent property owners give input and have came back with revisions. He felt the project did reflect many view points. Connie asked if there was anything to evaluate the 5DD on and • Kristan responded that there were nine design criteria. Kristan ~~ added that the staff rec.......,endation was based on the fact that ~V the plan was in compliance with all nine criteria. U Peter Jamar pointed out to Connie that the chart on page 8 of the memo was a comparison and that they were trying to fall within those parameters. Connie replied that she felt there was still too much GRFA and she also felt that the design was nat as good. Connie felt that the landlord was being too greedy and blocking some of their own views. Ned responded that people did not buy an assigned unit, they purchased a floating unit. Jim said that he had forgotten to mention that he would like to see a massive planting on the west elevation to hide part of the parking structure. Diana said she would like to have underlying zoning to utilize when an applicant, at a later date, asks for other approvals. She felt that it was essential. She did feel also that the new design was a great improvement. Diana felt that there was no problem with the density, that the Land Use Plan stated that you should add density where some already exists. Diana wondered what the Town of Vail was getting. She was hoping the Town would gain more landscaping and more employee units and she would like to see more landscaping on the end toward the bike path. Kathy was hoping that part of the top floor could be moved back to increase the view from Vail Spa. Ned replied that he could change the proportion of rooms and could push it back 15'. ~v Diana felt that it was a negative impact on the bike path at v present. Peter Jamar said that there would be a better model at the next meeting. Bill Burling, attorney representing Vail Spa, step in the right direction that the building back. He still felt a 58 unit increase would dramatically. He added that with the off-ray added traffic to the Marriott, there would be in the neighborhood. felt this was a was being pushed increase traffic :np added plus the a definite change Jay Peterson asked Bill Burling if there were any other concerns and Mr. Burling responded that there were not any more concerns and that they appreciated the applicant's interest. Jay added that the Tawn was changing, that what we see now is not what~we were going to see aver the next 10 to 15 years. Diana stated that she would rather see the exterior unit be employee units and if you need more density she would rather see it in Lionshead than in the Village and would rather see it near the Frontage Road if in Lionshead. She felt that if more density 8 . 1~ + was going to be added that this location had merit. She stated that she felt that Forest road was residential., this was commercial and that the added density here had less impact than if density were added to any other building along Gore Creek. Kathy felt the southeast corner looked more like a motel. She was concerned about the appearance on the west elevation. She did not want it to look like a parking structure. Kristan stated that if this was going to go to the Planning Commission on May 14, she needed all drawings and application materials in her office by April 30th in the morning to allow time to review. Kristan questioned the use of an underlying zone district. Jay suggested High Density Multiple Family. Diana stated that if underlying zoning was used she did not want the memo to say that this project did not fit the zone district. Peter Jamar stated that an 5DD does become very specific, and therefore it might be simpler to have merely an SDD, that his personal preference was not to do an underlying zoning. Tom reminded them that if they did not do the building they would have to come back and reapply. Kristan stated that was why she would like to see some underlying zoning. Diana felt that anyone could adopt an SDD. She added that it would not be smart and that it would be complicated to add underlying zoning now. She would like to do the SDD and then add underlying zoning. Tom reminded the board that the underlying zoning would need to be part of the ordinance. Jay stated that 80a of the site was HDMF. Tarn explained that Larry Eskwith's opinion was that existing SDD was not necessary or required to adopt an underlying zoning. Kristan felt that the list of uses was the most important part of having underlying zoning. Tom said that the rest was all determined through review process of an SDD. Diana felt that usually the uses on the underlying guidelines were the main issues. Diana said that in this particular project it doesn't, but that if they came back for other requests, it might help. A motion to table until May 14. 1990 was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer., VOTE: 6 - 0 The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. ~ 9 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and far a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase ZII) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 16 and a major subdivision far the Valley, Phase III, also know as Elk Meadows. The requests will require two PEC decisions: 1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major subdivision request. 2. The review of the SDD amendment request. The recommendation of the PEC an the SDD will be forwarded to Town Council for final review. The applicant's requests are summarized below: • 1. The current proposal is for the subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into five building sites, or "envelopes". The "envelopes" would range in size from 3,397 sq. ft. to 6,141 sq. ft., and each envelope would be allowed one single-family dwelling, plus one employee- restricted, rental unit as defined in Section V,B,2 of this memo. At a minimum, one of the five lots will be reauired to provide such a rental unit. The remainder of the site would consist of 25,700 sq. ft. for roadway and parking, and 2.5 acres to be dedicated as open space. 2. The total Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) designated for Phase III in The Valley is 16,000 sq. ft. This would allow each dwelling unit within the project a maximum of 3200 sq. ft of GRFA. 3. Access to Lots 1-4 would be via a private, 22' wide common access drive off of Lionsridge Loop Road. This road is currently roughed-in place. Access to Lot 5 would be from an individual driveway Cut from Lionsridge Loop Road. The individual driveway cut will minimize the amount of asphalt paving in the open meadow. 1 • II. BACKGROUND The Valley project was originally designed as a planned development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973, the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan with a Planned Unit Development zone designation. The approval of the preliminary plan was valid for three years. In July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval expired. However, the Planned Unit Development zone designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the Town's planning files, it appears that several requests to extend the approvals of the preliminary plan were granted by the County Commissioners. Tn March of 1980, the PUD plan and protective covenants were filed with the County. Once again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet exists for Phase III. In 1980, the West Vail area was annexed to the Town of Vail. The Town accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as the allowed . development for Phase III of The Valley in March of 1981. Subsequently, The Valley was de-annexed from the Town of Vail and re-annexed in May of 1987. (Please see the enclosed summary of events relating to The Valley Phase III attached to this memo.) The Town's information indicates that it is very clear that Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet. In 1981, the Town of Vail accepted the zoning of 10 units and 16,000 square feet of GRFA as the development standard for the property. Ordinance 13 of 1981 acknowledges the land use restrictions of 10 units and 16,000 square feet of GRFA but states that, "for any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements, or actions, the development of parcels of properties specified in this subsection (E) shall be zoned Residential Cluster." Far this reason, the Special Development District has been compared to the underlying zone district of Residential Cluster which serves as a guide for the development standards of this phase. . 2 • On July 7, 1987, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, which approved the development plan for SDD No. 16, EIk Meadows. Nine dwelling units were approved. On September 15, 1987, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1987, which amended SDD No. 16 by reducing the project's density to seven, single-family dwelling units. A11 other aspects of the development remained the same. However, the developer has failed to record a Final Plat for the project. III. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.1&.110 of the Town's Subdivision regulations and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other applicable documents, environmental integrity, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the town, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses." A. Public Aaencv and Utility Comt~anv Reviews: Notification has been mailed to the following agencies, and as of this date no comments have been received by the Town: 1. Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District. 2. Public Service Company of Colorado 3. Holy Cross Electric Association. 4. Mountain Bell. 5. Heritage Cablevision. 6. National Forest Service. 7. Comments from the Town of Vail Public Works, Fire and Police Departments have been incorporated into this memo. • B. Relationshib of Probosal to Town of Vail Policies: Staff believes that the design of the subdivision and the recommendations made in the environmental impact report wi11 create a project that meets the intent of Vail's subdivision controls. The density is actually less than what was originally approved for the site by five units. The EIR states that the potential negative impacts of the proposal include the "visual impacts and impacts associated with the location of the site within a rockfall hazard area" (see attached rockfall study). Staff's opinion is that the developer has designed a plan that protects the open meadow area as much as possible, given the high severity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on the northern portion of the lat. In addition, design guidelines are incorporated into the SDD zoning which will "ensure architectural and visual continuity with regard to building design and materials."' The Public Works and Fire Departments have also • reviewed the request and the proposal meets their standards as far as road design, drainage, fire protection service and adequate fire truck turn- around areas. The staff finds that this proposal does meet the major subdivision criteria and actually is a significant improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase III that was reviewed under the County in April of 1980, as well as the existing SAD. The main area of improvement is the preservation of the primary natural feature of the site--the large, open meadow. This has been accomplished by proposing the building sites on the north side of the access road. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Staff did not require an additional environmental impact report for the changes requested. We believe that the proposed changes do not necessitate a revised EIR. This is based on the fact that the proposed development plan is very similar to the development plan addressed in the original EIR, the overall project density has been reduced to 5 dwelling units, plus five optional employee units, and that updated rockfall reports and drainage reports have been included in the new submittal information. V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW A. Reasons for SDD Zoning The proposed SDD allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the underlying zoning of the property. Tn order to help preserve the natural scenic features of this site, building envelopes will be established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed according to each individual owner's ability to construct a residence. Staff believes that the SDD provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique character of this site given the difficult site constraints which have been addressed in the overall design of the project. (Please see Section VT, which relates the proposal to the underlying Residential Cluster zone district.} B. Design Standards Section 18.40.080 of the Town's zoning code lists nine development standards that a proposed SDD development plan must comply with. The purpose of the review is to show how the development meets the standards or to demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The design standards are listed below: 1. Design comt~atibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and ad-iacent orooerties relative to architectural design. scale, bulk, building heiaht~ buffer zones. identity, character. visual integrity and orientation. The proposed SDD is actually much improved in respect to overall design and density of the project. Although the general site layout is similar to the previous SDD, the lot sizes are slightly larger than originally proposed, and the density has been reduced from 7 units down to 5 dweiiing units. Tt should be noted that each of the five dwelling units would have the ability to add one employee, rental unit and that even if every lot included an employee unit the project will not exceed the 10 unit density maximum. . 5 . Previous Proposed SDD SDD Lot 1 0.0647 Acres 0.095 Acres Lot 2 0.0617 Acres 0,089 Acres Lot 3 0.0534 Acres 0.078 Acres Lot 4 0.0483 Acres 0.093 Acres Lot 5 0.0929 Acres 0.141 Acres Lot 6 0.0641 Acres 0,496 Acres Lot 7 0.0498 Acres 0.4349 Acres The developer is also including specific architectural guidelines for the SDD (see attached}. The guidelines have been reviewed by the Design Review Board and have received conceptual approval. The design guidelines will ensure consistency in the use of building materials, roof forms, general colors and landscaping. The northern property line of Phase TTT is approximately 25 feet from the edge of the pavement of Lionsridge Loop. Many of the existing trees in this area will remain. However, approximately 2 dozen trees will be removed. Staff's opinion is that this area provides an adequate buffer on the northern portion of . the project. Phase T to the-east provides access to units directly off of Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers maintaining the public right of-way in its natural state, as opposed to having paved access and parking areas adjacent to Lionsridge Loop. Tt should be noted that this Special Development District will require that no structure be located less than 3 feet from the northern perimeter line of the building envelopes, nor less than 2 feet from the east and west building envelope perimeter lines. On the east side of Phase TTT, the nearest building, The Valley Condominiums, is 190 feet from the easternmost building envelope, On the west property lines for Phase ITI, approximately 25 feet of open space is maintained between the building envelope and the western property line. No lots or structures are proposed on the south hillside of the project. This area is to be designated as open space. . 6 • 2. Uses, activity and density which brovide a compatible. efficient and workable relationship with surraundina uses and activity. The proposed SDD amendments are essentially similar to the previous SDD with regard to uses, activity and the relationship with surrounding uses. The permitted uses for Lots 1-5 are limited to single-family residential dwellings, with an optional employee, rental unit and customary accessory uses. The major amendment to this SDD is the applicant's request for a reduction in the project's density. Staff is very supportive of the request to reduce the density down to five dwelling units. We believe that such a reduction will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Zn order to assist in the additional employee housing need in Vail, the developer has agreed to provide one employee dwelling unit within this subdivision. The developer may provide up to five employee dwelling units, including the one reauired dwelling unit, if so desired. Employee units shall meet the following criteria: • Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet not to exceed 500 square feet and is allowed to have a kitchen. The number of employee units shall be listed under the allowable density section for Special Development District No. 16. GRFA for the employee dwelling units will come out of the total GRFA for the project. No additional GRFA is requested to allow for the employee units. The employee dwelling units may be located on any of the lots within the subdivision providing all the development standards are met for each lot. Only one employee dwelling unit shall be allowed per lot. An employee dwelling shall be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed garage parking space. This parking space shall not be detached from the single-family garage or structure. The employee dwelling unit shall be prohibited from having a wood burning fireplace. • The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted as a rental employee dwelling unit permanently. The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented far any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week. An employee dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of time-share, interval ownership, ar fractional fee ownership. The employee dwelling unit shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the single family unit. The owner of each employee dwelling unit shall be required to declare in writing on an annual basis to the Town of Vail that the employee dwelling unit has been rented as a long term rental per the requirements outlined in this section. This declaration shall include a written statement from the owner listing the renter's name, place of employment, and length of time the unit was rented. The declaration shall be required to be signed by both the lot owner and renter. A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed on record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in the form approved by the Town Attorney far the benefit of the Tawn to ensure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land before a building permit is released for the construction of any employee dwelling unit. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this employee housing agreement. 3. Compliance with parkina and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 1.8.52. All parking requirements will meet the Town's standards, as outlined in Section 18.52 of the zoning code. This includes the required parking for the employee units. • 8 4. Canfarmity with applicable elements of the Vail • Comprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Desian Plans. The Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one which is suitable for medium density residential uses. Medium Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as follows: "The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. " The following are the applicable land use policies regarding this proposal: 1.6: Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some law 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. 5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demand far 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 varied sites throughout the community. The proposal complies with the above policies. • 9 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or aeoloaic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is brobosed. This site is located within a "high severity rockfall" zone, as shown on the 1984 Rockfall Study Maps and as adopted by the Town. The applicant has had geologic studies completed and the results of such are listed below: A. Study by Donald G. Pettygrove, PE.; Project Manager with Banner Associates, Inc. (2/23/87} Mitigation methods: 1. The structures should be situated so that at least six vertical feet of wall is exposed on the uphill side. The exposed face should be designed (preferably of reinforced concrete integral with the foundation} such that it is capable of withstanding a force of not less than 2000 pounds applied over an area of approximately two square feet. The face of the wall should be protected, as before, with 6 inch timbers for impact absorption and replacement. The design of these walls . should be similar to those shown in my letter of July 3, 1986. 2. All other areas with uphill exposures should be designed to withstand a 2000 pound force as well. No windows should be placed in walls with uphill exposures. It should be understood that there exists the possibility that falling rocks could impact Lion's Ridge Loop Road above and be launched into the air sufficiently to impact roof areas, although the probabilities of such an impact are significantly lower than those which will impact the wall. 3. Insofar as possible, it is recommended that rooms with the greatest occupancy be located away from the upper stories and to the downhill side. A terraced floor arrangement appears to fit quite well at this site and will blend into the side of the hill better while providing less cost through reduced excavation. A layout of this type will also provide for maximum southern exposure to take advantage of solar heat gain. l0 B. Study update by Donald G. Pettygrove (3/12/90) "As a result of computer simulations, we believe that our original recommendations are basically sound but the impact force should be increased to 4,000 pounds." The development of each building envelope, or lat, will need to comply with the design recommendations cited by Mr. Pettygrove concerning design mitigations for rockfall hazards. Each individual lot owner will be responsible for completing the rockfall mitigation measures. The mitigation measures will be reviewed at the time of building permit for each lot. This requirement will also be stated on the Final Plat. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open saace provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features. vegetation and overall aesthetic auality of the community. The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve the open meadow area and the wooded hillside as open space. In fact, over 69% of the site will be designated open space. Staff supports the site plan design as we believe the layout of the lots and the access road will preserve the most significant features of the site. 7. A circulation svstem designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The access drive has been designed to adequately serve the traffic needs of the development. The project meets Fire Department and Public Works' design standards. Staff believes that a project of this size, and in this location, does not require a separate pedestrian circulation system. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and omen saace in order to optimize and preserve natural features. recreation. views and functions. Although a review of the specific landscaping for each lot will occur at the Design Review Board level, a conceptual landscape design has been included in the design guidelines for the project. 11 • Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design Review Board. Prior to review by the Vail DRB, each lot owner shall first obtain approval from the Homeowner's Association. Landscape provisions have been included in the proposed covenants and are as follows: The concern of the Committee (Homeowner's Committee} shall be to improve the natural appearance of the subdivision and the maintenance of such appearance. Owners and their representatives or builders will be required to: a. Minimize disruption from grading. b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion and appearance reasons. c. Use indigenous species of plant materials as established by the Committee. d. Select the man-made elements that blend and are compatible with the land. • e. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever possible. f. Conserve and protect topsoil, rock formations and unique landscape features. g. Sod such areas as determined by the Committee. 9. Phasing Ulan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable. functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Elk Meadows subdivision is proposed to be developed in two phases, as follows: Phase I - The construction of a single family home on Lot 4. Improvements include the installation of one fire hydrant and the paving of the access road to Lot 4. The remainder of the access road will be covered with top soil and reseeded. • 12 • Phase II - The market will dictate completion of this phase. However, with the first building permit in Phase II the developer has agreed to install a required second fire hydrant, and to build and pave the extension of the access road (including fire-truck turn around). VI. PROPOSED SDD IN COMPARISON WITH UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ZONE DISTRICT The proposed 5DD varies only slightly from the underlying Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that building envelopes are being used as opposed to lots, it is difficult to compare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning in respect to lot size. The density is actually five dwelling units less than what would be allowed under the original approval and does not exceed the original density of 10 units if the employee units are counted towards density. Site coverage is also difficult to compare in that the building envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to what degree the coverage will occur is impossible to determine until the units are constructed. However, staff believes that there is adequate open space around the building envelopes to maintain an aesthetically • pleasing amount of open space and separation among the units. The minimum separation between building envelopes is 35'. Setbacks also vary from those that are required in a Residential Cluster zone district. The separation among the building envelopes varies from 18 feet to 21 feet. Staff believes that this separation provides adequate space between the units. All other development standards meet the underlying zone district requirements for the Residential Cluster zone district. PROPOSED SDD RES CLUSTER PERMITTED USES: -Single-family res. dwellings. Single-family residential dwellings. -Two-family res. -Optional employee dwelling unit/building envelope. dwellings. -Multiple-family res. dwellings, w/ no more than 4 units/bldg. . 13 LoT s1zE: Lot 1 = 4,138 s.f. - single family lot 15,000 s.f., Lot 2 T 3,877 s.f. - single family lot containing • Lot 3 = 3,398 s.f. - single family lot no less than Lot 4 = 4,051 s.f. - single family lot 8,000 s.f. of Lot 5 = 6.142 s.f. - single family lot buildable area 21,606 s.f. Total for building envelopes SETBACKS: East & West sides = 2' fr om bldg envelope line front = 20' North side = 3' from bldg envelope line side = 15' rear = 15' HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof 33' sloping roof 30' for fla t roof does no t apply as design 30' flat roof guidelines requires slopi ng roof SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes 25~ of site GRFA: 16,000 s.f. or 3200 s.f. per building envelope. 16,000 s.f. per annexation agreement. DENSITY: 5 dwelling units + 5 employee dwelling units. 10 dwelling units per annexation agreement. ~DSCAPING: Tract 1: 2.5 acres will be dedicated open 600 of site space; or 690 of the total site. shall be landscaped. PARKING: At least one enclosed parking space, per Requires at dwelling unit, will be provided. least 1 enclosed space per dwelling unit. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision and the revisions to SDD No. 16 for Eik Meadows. Staff believes that the request meets the intent of the major subdivision regulations and special development district's review criteria. The proposal basically follows the underlying Residential Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning originally approved under Eagle County. . 14 A} The staff recommendation for approval of the . preliminary plan for the major subdivision includes the following condition: 1. The devel~r.~.ent of each building envelope will comply with the rockfall mitigation reports prepared by Nicholas Lampires, Project Geologist, and Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E., Project Manager with Banner Associates, Inc. Such reports are dated February 23, 1987, February 25, 1987, June 12, 1987, June 15, 1987, July 22, 1987 and March 12, 1990, and will be kept on file in the Town's Community Development offices. Each individual lot owner will be responsible for completing the hazard mitigation for their lot, per the above named reports. This restriction shall be noted on the Final Plat. B) The staff recommendation for approval of the major amendment to SDD No. 16 includes the following condition: 1. That approval of this major amendment to SDD No. 16 be contingent upon PEC approval of the Final Plat for the subdivision. 2. That the developer construct a minimum of one • employee dwelling unit, and that said employee dwelling unit be a part of either the first ar second building permit for the project. All employee dwelling units shall meet the criteria listed in Section V,B,2 of this memo. *For information purposes, the staff would like to note that the major subdivision regulations require the completion of general improvements for the subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be installed within three years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid. All right to improve or develop the property on the part of the owner or subdivider shall thereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated in Section 17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, a written agreement between the Town and the subdivider will be required in order to guarantee the construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. This agreement shall be in accordance with Section 17.16.250 of the Town's Subdivision Regulations. It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals, the applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 3 years from the time of the project's final approval according to Section 18.40.120 of the Town of Vail zoning code. 15 . y ~.~~ V v~ ~, '~ '~ ~ ~~ a ,J~ '~ ~` ~ ,~ W '•~ ~~ `~~ ~~ ~ ter" r'; - ~ ~~ ~ ~ - .~ ,, ~ t `~ ~ \\ 1 •_ , ,` . 4. ~ ., ,', ~ 1 1~ \ 1 o ~ ~`3 ,.1 ~t, ~. ,` 1 ' 1 ~` s b~~ 1 r ~. r 1. ~~ ~ ~ 1 v11 ' ' . ~~~~ ~ I ,~, f' ,1 __- :,i} ,111 ' ~ ~ '~ `; f ',; . =,~ ,. ~\ l i ~. ~.+ \' i ~ '` , I% ~\ ~ ~ ,', ~ ~ ~.. O_ cn z Q a ~ ~ cn ~ ~ s d -~ a n-' Q °- W S J ...r ..__,~-- 7/ ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELTNES To dCCOrilp115f1 this goal, the owner has developed a protypica7 building design as well as specific design guidelines far the site. The owner's intent is that these guidelines be adopted as a condition of approval and that they be utilized along with the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines to provide the necessary visual contiriuity necessary to provide bath existing and future residents of The Valley with a pleasing visual experience. A Homeowner's Association will be formed and, along with the lawn of Vail, will be responsible far enforcing these Design Guidelines. A copy of the Declaration of Protective Covenants for the Subdivision are contained with the Appendices of this Re part . The prototypical building site plan~and building elevations are shown in the Appendix. The Design Guidelines are proposed to be as follows: I. Roof pitch sha]1 be between 4 feet in I2 feet and 6 i feet in I2 feet. 2. Roof material shall be Cedar Shakes. 3. Siding material sha]1 be either log ar stucco with log perlins, log railing, or other log members, natural rock, or a combination of the above and shall be applied hori- zontally as indicated on the prototypical building elevations. Only light colored stain shall be applied t0 5lding. 4. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed concrete foundation walls. If stucco is utilized it shall be light in color. 5. All windows shall be white metal clad or wood windows, and will be "divided light" style. 6. All roofs shall have ove rhings of at least 1 foot in artier to protect walls and wall openings from rain and snow and to contribute to the building's character. ~~ ~ ~~, ~,~ ~,'~ ~ ~g~ 1 ~ ~- ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ !~J i ~ ~~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~~. 7. ~; ~ ~~ -~ ~ ~ ~_ _, ~. of ~ ' ~ I- \, ~ ~~ ~~ ~ / ~ ~=~ t !~ ~-~ ~~, ,' !," i~ ~ i ~! -~ ~ ~~~~~~ t/ i ,~lli i 1 ~ ~ -- ~ I ~, 1 ~~%~4"~-i fr V ~1~ *~l ~ ~~~ ~~ ~, :- ~, X1111 K1 ~ ~ t ~ 3 ~_ ~i~~: ~7 !~~~ ~- ~~ ~~_ f, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ f ~ l~~ /I ~ J ~ ~ .~.. 1 -~ f J ~ ______ _ ~~ .. .._,c_. . r~ u~ ~~ ~~ 1 1 1 ,.. I~ ~~ i ~- -f-.+...._ ~~_~; .~ ~ ' \ ~'~ l~/ ~ l ~I I~ i ~ ~~~ 6 9 ~I I, ~ i ti -i '~ ~.. 7 • • S 4~ ~ -- III -- _~n ~~x i ~~~~ =, ,, a x ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ -_ ~s, _;~~~~n~ I;~ f~~~-_I- -l .... . __ t .. _-_. _..- .-_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ri._~ __a-__. :_ .~_. - _ 1w ,, ~ - --~. _..._-. _... _.._ _ `~.. ~ f I . ~ i._.-T~ , ;. _, _........ --- ~ ~ g~' - ~ -- _--.__- ~-i ~ ~ Y, -~-- _ ~ ~ / , ~~~~ ~~ , -~ ~ ~ . -~ ~ ~~ a ~, q o ~..~::~~ .=:~ 1 ~.. i.~ w I I 11 it ~~ .__ -- ~ - ~ a V4 U n ~i 1 ~i l . ~ f~ a~ ei ' ~ I f ~- }-- I ~ .' _. l - __ ._. 1 ~ I '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 7 _ -_ : - .~ ~u f - ~ - ~ .: ~~ ~ 1. J r- -•---- ---- -- ---~- - [~._1~1:Z~ _ ; ~ . ~~ ~~ ~ , :~_}_~~ . f ~ ...-...-. - ~~---I ~ I ~~ -~ ~~ ~a ofl !~! ~4 l ~I di ~ ~ . ~ _ -~~ I :, . ;, Wj ' ~ ` ~, 1 ~~.3:. ~ ~i~~~:- -- ~ as ~~ ~ ', ~ ~ ~~, `_ 1L 1s' L. ~`..~ ~~ '~ ~~ ~"~ ~ ra 0 }-- I~ ~.l..l ``4n V! x S " ~ i~L ~rb i `;.. ~` ~ ~ i . ~ 1~ J.r~ - ~ Q P ~~ ~ ~' tL e, ~ c~ it ~, 7 J} • 9 ~ s ~~ 1 I . ~ ~ -_ ~1 N .. -~ a- --- ~., - . --' r ~ "T.: _ _ .._. __ _ -- ~ ~~ 1 1 ~~ti i I d tC ~ ~~I I ~' i x I I G ~,' I' I'.- ` 4ti I, ---r~~-lI r - y ~'I~.' ~~I `~ I' I _ ~~~ il, I+~~ ;~ -~ I u ~ ,~ ~R d ~I E, ~, ~. ~ a I ,~ I. ~ iI i ~ ii ~f' s~ ' ~'~ ~ 1 I ~ W ~ _~-~v - - 1 1 ~ - ~-- I~ ~ 11 I' ~ ~ ~ 4J~~ { 1, ~ .._?.., -- - --- N ~ ~, ~ ~ r' ~ '~ ~` Ili { ,', : , I ~ '~ E _- I ~I 1 i y Q' , ~ E I I i ~ ~ 1 l k I °I q ~ ; ~ !t ~ ~-1 ` 1 ~ ~ I~I, i '~ I ' f,.. .~ ~......~ --~ - L__ .} ~ I N a ~ _-J.. ~_i ~al~iy~, • ~y 1',1 ~ f ~~,5` l < l d) -f ,~ I d' ~ rC C ^C .~ L. C ~ c: ~~ • • • ~~ !~ ~ N N 1 ~~ ,1.,1 Wi7,n ~Y ~~ sF~~ ~ ~ 41`1 f iC f Il~~~` ~~il i,~~I 1 {E I ~li i f ~ ~ ~ i 4 ~ k ~ i ~~~ ~f ~ _ _I ~l ~i k ~ f _, ~. ~ , ~~. ~~ ~ Vey ~I'j~ I~~~; r, ,'~I I~~l ~iC ~~~~i ~'!~~~ .~~~ -'n„ .. .~„ ' .J l { ~~ f~ ~ 1 ~ . i ~ ,r~ f .., ~ :_ ~ 4~.~ ~~ ~ :, ~ d ~~ ...,.1,~ Jj~I ~ it ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ -1 ~~ ?.. .. ' I ~ 1.12 +~ 1 \~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~(~ .. ~' .. ~ ~ ~d1~`VVViii jjj ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 1~_w u] ~~ .. ~ ~ ~ "t ¢ ._ ~ f - - ~~ Q Q ~~ ~~ 4 . _-: ~. ~ _~Ir_~_ . _. _: _~ ~ ~C ~ .~~ 1 ~ I ~1 J L } ll ~ ` ."{ t ~ ~ l~ jl. n • ' ' nl'iF'.ix ~..~ .~r.j4 :1 ja: ., ~r r'~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~" 4Vi ~~x 3~ ~7 .. .~ ~~ ----~ T7J.3 k I # . ~ ~~ I ~ ~ . r r ~ I j I~~ I I ~~ ~ ~ I ~ 1 •_ ~. 0: ~~ N~ 1 ff ~f ~ I ~ 1 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ f -F..~- -~ 4 I~ ~ ~~~~ ~ 9 ~~ LL ~ ~ 1 . a . ~1 x ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ! 1 N ~~ 1 . .. - ~3 ~ ~ ~`~ .. 4 ' ~q ~y_S ` f ~ w ' ~ti vF .f ~vk~s.ryg3 r r ;' ~ f< ~f t~ ~ kY Y f I ~ ~ r s i ' - \ .~ F_.i r Rl.l N~fr) ~; ~ is ~Ryy i 1 i~r .l ~ ii' ~.1 r ~ s ~ r~ r r1 kS ?'~~ t )} r1f *'>+~.~{~ ~~ s x r r,; p ;P-se, S si 1 raEr: ~` ~r ?sr ii ~ p x* . gx~ ~~!r 1 },;,r~,~t!? ~~ E t ~ ~.~ u+~~ d.~{' ~~I'r I}; ~r~y~ii~. ~h~n ~` -~J M i `.k r ~~'7~t~aS° ~y?~yv.~~,q~' d` ~'~• s '+h'.~j' 'fi~~~k~-'rf z ~" . ~~,~3r~.1 R~rY .~~ r ~e ~'OrS~4~j~,y~`~Il~g^bl [i F. ~ r ~~ :'~.~ ii 3. .ter ?l rk; ..+?rf~.`i i~"'+F~~RYT fJ~~...'.!Y'~'.! . r ~' • March 12 , 1.99a Mr. Bradley '.~;jd5sem Past Office DoX 2975 Vail., CO Q1G57 RE: Elk Meadows Subdivisic~ri Geologi.G tia~arci Mz~.igaticaz~ BAI Joky Na. 8095-U5--41 Dear Arad: In respQnsP to yotar request fc~r revie~•~ o~ air recomtnendat.ions i'or e~eoloc~iC llaz<~rd it~~.tigation, wP 3~av~ reviewAa~ atar arigi.nal work and i.rt a;.lditic:,n have ~~erf.faranec~ a compu~:.Rr ruck Call simta7.atiar7 analy:l.s using CRSFy (Cctil.at:~tid~~ I~c~ckfall. ~imtalat;:iaz~ ~royramj which wa<~ develape~~3 by ~:i•i+~ Cvl.r~x'adca DoP4~z°trne~at of Highways and Caloxaao 5ct~aul of ,~i~,rtea. This campuLer softtrare was nct~ ava~,aable when we ~aer.~oziz~ed our original ~ir~a].yr:,is, however, we believe it i, prudery, try r~heek Past analysis with ~Ghe late~at ~,~;~~t~wef~rhe.~war~: rnetTlads when affakded the o~apr~r~:uraity. As a result: 4f these Gamp~.i~ter s~.mi.z3.atiat~s, ire believe that our original x~eCommenda+~iorts are basically soured kaut tTte impact farce should ba inc:~-easeca to ~; OOA ,pr~~~nds. Tl7is should be applied kc az~ area of a~praxi;~tat~:ly twa r,citaare feet. The attached drawing ha been ,included foz- infc~i"mation siclce arily the impact €orca has ch~~rze~ed. If you have any gtl`~sticans, pleas>e t'eel free to cryal.l.. Very truly yaur.s~ BANNER AS54CIATLS INC, Donald G. Petkyc~rc~ve, P.~ DG P/ bg fi3.e: {GRJ.34C13.BLGJT~fOSSE.M.I~F.'~' EncJ.osure fiANNER As~~:~nrES, wc. CGNSUL7ING ENGi1VEER5 & ARCHii~GT5 YI'1I CRdS5R0ADS AOUI_EVARD GRANU .1~NCTIflN, Cd Bi~~Ob • t3i!3~ 2.13-22~a2 t'C)N5lti.iENC- ~,rrGENf~itS & AAt'HCf~CrS ~I1i1'E S, 5il5 F.A`T h1A[N n~P~.N, CC~.C}nA-~0 dtrtf • ~~+~.]) 925-SR~7 r~ u I IANNI I July 22, 1987 Mr. Michael Lauterbach P.O. Box 3451 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Eik Meadows Subdivision BAI #8095--05 Dear Mike, I have enclosed a reproducable mylar of the drainage plan for your project with the change made from "Preliminary" to "Final", as requested. With regard to your question about the b>;zi lding configuration above the 12-foot height, the structure above that ievei may be vertical wall, pitched roof or other construction. It really doesn't matter what is above the 12-~~faat level from the aspect of • hazard mitigation. windows are acceptable above that Level as well. It must be remembered that all of the hazard mitigation is based on a reasonable level of protection against the probability of an event occurring. The probabilities are low so the level of protection can be commensurately low also. If the design were to protect absolutely against all possible events, it would be prohibitive to build at this site, as it would be in al]_ of the mountaa.ns . Should you have any questions, please feel free to ca11. • Sincerely, BANNER ASSOCIA , LNG. Donald G. Pettygrove, P_,F. DGP/rlg Enclosure FiAfVNER ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8c ARCHITECTS ?777 CROSSROADS E30ULEVAI3D GRAN17 ,1 [3NCTlON, CO 8150fi • (303] 243-22~T2 ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ '0/t, y U, ~ ~~ ~ a '~ . ~ ~~~~ ..~ ~ ~ ~~ t~~- ~ ~' `~ ~ ~ ~~ ~r r f ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ • A ~l ~~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ 1~ ~ ~. ~~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 11 `~ ~ ~ ~~,J ~~ ~ ~~`~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ `~ }~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' - ~~~~~ ~~~~~' s P ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~" ~~ ~~ ~~ . ``~ ~. ~~ ~ t~ I ~ANNI I • I"lii-1-1a€:~1. T. I_auhr~Y-b~_sr-1'l ~' . ~1. far.,;; ~~~ :l. F;E~ [_1 N: I°1E~~sdc7ra~ ~~.sl'~tji.vi.~i.c,r~ Iil:~i:`h::-~-rs:l3. Gs~:~r- I~IY-. L_c~~ttr~rt~ai_I ~ ; 1 n r~E?.~apar152 tCf UnE? of tllF? :I. S~il.3fw~£y !'"c'11 ~.:~E?[~ 1 r'i thlL L.:al 1 i ns lf'tt~r~', 7. ~~~1 `IPI`-l r_r~mFc,rt~~t~l~~ ~•~i.th~ I-,~ving na mitir~~~'l.ian fi3lr pai=gntial. rcir_I;:~G~11 intn aclmrrlc)n, ope.~n ~,~ce ~r-e~s within th-ic:, prc,pr~se~] d~vf~l€3pmi~nt. '1'•ypic_nl.1y, L-I-Ie:Y intr~nt c~'F c~pr-gin ~r~[-~:~~,, as 1Clrlr.7 ~~~ thE'r'~' ~-ir-~ no pr=a1•.rri,,ncSrr~}_ r_:c:rmrirs_srzity str~-r_sctur-'~r~~.~ ss_sr.:h~ c~~ LJ-~'f .1 i.: E3=~ r~P"' f,l r-7C?'I:.1 nis !:)1 c3 r't?'~~ . :L °i ~~_is~ FBI'"C)'J 7. f~f? =,pclL~? '~L]r i_J Y`el `!:!. ty rL?:! ~I#: r~+:.I q~r)J.rar.Ji.r. phrtnclrnt:_'ri<=s tc; c,::::r-1.rr~ t•ai.t:h~ nc~ d.irn~c~c tt; ri is r-L[{~{': L.IY'F?ia~ c3 !'}rJ {}}'I. 1"hill c:tl €'_: h1 ,;.11-1C=(-' r,.S'1- _::~: I':, C:;ti1_i Y°i:~? ~=i7 j.]i:-_'Y-~r:)Il ci J. i. I'l :I L.LY `yf t~!hNn I prf~la~r'f~~ ~i r~~a~.7e:,r~i:. '.'I_;I" c. J. i.r~r~v~~ c~r•:nir~r-I, {~c:,!- irlstanc:~, =s c,r-,~ <~ar°f' ~a<~r-c=e37. i~car• t'.h~l€_ i:lfvt_li:~t:~ill€_~n~C a'f• any" ':~inr~7.~-, '~~mi.ly r E_ ~ i rJ ~-7 n c c: , t r; E' s i t r_y i. =a ~• a. l: I-i ~'r' J. r.:; c ~E t ~ ci c. i-~ ~ ;~ ti r~ c, rri ~s I ~ ~~ ~ a rLL rJ , lnr_J,l_4,:J7.n[:1 (](:'Y-I~<~I:?~ } i~C1:.'<<~1J. !.kf- rTS:Li.l.i.ic:l~:.l~3Ci 't: C:?t_hri].i:{L.IF''! ~r-E' en;~i:l nvr~c:l 1,.,~ cli r-'F rt :..n ~ ~:;c._'i:t=~•r1 is i.:~l. r__,~[:~J. c:,.,~i. e_ ~,~_~[.tr-; c~nC~, !. _ 1-h~=~ hlrimr„:i.~t~.~ :irrl:i.l r_Ilr~ rpt_~rl r~p~:~i:: L:-., i-hli== i.=z tl-lir' irl€_Y'~t pY-[_[di~ri~t- - - .. , - _.. s - ~ , t' to rw cI G, ~'r~"s:. '~ rl [, h~ r- c; r7 r. I i , r~.-, [•) €::? c: rs I I I _I c:? #: 1..; i- C., i_. r..i z::: k:. i _ ,., f:-. I-' ~~: ~~ c_I L_s .~s r- c:- j' c, ~~ I_ , _ ,_.__ • .ar-II_I <.:)I:a..l J. J..i •.~{~ }.r'I ~..Ils_. l,li.)t..llli_~~l.si<~. l i l ;.:i l ~ t. a s_ a .~ :.:cr ~..:-, rI'W. i:_",- r~l ,. T h~C:?~]~. J: I'1~:, ~E.. tt:J,-_~I,[_rlaL..:.='1 ; ::~L:.IC:II-t~._.,.,::r:'..I ..> f-'~.f:.piat-r C9 €.f.:Yrl'f=iztC:i., irtF:1 l'~ '[_,I'ltc~F"i'' ,'~I!-'L:: i'l..ll"t~hlf'1" €~l4€?9~::t3.C~n ~., "~ ,. _ I •I .i, l..l ~i f;;i ,l ~,:i .-..> L... ::x4jij,, 7. Ir l `.:a ~l '"" t l i,l . ' P° i.; l t~~ C: i:; i:.i ~::'. f_] .L i:] i=I 1. is ~". !~~ I : ~ I - J. 1 d~TRIVFR AS5OC]ATE5, INC. fiANNER ASSOCIATES. [NC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CnNSUITING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS SUfTf_ G, r,(t5 FAST MAIN 2771 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD A5I'EN, CC)LOPZAD(] 81611 130;31 925-5857 GRAN[] JUNCTION, CO SI50G • (303) 243-2242 I SANNI t ~J r'li cr,,~e.=l J . I...u~s.st:t~r-I_>~~~~-h Vaz I , CC7, 816_;8 ~~C: E.1 r-: !`1F'~,clac'a~~ 4-iur,d~. v]. ~;3. can I:acr~:~~tl T Deter C~Er. L~~~ster-b~ch: Y have reviewed the reparte }are~]ared the weed:: ending ,7~rne 3.~', 19L~7, b}~ D4n F'ettygrr~ve, a~.sr strr.cc::tf.crw-~1 FancrirreerN r_an~c~rcriny tr,e roc_r~a11 mitigt~tian fc>rM the E1 E: hir~~dcrw~ Scchdivi~inr,. A~ previ n~.s~1 y mc_ni_i ranc~ci , pc~tenti ~I r-ar=4:f ~~11 i r,ta th a s tea. tc:~ i•,i. J ]. be very ?.n•Frerar.sr~nt c,ver the yef~rs, 1-r~.s~(: thi. a tyke c~'{ rT]i+i.cl~t.ic]r~ i. ~ :~ti.ll. ~rc_sdr~n~_. r ~ thr~ E?nC]i veered d,~si. qn c~r-i ter i a ~]re 7c~r,ted by Pc-rr-~ F'=~ttyc~r`r]vF~ i. r~ hi ~ t~t]r~ve r-c={er-t need rc:~pc~rt :i. ~ •f~a].l awr~ci r the r-r~cr::3•ai..l . I-,.~ ~r-~ri ~ a ar~aula ~nt~ s~1i thi n etrc..sct~sr~a~~ tc; fae 1 c~cated c•.i t hi r~ 1,.1 I•:: M e ~~ r1 a sr1 s ~~ ~ r ra c~ i, ~~ ~. ~ i o r, ~•~ i ]. 1 h Ea in i n i rl, a e ci . F s_tr t h c~c~ , i f i ~ I-i e I- F~ctarilm~:nr3~:cl er,c~ i. n~~c_~r~' i r,c~ i ~~ aCc_:c:;rs~~F:, 1. i .mil-;r_ri tic.ir i r'~C7 thr=~ . r..:an~l~.r~.cc_:1..:i c_rn 17f ~~{:.I°Y_rri:c.,rc-,<-~ r.cl_rc~rs #:.i~c~ (ar-c~wc-~~:r~c:1 I:~~si, l.cii nc7 ,~nvr~l,:]t:reyc:;, tllt::rY_~ =>hcatrri.rl rae nc, ir~~Cret:,t>~+rl f-c~~~.,~r~ri tc; atr,r--=r- ~.;r-r~pcar't:v ar strr.sirt:c.srca~, r~r- to ~c.clr3llC L~t_ctLdznr~sa, r-ca~ci~, _ .- _ '_:; t. r E' L'= t:. =~~ r I'- 7. G~ I-i t 1.1 '~ - W ct ~/ r F~ r:l t:s ~ nl C. I'1 'I;: 5 , L.l t 1 ~. ]. 1= 1 e ~° C! Il ~' .t C 1 i. 1 '~ 1 C?'::i .. ~: ~ }•car~ ht~v~- ~~n~;~ {s.sl-t~.:r,F~r (i(.s;:aeti.clnr,, 1.1 ].f',=Sr;F' c3a r]c=; 1. i,c=~:i r;_rt:.t- t:.i~ L~~(~t`IEF; ~ ~~sc~c~ i ~T~.~ ~, i rs ~ . ~c ~~ ~' I'JaChca7.G:tis L_f4rt;(airi,:7Y F-'t-~i~~- F'r a _.j t~ r t C'.~ r~ ~~ I r~ cl i .~ ~_. B~ER A55UCIATES, INC. T3ANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. L:ONSiJLTING ENGINI:EIiS 8c ARC}fIT1:CfS CONSUI:fING ENGINC-rHS & AHCMITECTS 5(11TF. fi, fi05 LAST MnIN 2777 CROSSI~UADS BUUI_EVARD ASPEN, COLORAUU 81Fi11 - i3f)3) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 3i50G • (303] 2~r3-2242 ~ ~~ANN~ ~ # • June 12, 1987 Mr. Mike Lauterbach P.O. Sox 3451 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Preliminary Drainage Plan/Geologic Hazard Mitigation Elk Meadows Subdivision - Lion's Ridge Subdivision (The Valley), Filing #2, Phase III - BAI #8095-05 Dear Mike, I have reviewed the revised roadway drawings developed by John MacKown as well as the Preliminary Plan developed by Eagle Valley Engineering with respect to the existing and proposed drainage conditions. We have developed the enclosed Preliminary Drainage Plan from the grading contours provided by Jahn MacKown. Drainage Plan The existing drainage path through this valley carries the runoff of approximately 178 acres. The peak flow from this area (as previously submitted) is calculated at 8 cubic feet per second. • The flow through the drainage path is generally wide and shallow with velocities of less than five feet per second. The construction of this subdivision wall separate an area of approximately 0.84 acres north of the access road from the main flow pattern and recombines the flow from these two areas at the 18" CMP culvert located at Station 1+G5. Any access walks to the buildings on the north side should have an 18" CMP or equivalent in order to allow for the passage of flow to the west. The maximum flow from the smaller area is 2.0 cubic feet per second for which the minimum 18" culvert is more than adequate. The maximum flow (8 cfs) along the south side of the roads will be adequately transmitted by the typical ditch section in all areas except the small, four car parking area at the extreme west end. It wa11 be necessary to install approximately 55 lineal feet of 18" CMP at this location in order to convey the surface waters beneath the parking area and avoid forcing them onto the adjacent property. The 18" CMP will carxy the full 8 cfs with a headwater/diameter ratio of Less than 1.5. It is my understanding that all areas of the site, except the seven building locations, will be dedicated to open space uses which will include use for surface drainage. This will eliminate the need for any specific drainage easement. • RANNF.R A550CIATES, [N C. CONSLiLTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 7.777 CROSSROADS C30ULEVAf~D GRAN[] JUNCTION. (:O 81506 • {303} 243-2242 0 • Mr. Mike Lauterbach B f~ N N June 12, 1987 Page Twa • Natural Springs During the geological hazard investigation, the site was thoroughly inspected with no signs of natural water springs appearing on the ground suzface. Any marked increase in vegetation in isolated areas would indicate the likelihood of natural springs. None of these indicators were observed. Ground Water The Preliminary Subsoil and Geologic Investigation prepared by Chen and Associates, Inc. in May 1972, indicated that no free water was observed in any of the 10 test pits excavated. The primary drainage channel is an intermittent water-course without significant year round flow. Geologic Hazards Mitigation with regard to the recommendations made in my letter of February 23, 1987 far the mitigation of the geologic rockfall hazard, T offer the following clarifications. My recommendation for a six foot vertical height of wall exposure on the north side is a minimum and refers to the reinforced concrete wall with timbcx .impact absorption. If walls on the north (uphill) side are to be taller than the minimum 6 feet height, then they should be crapable of withstanding a 2000 pound force, although the structure above the six foot level and below the 10--12 foot level, recommended by Mr. rampiris, need not be of concrete or have the timber impact absorption. The difference being the frequency of anticipated rock hits and subsequent damage. Below the six-foot height, mare frequent strikes cart be expected for which damage should be minimal. Above six-foot to the 12-font level, rock strikes can be anticipated but need be protected against significant struct°aral damage only. If a roof area will be constructed with uphill exposure, that portion below the 10--12 foot height and above the 6 foot height should be designed to withstand the 200Q pound impact force as well. Reference is made to the attached sketches for the areas of consideration. The heights discussed above are relative to the natural ground elevation at the uphill. extreme of the structure and projected along the slope not at the edge of roadway. n U . Mr. Mike Lauterbach B A N N E R June l2, 1987 Page Three r1 L_J The terraced floors to which I made reference in my earlier corzespondence was intended to a11ow for offset floor elevations in order to provide buildings which better fit the natural slopes of nearly 2:1 in places. Should you have any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. V ~jc _ _ - C~ '-:~; Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E. Colo. P.E. #16543 DGP/rlg Encl: 14 copies - Preliminary Drainage Plan & Geologic Hazard Mitigation cc: Kristan Pritz - Town of Vail • kk x' ! P. ~ / r ~~, ~~ - G' ~- r', 1~ u Febrtfary ~5, 1SG7 r~ t~€ich:~el Lauterbach L.arrar- Cr:T~pani es/C~: F' . G . f{a:; ~~ 4 1 Lai 1 , CO . ~ 1 b~,8 Development Inc. F:G: Geologic Ha and Mitigation E1 ~: Meadat•:s St+bdi vi si on V~-ti 1 , Ct7. Dear Mi k:e: I have revi e+Ned }~ottr- most recent plans and aI so nevi et•:ed the repart by our structural engineer, Don F'ettygrclve, concerning the rock:fall niitigatinn for the I`1 E: Meado~•:s Subdivision. I ayr-ee, that if the design criteria presenE=ed Liy Dcsn rettygr-rive in tlis letter of Fetartlarv ~:1, 1 i~37, are fal lo+•:ed, r-t~Gk:fa.l 1 I~a~ard t~ri 1 l b:? k:ep~. to a minimum for this dev+~l c~prnent . F'c~tenti al rack:f c-tl 1 i nta tl~i s site r•:i 1 1 be very i nfr-r ;gent over th` years, bG+t thie typ>~ n-f mitiaati^n is still l;r-udent. The rr,i t i gat i ve deli gn t•ri 1 l nc,t adver eel y of •f ect any athet- devel opment i ri the area. I f you haver any f F_tr they yr resti uns , ;~1 r_•"~~c dc: nc~t hewi Late to contact trs. Sincerely. L{H?'`~PJ/~I'R F'~~JL7LIF=T~J. I3~Irv. / ~- ~ ~ L ~ r~~ f(~~ i' Nicholas L_arnpiris, f='hCl. F'roiect Geolac~ist h!L/cl 4:: finNNFi2 nSSOCIATES, INC. BAI~'NFR nS5Of;lATES. [NC. [~(~,:51~1.T1~'r f:\(;f.~'1:>=.RS ~f :11iC11[IE~.CTS ((~.ti~tll.li~G 1 ti(;;.~1~C:ftS ~ ,~f;i.}+31F.C~iS tiIJIfF G, (~f)5 FAST MA[N '1771 CROSSROADS 13Of.ll-L-VARD ASl'F~1, COLORADO 81G11 • (3031 '325-5857 GfZn,'VD JUNCTION, CD R150G • (3f73J 243-2242 [~ebrrtlry 23, !.9[i7 ~~ Mr. Alichael l,autet.-blch . T,arn<1C Companies/CK i)evclo[.nne[ri= Inc. P.O. 13ux 34.;1. iJail, CO 131G~[i ]Ze: Geologic Elaaar-d M.it_irlatic>n F.lk Meadows ~ut~tlivision vail, co bear Aiike; ns rcc3ueated, ][ ]give reviewc9c! the ap[)ropri.ate measures [or the ntiticl:rtaon of. the t:ockfall hn~.ard ai: t:hc subject site. The currenY_ ].oc::tt_].on Ivor t-hc lot;; does nu L- allow for the mi.t.igaf:inn t.o IJC hln(llccl as ~asi.ly as befot:c, however., it appears that it cart be accompli ;heel with a Lew ccrn;:.ideral.i.ons. 1) 'i'he str.uct-uses should lie siluat:ed so that at least six vertical feet of wall is exposed on t_he upltill side. 'I'he exposed (ace should 1)c rlesi(Jned (prefer:ably of reinforced coact:et_e int.er[t:al w.i th i'.he Luundai,ion) such tlsat: it is c~ plble of. with:,t-lnrliny a Lor ce oL not: .less than 2000 pounds ap[)].ieci over an area of a[,[.)roxitnately L'wo scluar.e feet. '!'he Later of the wall should })c pr:otectec], a , before, with f inc}i ti.mt)ers [or. impact absor.}>ti.on and rc~placemertt. '1'he design o£ these wall. ; sttuuld be Simi ].ar to those shown in my letter. oI duly 3, l~E3G. 2) 1111 other- a):c~as w.tth tt[~hill exposuzes sltoulc] be desi_c;ued to wi.iltst_ancl a 7.000 po:tncl force as wcl]._ Lfo w:iridows shou].c] be [)l~~c,•erl i n walls wi l:h u[thi_a]. ex~vsure.,. 7t should be unc]r~rr;t.oocl t.hlt t.hr~re r'_xit;t, t:hc possi.lt.iliLy tltat falling rocks could im{tact I,i.csn's It i. (lye Loup Rnar3 alx)ve and be launc:lteci irtto the ai.): sttfl.i.t.i.ently to impact ):ooL areas, a] thoucllt I.he [troli:thi .l.i ('..Lr~s oi- such art impaot lee sidni.Cicanl l.y ]owr_r t_h3n thc)s(~ wh_ic3t w.i.l7. impact t_ho wall_ 31 Insof~3r n;; [,us;;ihle, it is rrcomml~ncled I:hat: roollts with L]te yreitest c,ccu[~anr~y t.te Ior_al.ecl ataxy tram the upper stories and t.o t_itc~ fl(15JI7111.].1 side. A S_rr.t:ace(3 L.1.o01: let:3I1CJCmE?rlt appear:a to (it gtl.i.t.e tar~l]. at thi :,i_te lnc.l w].]]. b.lcnd into the side of I hc~ hi ]. .1. hr~i I:rr' wlti is pr-nvidiny lr,ss cost- i hr:ouc[II rcr]t.tred excavat.i.on. R layout oi. i:h.i;: ty[te will zl,o pz-ov.i.rie Lot: rnax.i.unttn snttChern exixtsttr_r~ to take l(]vanl~age of solar heat gain. IigNNE.fi nsSnl'Inll[5, IN(; C:gtitilq_11NG Lfa(ii.'ti`F rl{5 Re AHC111irY.TS 2JJ'71J111~S1t(tAft; lutlll.l[VAkU GHANf).IUNC1fItN, Ch fi150r, • {;;Ir'il 7.1;5~'.'7~'L • Ftr. h1L~lraei J~~ut.c~rl~ac.ls E~eka}'uzryl3, .l '.111'1 1'nye '1'wu (~ANNC~~ 'I'lsr~ tnei.IsUrJ of lsanrilirtr) ;:lr,rm w;ti.rr s:unc,i~f :;lsuulr3 :tcia.in lar~ r~~;srn1 i n L 1 y 1.ltr .::tusr ,t ;, I,z ru i r,nC; l.y nu;nl_ i onrrl in ray lcl.i.cr' of .`;r~I,Lr;tnhc:r Ill, ]'JRFi_ I'ruvi:;irusr: wi I # lar; trr•<•r~;: ;:st}' Lu a~ luw lut_ art l ll" ci.irtmes.r_}: cu,l.vrrt IYr.nr~al ]s I Isr.~ r~u i -rir~..•;;tc a1: lltr? r. :a ,t. c:nrl, lutne,~t,h 1_hn snn i rt r•nl s'<snr.r~ r r,nrl ;sari ;sc•crr:;:; rr,arl Lr, ]t,I.:: li :rstcl 7 ntrr3 Lr-n[•atk.lt Lit r; frYUr I+.ssY.inrl S:I,,sa:r~r. .s1 Ilse r•Xir+tan~ w[•;;1. r~asrl of I Itr~ IYr'rY jrr:l 1 tt .rrlrl i I i nu, t Irr• r r>,relto.i y ;;Itr,u Irk Irr: r:r,n:;l.s tar.:1.F'r] :r I, lr~•t;l- ]'-'J" nl+uvr~ Iltr lrata I+r,inl .+1 Ilrr• I,t im,sry rlr,l.i,rtarEr lYisl.ls 1 hroucllu}1tl l-Itr• .I r•nril L r,# I In• In r, jr•r.l ] [ i :: u[,I anl.ir: i )~<ti.eri Lltrsl t: i.rlrs i C i r:;lrtl. }' i It_r',slr wi I I l,r• nr•r-r,::::nt y .: i nr~r` I_ksr•_ rlr~s,i rtnyr• lsal.lr i s Lu rrtnrsa.n i qtr r)r~.l y tool i::l.ni I,r•el_ 5huss.lcl you tt~lvc any ynr~si.i.rYn, lylrasc f:c+~[ 1=a:cc i~u c., .l. l.. Si nccreJ y; lydnlJI3l;lt (n'~sc}c~.n'!'f~~:',:, I~1NC. pon.~t.Lci C;. I'cl.l.yrjruve, E'.1:. CC: IJ]r:1: i,23r[rIH TI,:i 1 } i t' : IS U'J',', i 1. r . J ). .S • SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE ITx April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley Planned Development (PD) July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is goad for three years. The approval included 150 units on 61.2 acres. July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting to confirm Valley approval. July 26, 1975: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of the units are under construction. The 120 units that have not been built will require a new submittal starting with a sketch plan and preliminary plan review (letter from Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977). May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the Eagle County Commissioners in favor of extending the Valley's approval as long as development is carried out according to the preliminary plan and recreation amenities are provided. May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an extension of the Va11ey preliminary plan approval. This approval would expire on June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it would be required that sketch plan and preliminary plan review informtion be submitted. Also, if any change in the present plan, it would have to be reviewed by the County Commissioners. November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch plan and have several concerns. March 25, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu- ment is filed with the County which indi- cated that Phase TII was subject to the land use restrictions of 10 units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80-20 allowed the phases of The Valley to be sold separately without any further compliance with the subdivision regulations. April 16, 1980: The Eagle County Planning Commission reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The Planning Commission suggested that the units be tucked into the hillside on the northeast side of the project and that the developer use berming and landscaping to buffer the project. Staff recommended approval of the sketch plan. April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the Eagle County Planning Commission which recommends more tighter, clustered layout of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail staff also recognizes the steep hillside and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan. April 30, 1980: The Eagle County Commissioners reviewed the sketch plan that the Planning Cammission saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan showed 10 townhomes on Phase III. May 5, 1980: A resolution was passed by the County allowing three years for the developers to file preliminary plans from the March 26, 1980 PUD plan approval date. December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexed the West Vail area including Phase ITI of The Valley. March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applied zoning to The valley which was recently annexed. The ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981. March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series. of 1987, the Town Council approved ,rezoning of The Valley. Sept. 11, 1985; The Valley is de-annexed from the Tawn. Summer 1986 A development proposal is submitted to Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation. The proposal begins with a sketch plan/preliminary plan review. Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase ITI proposal is withdrawn from the County due to complications with the time lines for review and how they will relate to the property being re-annexed to the Tawn of Vail. L j r~ L May 16, 1985 A grading permit is released by the County for an access road into Phase III. The applicant was Lamar Capital Corporation. May &, 1987 The road work on Phase III is red-tagged by Eagle County. May 7, 1987: Red tag removed by Eagle County. May 11, 1987 The Valley is re-annexed into the Town. May 11, 1987; The Road is red-tagged by the Town of Vail May 11, 1987: The Road is red-tagged by Eagle County. May 11, 1.987: Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major subdivision and special development district zoning request for Phase TTI. • C7 To: Planning & Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: April 23, 1990 RE: An appeal of a decision of the zoning administrator, pursuant to Section 18.Fi6.030 of the zoning code, regarding the definition of "site coverage", (Sections 18.04.040 and 18.04.360 of the zoning code), specifically as it relates to Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: H. Ro55 Perot I. DESCRIPTION DF THE REQUEST The applicant is the owner of a single family home located at 64 Beaver Dam Road, and has recently presented plans to the C~~~~,~~unity Development Department which entail a major remodel and expansion of the residence. One portion of the remodel calls for the construction of an attached three-car garage and entry on the site (presently, there is no covered parking on site). Only the north elevation wall, or garage entry, would be exposed and visible from Beaver Dam Road. The roof of the garage would be covered with soil and the grades would be recontoured to berm up against the sides of the garage, (see attached site plan and elevations). The property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. Given, the current zoning, as well as the steep slopes on the lot, the site coverage for this property is limited to a maximum of 15% of the total site area. Total site area 15,681.6 square feet or 0.36 acres Allowable site coverage 2,352.2 square feet or 150 Existing site coverage 1,103.0 square feet or 7% Proposed site coverage (with garage) 3,498.0 square feet or 22% Proposed site coverage* (if garage is not counted) 2,388 square feet or 15.2% *Note: The applicant will still need to decrease site coverage, by 35.8 square feet, even if the garage does not count towards site coverage. 1 The request before the PEC centers around the Town of Vail • Zoning Code definitions of "site coverage" and "building", which are as follows: "18.04.360 SITE COVERAGE - Site Coverage means the portion of a site covered by buildings, excluding roof or balcony overhangs, measured at the exterior walls or supporting members of the building at around level". "18.04.040 BUTLDTNG - Building means any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, or any other enclosed structure, for the housing or enclosure of persons, animals, or property". The applicant is appealing the staff determination that the garage should count towards site coverage based on the above definitions. II. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE Please see the attached letter from Jim Morten, dated April lb, 1990, for the applicant's response. III. STAFF RESPONSE After review of the definitions in Section 18.04.040 and 18.04.360 of the zoning code, the staff believes that the proposed garage should be included as site coverage. The purpose of site coverage is to limit the area of a site which is r_,wPrpc~; by buildings. We believe that the proposed garage is indeed a building, as defined above. The garage is a structure which has a roof, and the roof is supported by walls. The north elevation of the garage reads very clearly as a garage, or building. In respect to the definition of site coverage the staff believes that the building would be constructed above around level and that the soil placed on the roof of the garage should not constitute ground level, but only an artificial recontouring of the site's grades. In addition, "the exterior walls or supporting members" of the building are clearly visible at ground level. The applicant's position is that "because our garage will be totally covered by existing grades (the site over the garage will be taken back to its original grades and landscaped conditions), our garage is not covering the site". In reviewing the existing grades, compared to the proposed grades over the garage, the staff has determined that the grades differ by as much as 4'. Generally, the proposed • grades are 2' above the existing grades. 2 The staff does not support the applicant's position that the . garage should be considered as a landscape feature, as defined in Section 18.04.200, which is as follows: "Landscaping means planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flower beds and ground cover, together with the core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying mare than 20~ of the landscaped area." Certainly the bermed areas and soil and grasses on the building's roof are possible to consider as landscape materials, however, the proposed building must still be addressed by using the site coverage and building definitions when determining site coverage for the proposal. The applicant has drawn some comparisons with the underground parking at Bishop Park. It is true that the underground parking for Bishop Park was not counted as site coverage. The staff's justification for this exclusion from site coverage is due to the fact that the parking is completely underground and that the parking structure is not visible from anywhere on the site. In summary, the staff cannot support the applicant's • request. We feel that the garage should be included as site coverage and that the applicant's request does not meet the intent of site coverage, as defined in the Town's zoning code. We believe that if the applicant feels strongly about this particular garage design, in this location, then the applicant should proceed with a request for a site coverage variance. • 3 +~ ~. * ~~ a ,.F, j' ~' ~ ~ '1- ~c~ i i ... .:~~ ~ ~~ ~~ .s ,, U1 '1i7 ~ 1~ ~~ ; }4 ti1~ ~~ r ~, -. :~ ~ SSt ~ .Y" `S ~.~~ ~t ',' d r! s l ~ \' 6i 1 ~ ,. 4 ~ 1 a ~ .1 t ~ ;,1 { r .~ ~ 1~1 H 'V~~1 q ~ `t' ~1, t r _ ~,' 3 ~,. c ~ C? , ~ yv ~~ ~ ~~ r 1 l 1 1 .a~ t ~ ~ ~ ~- O ~ ( ~. ~ ~ ,, . ~ 1 ~' ~ ~~~ ~ / .~ ~. f ~{i : / _,_ ,., ~,h 1 V ~, 1 -~~_~ ~ '~'~ r :':, ~.. ~ ~ .. ~, ~ ~~ f :. ~~~ tf~. ~~~~~ ~~ ..~ ti~ ~ d~ '~~ ... 4 I 11 k t,13 , _.a hY .~. ~a ~.~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~1~.~ ~- .=1 ~' ; t O :1~~.°~ ~' x)41 y~ .. V`~i 4>~.~ -4 t'{ ~ ~,\\ _~,~i~:~ .~ 1~ K _~ ~.. '~^ ~ :~ :~ `~ ~- s ~,G`~: 7 (~ ' W j ~ n i i A t~ K ~ ~ti .~ v+ ~.~m N ~ ~ m 'm v o ~ ~?~o ' ~ _. ' 1~~ i 4,; 1.14 ~, ~ 1 p 1,1,11 ~ ~• ` ~ i , ~ ~1~ t ~h ~ 1 ++ ~! ~ ~~ b t ~ v ~-.~ ~ , . .; ,., >~ ~r.. ++ ~N 4 ~ L !ri 7 ~. C`. 1 of ,1 1 ~~ 1 I~ ~iiitl .~~ ~ _ z r °D ~ ~ ., ! ~ 4~ tj ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J 1 ~ I 1 ~~ 1 I° ~'1' ~~~~ ~ ~a~~~ 1 ~ 1 t ~r~ ~ I ~ f~ 1. 1 j sb~7 ~117ttR 1 -1---. c 1 ~ lr jrJ ~~ , ' 1 1~---,-----.-~ :. ~ U I ;` . 'i~l~mul}q~llil'i'I'I f .. I i 1' ~ i ~ ~ ' ~, , ~; ~ k i I I ~~ II ` it JulrrrJuru~r rn Uiar ll I r s ~ T~. _ r I , If-.~.~::_~_. .Iri~yr~, ~qulrru'll'~ i I I F ~1 f'. 1~ I' ' 4i: i ,I. ~;~~I ; ;, ail! ~i ~l' L~u~uyli i I~ ~~., r uyy~~~ru. I j I I I,4 r r ~„` ~ . , .. , ~ `. ,... `, .. ~~ i; Mrrei'~. ___ , . I ~ ~ ~ ~'., --- -- ' j . r~ ,~~, Y ~ ~~~ , ' `r i ~ - .. '' ~`V '~ x ~ ,.~. ~ "~ ~ 1.~ r:~ .._!I `i j- 1 r } ;~~ 1~ ~.~~ L. ~ t _, ~i "~ `,~' (r,•I. :fir- :k~.. ~~ ~', ~. .:-~ :~ -; $ i ; i 1 r ~ ` I 'S! t ~~ I ~' I I ,3I~I I~Ii~~,'.~ijl~;~,I ,~ ~j ~~rt ~~+~ r~ a I '- F, II ~, EI~~:~~.~ ~I, ~III,I ~ . r jE~ I.j +ii~!11~ ~,I+1yfI -~,f I ~ 1 I / ~;.t °. r .! •Ir I ~ V 11~ 'j~~ ~ 4 I r I S f' s~jtl ~: `~~f~~ ~ i~ s~ k ,i. l'i~- t I ~ ~ a ~1~ l i l ~~ ~ 1~`~ 1 • • ~~4 y1 }w' ~~Ir ~ K~` • 1 [~ ~ .y ~" I I1 7 Iw ~_ { 1 k ~ ~ ~ - - ~ , ~ ~. ~.. 4 ~. . (: l ~ k~~ J ~, fly ~ f ~ ~ ~ t~~ ~ °~~ ~~ ' ~ 1 ~'." t ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pp y 3 7 ' ~I, 1. ~ ~If .I .I If1i . ~ 5 i ' 1 . :. : 1_ VF .. ,r ~. April 16, 1990 Ms. Diana Donovan Chair, Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vaal 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81658 Hello Diana, This letter is to document our appeal of the Community Dev- elopment Department"s reaent decision regarding a site cov- erage issue, at the H. Ross Perot residence at Lot 31, Black 7, Vail Village First Filing. There is currently a small single-family residence on the property. Because the site climbs at a 45 percent grade from Beaver Dam Road, there is NO on-site parking at all. The Perot's currently must park across the street, in an ally which is either in the Beaver Dam Road right-af-way, or is on Tract B, or both. We are proposing an expansion of the home. Part of the proposed expansion is a garage which is BURIED TOTALLY BELOW EXISTING GRADES, except for the retaining wall which allows access into the garage off of Beaver Dam Road. Please compare our situation to that of Bishop Park, where their garage is covered by existing grades, except the retaining walls which allow access to the garage. Their garage is not considered to be site coverage. We feel that because our garage will be totally covered BY EXISTING GRADES (the site aver the garage will be taken back to its original grades and landscaped conditions}, our garage is not covering the site. Rather, the site is cove- ring our garage. Consequently, we meet the definition of landscaping, Paragraph 18.04.200. • Pg. 2 We look forward to resolving this with you at yaux' meeting on Monday, June 23. Best rq~ards, R. Marter, AIA ARCHITECTS JRM/sj cc: H. Ross Perot • Jay Peterson Warren Lawrence • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 23, 1990 RE: A work session to discuss proposed amendments to SDD No. 7 {The Marriott Mark Resort). Applicant: Marriott Corporation. This item was tabled at the applicant's request after lengthy discussion at the PEC's April 9th meeting. A number of design changes have been made in response to comments made by the Planning Commission. Prior to finalizing this redesign, the applicant's have requested a work session discussion with the Commission. It is the intention of this meeting to continue the April 9 dialogue and allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the revised design. The following paints highlight some of the issues that warrant discussion at this work session. Height and Mass of the Proposed Addition, The proposed redesign eliminates mass on the north, south and east sides of the addition. These units have been relocated to the courtyard area. The building height is generally within 48'. This redesign results in a net gain of one timeshare unit {58 units) while maintaining eight employee units. Design Compatibility with Existing Building. The applicants have agreed to repaint the Marriott Hotel in con3unction with this expansion. While no physical changes are proposed to the existing structure, it is the applicant's intention to lighten the color of the existing building in order to relate to the proposed addition. View Impacts on Ad-iacent Properties, Arrangements have been made with the Vail Spa to view the proposed expansion from a variety of different units. The applicants are evaluating alternatives for demonstrating the • ridge line of the building's north elevation in the field in order to evaluate impacts on the Vail Spa. • Existing Parkins Structure There was concern among some Commissioners that existing parking was partially exposed on the west and north side of the project. The applicants have modified this design to minimize exposed parking area on the north, and totally cover the parking along the west side of the structure. While this does screen the parking, it raises the question of the building setback along the westerly property line. Previous direction from the Commission encouraged the applicants to keep all new building mass 20' back of this property line. With the proposed redesign, a building addition would be within 5' of the west property line. Underlvins Zanina Additional research has revealed na new information relative to this sites underlying zoning. The original ordinance that created the SDD in 1977 made no reference to underlying zoning. There is no question that there was zoning an the site, however, the staff has been unable to determine with any degree of certainty what this zoning was. It is Larry Eskwith's feeling that the SDD could be amended without underlying zoning, but if the Commission was desirous of applying an underlying zoning that could also be done. If that is the desire of the Commission, it would require republication of this application. Development Comparison of Adiacent Lots The accompanying chart indicates the existing development on adjacent properties. This was done to provide a comparison of these properties relative to the development proposed on the Marriott site. As indicated by this table, there are a number of properties developed beyond what is proposed on the Marriott site. Staff Recommendation The staff is not presenting a recommendation at this time. It is the intention of this meeting to continue the dialogue that took place on April 9th. It is the intention of the applicant to have a formal review with the Planning C..«~«ission on May 14th, and the staff will present a complete recommendation at that time. :7 • • ~ -ncm~z m~? cc c_~ rn~~crDCa ~~~~ ;'~" m 7 :c 7 O x 3? ~, O m ""' 7 7 ~~ 2~ 7 ?~ ~ [] iT' lTl - r ~ ~ • r• -t, -~ Tip ~ ~ ~ D tR J rl 7 7 7 t ~' ~ 3 5 Ci7 < ~ f+ lfl [1 Cil T? 'FI s-' [f f'f 7 N. ~. ;f R Y'' ,--' ; H• --~ ~ 3 ft f7 r• ~ •• ill U; C rI! Cfi L~ .C1 _1 7 ~rl ~ "5 tf1 n r f, - T r+ 0 7 2i ~ ~ .~ rr 7- ~ r m iEl i N ~ ~ r .-, ~ r in ~ C] >J ~-' 'S O ~ Rr -5 R~ fi U3 Q7 f~ ~ o ~+ao ~ v m N r ro to ~ ti m ~~ -I [i to m 7 D ;fl 4 ~ m G ~ m ~ 7 * r ~ r~l ~ a ~* .. ~'~z m m ~m *..+ ,_... ~ fl ~ Q 7 7 ~fl m D a~~T ~ ~~ g n m ~ D ~ 7 ~ a ' ~ cn r r E7 -r! D rf v R •+, ~, Cn i,J rx# P•J ~.• r- r- r;> F-. R+ ,:J Cn 77 I~ ~ R CS ~ D w -rs Q` 'J' ~t PJ ^ ~(] -A r r•.I ~-` Ul C? a ~ v tnr~ r..JA ~}-r~jw~~uv m, ~ ° ~ r in r C d C7 ~ c v [~ p n1 ~+ :-. [-• w r h.3 ..~J sJ7 JTi N rt - C t3 Ln w :•J •~ J C~ A C:J ~ rn 4J h? s-+ . n ~'- tR Cn C' •h -fi A V hJ -A a] A F+ -0 Cn 1 N 1 ~ f ~ -~ JTl m j 7 "r ~ r 1 rJ ~-* ~s~! •-0 A p~ ~!J 00 C~i h.) -II V G r ~, ~.,. f q p.} J hi 0] hJ ~ •-` '~ A R` r+3 Cn Ul a~ ~m ~ ~ r rA m n fi ~ ~ `~ ~ ~, in n ~, ~a v r7~~1C]n[7z n ro o rrY• u~ v•-- D-3 nn~-ant~nrsrn z_ ro N ~~ ~n D 3 7 Gl iii ~ s-,. Ll rS ~i C1 m r '(1 U! 7 < F'' ~ ~ ' n Rk ~' a - ~ N. ~-' rr ~ 7 i..] A tl3 ? -f td F.3 rJ ~:~! hJ ~ ~.J ,-~ sY Y.J ~ 'g 4J Q~ C~ A ^ Cn J~J ,~ `L! '~ a -1 C ~- .-• 7 rJ t7 . . L4 Cn £A 4~J cn m .•J in ~' r -i ? rrJ r-i r+ R~ ftt ~L 7 d rt N fl rt' u X ,-+ N w rl ~ ~ a D ~ m 7 r.J ry ~. ~ ..a ~,; µ ~ ~iJ A cF- to ~ Cn, ..J --: ,~ ;n a p C1 . +iJ ~• S~ C' 'w ~J 1Jl ~-' Ln ~ r:a C~ ~1 r 7 n a Q "' C G N. f'h y1 rs r-• ~-' to C7 -J Y. a. .~ ~;~; r n cn 4,J A v ~ J a• Y- ,a ~? ~ ' 7 ~ j .J ~J r G' ~:J C+I .-` '~ ~^ ~ '-.' ' .p I Jl :O f"f Q . T z, a ~, o ro H~ ~~ 7 ~fl C1 r~ ~.-. w r r w A p.) iJ Cn ,-i .. .. M -{ 'e Cf~ r V ~ t~. w r.,j d,. w« ~~, ill Gl 9a ,0 ra ~' ,v, J~ o• cn rJ •~ •ra A :;' r~ ~* m ~ x ra e- •o to o~ Gn ~ tJ co ~. .. " L1J .~] y .. H ~ ~. ^ G Ctl '`"' ::' .fit w *' BSI V C' Gl . .. A w> r:J ~' '.. D i,_n ~1 0. 1]] 4~ r~J O ra N 7T C7, D ~ -i "rr G r,]... ~wwrr~GG w OD 7 7 ~ -rt. -'. Z ~ ~ ~ I 2 m r m ~ ~ T ~ O 1 N i • • V P Q • ~~ VJ !~1 -11 "~ .....~ ~o ~~ ~1 • r ~ o. r ~.. -~~- ~-.... i.'_k. . ~:~~.:: j _~- ._ ~ i. . ~-- -}{~;~_ - ;,__.. _ ~ctsT~N~ _~-I ~. ~ ~ _~ < <.. ,y ~~ ~ ~~~~ i ` s . -.~ ~V~L. 22 .~ 1r t ~~ 1 J\ __. ~-~• ~~~~ i ~ ,1 ~~' ~oo~ L~Y6o ~ ~~ ~~ ~ - k~i~~~~~ ~. ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~~i lli , ~ ~ ~' 1 ~ ~~ ~ t~ . t ~.~~~~ .~ ~ ~ t ~ ;. ~, - ~, i~ ~ ~, 1 1i~ ; ~ ~1~ ~ ~~ ~~ F 1~1 f 4 _ .. .. ~ j ~ j ~~ ~ ~ - ! __.~ ~ ~ 1 ~.---- - ~ i ~ 1 t4tl ., `~' ~~i` ~ ~~ l~~ ~ ~. ~ T ~ Il~~ - ~~ y >i , . . ~ ~ t~t~ t ! ` ~ ~ 1 Rom l~vL~ ~b ~~~~~~ ~ ~ .~, f ~~~ 14El1 ~~~~ kk~lllkk ~,>>~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ PVC-1..~ 5~' ;~,: ,~. i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . May 14, 1990 11:00 A site visit to Spraddle Creek. The PEC work session will be on June 4th. 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. 2:00 Site Visits 2:30 PEC review of a 1041 request which has been scheduled before the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. The request is for a major extension of an existing domestic water system. A 16" pipeline from Vail to Eagle-Vail, through Dawd Junction. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes from April 9, 1990 and i April 23, 1990 meetings. `~ 1 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 11B, Matterhorn Village Subdivision. Applicant: William Clem - 3. A request far a final plat for a major subdivision for SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais- Moseley Construction. - 4. A request far a final plat for a major subdivision for SDD No. 16, on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem 3 5. A request for a site coverage variance for an addition on Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: H. Ross Perot • • • } Y TABLED until 6/11 2 6. A request to apply High Density Multi-Family zoning to the Marriott Mark Resort and for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (Marriott Mark) in order to add 56 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. 7. Discussion and appointment of PEC members to the Zoning Code Revision Task Force. 8. Appointment o~ a PEC member to act as a DRB alternate. 9. Reminder of Discussion with Council on Fireplace Ordinance Amendment, Tuesday Worksession, May 14th. 1Q. Review and discussion of potential open space purchases in the West Vail area. U PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSION MAY 14, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristen Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Me11o Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry ~ ~~`' ,~ The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. The site visits took longer than expected, in the interest of time, the Commission skipped the review of the 1041 request and Item No. 1 and went directly to Item No. 2. Item No. 2: A reauest for a conditional use permit to a11ow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 11B, Matterhorn Village Subdivision. Aoulicant: William Clem Betsy Rosolack explained that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast in two bedrooms of their Primary/Secondary zone district. The staff found that all applicable review criteria and findings had been satisfactorily met and the recommendation was for approval. Dalton's major concern was the trash enclosure and the use of only 2 trash cans and Mr. Clem responded that they had used 2 cans for many years. Dalton then asked if Mr. Clem would be willing to rebuild the enclosure, and Mr, Clem stated that with bears in the area, the dumpster would have to be constructed of concrete block to withstand damage. Discussion then centered around the steep driveway. A motion to anorove the reauest oer the staff memo was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE : 7 -- 0 TN FAVOR • • The Commission then discussed the 1041 application scheduled prior to the Public Hearing and then proceeded with Item Na. 3. They would go back to Item No. 1, approval of minutes at the end of the agenda. Item Na. 3: A reauest for a final plat for a mayor subdivision for SDD No. 22. a resubdivision of Lots 1-190, Block 2. Lionsridae Filing No, 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais. Dauphinais-Moselev Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the request was to finalize the preliminary plan previously approved unanimously on March 25, 1990. The Town Engineer had changed the sidewalk location to the south side of the subdivision road to allow for better drainage. The staff recommendation was for approval of the final plat with conditions as found in the memo. Pat Dauphinais explained that there would no longer be a detention pond as found in the original proposal. As explained during the preliminary plat review, they would be addressing drainage as "comprehensively and extensively" as possible in conjunction with Public Works. • Diana asked who the adjacent property owners were and Pat responded that the Roost Lodge was to the south and Tract B to the east was easements. Pat added that the biggest concern of the Commission during the last meeting was street cuts along Lionsridge Loop and he did consolidate the number down to 5 at the Town Council review of the project. A motion to approve the Finai Plat for a mayor subdivision, for SDD No. 22 per the staff memo and conditions as follows. was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. Conditions: 1. The PEC', chairperson shall sign the plat when the, Subdivision Improvements agreement has been finalized, and approved by the Town engineer and Town Attornev., 2. The Subdivision Improvements agreement shall provide. the Town of Vail with sufficient collateral to guarantee construction and installation of their, reauired improvements per the Town Engineer. PEC. and Communitv Development reauirements. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR 2 • ztem No. 4: A request for a final tilat for a mayor subdivision for SDD No. 16, on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's, Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2 fthe Valley - Phase III), Applicant: Brad and Susan Tiossem, Mike Mollica explained that the survey of the Final Plat showing the as-built road had not been completed as expected. Therefore the staff could not recommend approval, but rather tabling the item, contrary to the memo. He felt that the survey would show that the road as-built might encroach into the open space tract, and Greg Hall from Public Works had not given his final approval. Brad Tjossem explained that he had an urgent need to begin building and that the home would be going before the Design Review Board Wednesday. He understood that the lack of a survey would complicate matters, but asked if it was possible to approve the project contingent upon the topographic survey. Mike did not feel comfortable with Brad's request. He felt that the final plat should be in place at the time of final plat approval. There should not be contingencies. Kristan Pritz said that given the circumstances that the road is already built, she felt that it could be possible to approve the final plat with the building envelopes remaining the same as the . preliminary plan and that no changes be made with site coverage nr GRFA. She felt that the circumstances were very unusual. A motion to approve the final plat for a maior subdivision for SDD No. 16 with the following conditions was made bv, Kathy Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz.. Conditions: 1. The PEC chairperson not sign the plat until the Subdivision Improvements Aareement has been finalized, and approved by the Town Attorney. 2. The Subdivision Improvements Aareement provide the Town with sufficient collateral to guarantee construction and installation of the required fire hydrant and access road construction and paving. 3. A Final Plat be submitted showing the as-built road toooarap_hv. Anv differences/adjustments be considered as part of the road tract and not the building envelopes. Finding: Unusual Circumstances in that the road is, already existing. VOTF: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR 3 . Ztem No. 5: A request for a site coveraae variance for an addition an Lot 31. Block 7, Vail Villaae 1st, Filing. Anulicant: H. Ross Perot Mike Mollica explained that the applicant was requesting a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of an attached three-car garage, and a major remadei and expansion of the existing residence. Given the current zoning and the steep slopes an the lot (apex. 45%), the site coverage requirement for the property was limited to 15~. Staff believed that the lot was encumbered with a physical hardship due to the extreme slopes on the site and 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. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The staff recommendation was for approval. Kristan stated that it was her belief that the walkway on the west side of the site was to be removed and the area landscaped. Jim Morter explained additional changes that were made since the application had been submitted. He had enclosed the stairs on the east side of the garage in the interest of security. The difference took the site coverage from 21~ to 22.1. There was general concern of the visual impact of the present home, specifically the railings and lights on the walkway and Jim Morter responded that he could reconfigure the walk to include 3 steps and a landing, 3 steps and a landing. This would eliminate the need for railings. Steve Zorichak, an adjacent property owner expressed his approval of the project to the board by stating that he felt it was a "vary constructive improvement." Ludwig stated that the elimination of the stairs east of the garage made the appearance less intrusive. He liked the change. Chuck Crist wanted to be sure that the applicant intended to landscape the existing parking area north of Beaver Dam Road., and also wanted to know haw big the pull-off for the mailboxes would be. Jim answered that the pull-off would be as small as allowed. The applicant would like to keep the asphalt down and landscaping up. Jim Shearer liked the new proposal better. Connie Knight asked what percentage the addition request represented and Mike answered 1.1;. Connie also wished to know if the additional 250 GRFA request was related and Mike explained • that it did not relate to this request. 4 i Diana explained that she could support the project because the home was already existing. The Commission had always supported parking in a structure and off the road. She liked the solution. Diana did want any approval to be contingent upon the staff verifying GRFA figures. A motion to aborove a site coverage variance for Lot 31, Block 7. Vail Village 1st Filing with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. Conditions: 1. GRFA and Site Coverage be verified by staff. 2. Existing Concrete Sidewalk be removed. 3. Walkway to building be reviewed by the Design Review Board. 4. Pull-off for mail boxes be kept to a minimum with the applicant working closely with staff on the issue., 5. Remove or berm the fill area by the mail boxes--to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 6: A request to apply Hiah Density Multi-Family zoning to the Marriott Mark Resort and for a maior amendment to Special Development District No. 7, lMarriott Mark) in order to add 56 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units at 714 West Lionshead, Circle. Lots 4. 7. C, and D. Block 1, Vail- Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Marriott Corporation. Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant had requested to table the item. A motion to table the Marriott project until June 11. 1990 was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR • 5 Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from Aril 9, 1990 and April 2 3 . 199 0 meetincrs . A motion to approve the minutes from the April 9. 1990 meeting as written was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR A motion to approve the minutes from the April 23, 1990 meeting as written was made by Chuck Crist and seconded bv, Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 1N FAVOR Item No. 7: Discussion and appointment of PEC members to the. Zoning Code Revision Task Force. Kristan Pritz explained that the PEC will be the task farce for the Zoning Code revision project, She asked far volunteers to be a working group. Kathy Warren, Diana Donovan, Dalton Williams and Jim Shearer Volunteered. Item No. 8: Appointment of a PEC member to act as a DRB, alternate. Jim Shearer volunteered to act as alternate to the DRB. Item No. 9: Reminder of Discussion with Council on Fireplace Ordinance Amendment, Tuesdav Work session, Mav 14th. Kristan explained that many architects and builders had been asking for exceptions to the current ordinance regulations and that staff felt the need to review the ordinance for possible changes. Item No. 10: Review and discussion of potential open space purchases in the West Vail area.. Site visits to potential areas for open space were made earlier in the day. General discussion of these areas followed. The PEC was supportive of the West Vail parcel purchase. Some members also recommended that the HUD Wirth property to the east of Vail Das Schone Shopping Center be considered for purchase. • The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m. 6 r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Tom Braun Shelly Mello Mike Mollica Penny Perry The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Approval of minutes far March 26, 7.990 meetinct. Motion for at~proval of minutes as written was made by Jim, Shearer and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. • Item No. 2: A reauest for an exterior alteration and a setback. variance far the Lifthouse Lodae. located at Block 1, Tract C. Site C f555 East Lionshead Circlet Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association Shelly Me11o presented the proposal explaining that there were two requests involved: an exterior alteration and a rear setback variance. The applicant was requesting the approval in order to construct an addition to the Lifthouse that would add approximately 217 sq. ft. of common space for a lobby and 45 sq. ft. for a common office addition. The addition would encroach 10 ft. into the 10 ft. setback over an existing storage shed. The variance was necessary because the expansion would increase the nonconformity of the building. The staff recommended approval of both the variance and the exterior alteration. The expansion would not be a grant of special privilege and there were no negative impacts that would result from the addition. The proposed alterations would improve the appearance of the general area and the building. John Rosolack, architect representing he felt he could not present much more had explained. the applicant, stated that than what Shelly already • Shelly explained that there was no additional parking requirement due to the fact the applicant was increasing a common space. Kathy asked John Rosolack if the space below the present deck, where it was currently wood, would be stucco as shown on the plans and John responded that it would be stucco. They would rebuild the foundation area as well. Dalton Williams asked if the area underneath the stairway could be closed off in some manner and John answered that it would be awkward to do so. Chuck Crist commented that he felt the proposal would be a great improvement. Motion for anArovai of a SETBACK VARIANCE per the staff memo, was made by Connie Kniuht and seconded by Ludwig Kurz. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Motion for aboroval of an EXTERIOR ALTERATION per the staff, memo with the followin~x conditions was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Jim Shearer. 1. Stai..r..s to lower level obenina be imoroved. 2. The at~blicant rebuild the foundation and stucco the, wall. VOTE: 7 - 0 TN FAVOR. Item No. 3: A reauest for a final plat for a maior subdivision. and for SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Black 2. Lionsridae Filincs No. 3. An~alicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant asked to have the item tabled to the next meeting. Motion to table the item to the next meeting was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams.. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR. Ttem No. 4: A recxuest for a side setback variance at Biahorn Terrace Unit #D-7. 4242 East Columbine Wav. Abx~licant: Kathryn Benvsh Shelly Mello presented the proposal explaining that the applicant was requesting a variance from the 10' side and rear setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 228 sq. ft. addition on the north side of the building. The existing duplex unit consisted of approximately 928 sq. ft. of GRFA and had an allowed GRFA of 708.94 sq. ft. under MDMF zoning. The variance requested was for a 15' encroachment into the 20' rear setback and a 13' encroachment into the 20' side yard setback. Bighorn Terrace was a nonconforming subdivision. The applicant had also applied for additional GRFA under Section 18.71.D30. The proposed addition would impact Lot 6 to the west and would increase the amount of shade that would be cast. The staff recommendation was for denial. The staff felt that the variance would be a grant of special privilege and that there were no exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to Lot 7 which did not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. Erich Hill, architect representing the applicant, presented a drawing which showed easements and parking. He felt this addressed the special privilege issue. • Erich explained that the distance between structures on the side of the proposal, was 31'. They had a letter from Linda Moore, Lot 6 owner, stating she had no problem with the addition. Kathy Warren asked what the zoning was on the property and Eric responded MDMF. Regarding the shade problem, Erich explained that the shade did not affect the adjacent home, and only affected the lawn area in the dead of winter. Concerning the special privilege issue, Erich reiterated Shelly's statement regarding the fact that there had been 8 previous setback requests and of these, 8 were approved. There had been considerations for the setbacks. The proposal was a modest improvement to a modest home. Kathy Benysh felt that Erich had stated the proposal well and had nothing further to say, • Connie Knight asked to see the letter from Linda Moore, the neighbor on Lot 6 and Dalton asked how the rest of the neighbors felt. Kathy Benysh explained that she had a few other letters and verbal approval from the rest of the neighbors. No neighbors were in opposition. Kathy Warren asked Erich to review the square footage and Erich reported that the lot was 2025 sq. ft. Under MDMF zoning 708 sq. ft. of GRFA would be allowed. Presently, there was 928 sq. ft. The additional 228 sq. ft. would be a total proposed of 1157 sq. ft. Kathy Warren commented that the property was zoned MDMF and that generally the setback applied to the whole property not each building. She felt this was a hardship. The zoning did not relate to the reality of development within the subdivision. Jim Shearer asked how typical the request was that most buildings encroach into the setback areas that they could build upon without vari~ elaborated explaining that of 26 total homes, onto and 8 granted variances. Eric felt that that more variances had been granted prior to and Shelly answered and few lots have ~nces. Kathy Benysh 19 had been added it was possible annexation in 1975. Dalton commented that the entire area was cramped but that this was how it was laid out. He felt that, since no neighbors opposed the project and there were hardships with setbacks, the project would not be a grant of special privilege. Diana agreed there was a hardship. A motion to ant~rove the request for a side and rear setback. ner findina C-2 of the staff memo and the fact that MDMF, zonina had been applied to what is in realit~~ a P/S residence creatina a phvsical hardshit~ and unusual, circumstances was made by Kathy Warren and seconded bv. Ludwia Kurz. Jim Shearer felt that the proposal would be an improvement to the neighborhood and would like to see Kathy Benysh set a precedent by adding lavish landscaping and Diana explained to Jim that Mrs. Benysh would be required by the Design Review Board to landscape. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR • 4 Item No. 5: A reauest for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a t~ortion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2 (The Vallev - Phase III) Annlicant: Brad and Susan Tiossem Mike Mollica explained that the applicant had requested to table the item. A motion to table the item was made by Chuck Crist and, seconded by Kathv Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. &: A reauest for a ma-~or amendment to Soecial Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Markl in order to add 57 timeshare units and 8 emnlovee housing units. Anolicant: Marriott Corboration. Tom Braun presented the proposal for the staff describing a brief background of the project and the justification for using the Land Use Plan for direction. Tom reviewed the 9 design criteria used in evaluating a Special Development District. Based on the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, it was 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 was to evaluate whether the design was sensitive to all applicable criteria outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code. The staff recommended approval of the proposal amendment with the stipulation that the developers/owner meet the conditions found within the memo. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, explained the changes made since the January work session. The PEC, during the work session, had asked them to decrease the mass and to pull the bulk back from the creek. In response, the applicant pulled back 20' from the creek and stepped down the height. They had reduced the mass, increased the green area on site and created a roof garden area. They had also addressed the employee housing issue. The original application had proposed 3 employee units and they were now proposing 8. He felt this was a good percentage. Peter felt that the project was based on the Land Use Plan. They were following the Plan carefully as a guide. Several of the Plan's goals and policies supported a project of this type in this location. An addition next to a building that already offers restaurants, transportation, and shops as well as it proximity to the Gondola was sound growth. • A view analysis demonstrating the mass of the new addition was presented. Regarding the density increase, the project would not be a precedent. Other high density buildings include the Christiania at 47 units/acre, Tivoli at 48 units/acre, and the Vorlaufer at 80 units/acre. In response to those who felt frustration that Vail was getting too busy, Peter asked them if they would prefer the "Day-skier". He felt that the "Day-skier" impacted the Community greater than the "destination-skier" and the Marriott project would help to decrease the "Day-skier" and increase the "Destination-skier." They expect 90% occupancy in the timeshare project. Bill Burding, attorney representing the Vail Spa Building, stated he believed there was a document in their archives from the Mark that demonstrated that there was no intention to build the third wing. The owners of the Vail Spa purchased their units with that understanding. He felt the addition would create a large blockage of view. Yn evaluating the 9 review criteria, Mr. Burding felt there were many discrepancies. Criteria "B" included a density control and Mr. Burding felt the increased density was not justified due to the increase in traffic, traffic study, and the left turn lane that would be needed. Criteria "G" covered a circulation system addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. He felt that between the Marriott addition and the rumored highway off-ramp, the Vail Spa Building will go from a "pristine" building to a "city building." Finally, considering the pure economics, the Vail Spa units would be very difficult to rent when in competition with a building such as the Marriott which would then have a superior view. Dalton commented that the Commission had visited the site earlier in the day and did not see many units that he felt would be impacted and Mr. Burding responded that he could provide the Commission with at least 30 units that would be impacted and invited the Commission to revisit the site. Ludwig concurred with Dalton regarding the views. Manuel Marcus, a Vail Spa unit owner, stated that he was involved in the construction and sales of the units in the Vail Spa Building. He sold 40 of the 55 total units. When they sold the units in Mexico, they were sold under the premise that the zoning would not change. The buyer's view was not to be affected. He instituted the rental program and until this time it had been great to the extent that it has been making the mortgage payments for the owners since the recession in Mexico. He was afraid that the blocked view would decrease rental revenues and therefore cause many of the owners to default on their payments. When they built the Vail Spa, they were forced to make special designs to . leave 28% common area. They followed the PEC ruling and left the greenspace and felt that the Marriott should not be given exceptions. Tf the Marriott was allowed the proposed changes, the Vail Spa should ask far a density increase as well. The Marriott presented a lot of problems including noise from drunk people, yelling and traffic to mention a few. An addition would enhance these problems. Realistically, 57 units would be 3000 owners. Pedro Marcus, a Vail Spa owner, invited the Commission to his unit. He felt his view would be destroyed completely. Al Hauser, General Manager of the Vail Spa, felt that most of what needed to be said had been. He also wanted to invite the Commission to visit the Vail Spa and felt they would receive a different feeling of the view impact. Peter Jamar stated, in response to the Vail Spa representatives statement, that the Marriott had offered to do a view impact study and they had declined stating they were commissioning someone on their own. The result of the Vail Spa's study was not submitted by the Vail Spa and he had obtained the results and handed out copies of the report to the Commission, Thea Rumford, owner of 675 Forest Road, read a letter from the her neighbor opposing the construction. She had lived in her • home for over 25 years. In that time, the Antlers and the bulk of Lionshead had become a major impact. She stated the noise was terrible i.n the summer when they had their windows open. She also did not like the timeshare concept. The Marriott had already asked for 1 variance, she felt they should not be given another. Ed Mine, owner of unit 5A Crossroads, explained that he did not have a direct concern but rather a parallel concern. When he purchased his unit at Crossroads, he had a view. Since, the time the Mountain Haus was built and blocked his view. He felt this set a precedent. He had compassion for the adjacent owners' complaint concerning the crowds and noise. He wanted to know if the development truly served the needs of Vail. What were really the Town's needs and how far should the Town go to fulfill them? If the Commission approved this project, when would they stop? He also questioned whether the number of employee units proposed was adequate and how the transportation overload would be handled. He felt that the degree of flexibility should not be given preference to larger projects. When a single family home wanted to expand, the flexibility was not given. Why should a large project such as the Marriott be given the flexibility? • Cindy Jacobson, a Forest Road owner, passed around a poster with pictures from her scrap book depicting the changes made to the area since 1.967. She stated that she felt the West Day Lot was currently zoned HDMF and that there was still development potential in that area. She felt there were probably many areas with the permitted zoning with development potential. Why allow expansion in areas that require variances. To quote the criteria, she felt that if this was not a Special Privilege, what was? As far as the noise impact, she had copies of many citations issued to the Marriott. She stated that the creek was not a buffer, it amplified the noise. Cindy quoted the Land Use Plan as stating that the Gore Creek should be maintained as open space. The current open space was not accessible because the Marriott made it that way, She stated that the Marriott did not offer a balance as referenced on page 31. As the appendix stated, she felt that the open space along Gore Creek should be preserved and left undeveloped. She felt the Land Use Plan was like statistics, it could be interpreted to meet an individuals needs. Her property was "down zoned" in 1977 and now they are "up zoning" the Marriott land. Tom Jacobson, owner of 765 Forest Road, explained that he built his home 23 years ago. The Marriott proposal said that the building was 3 stories by the Creek, he counted 5 and wanted to know how the number 3 was derived. He agreed with the other public comments that the noise level was unbearable. The noise . would be worse due to the architectural design of the building. If the Commission is not going to following the zoning regulations then why not throw them out. The Marriott was built to capacity and they had not done the landscaping promised with the last addition. It was not fair to people across the Creek, Vail Spa or Town of Vail. Greta Parks, owner of 303 Gore Greek Drive, first wanted to thank the neighboring properties for being present to express their opposition. She felt that the expansion was too large for the the Valley. Al Weiss, a West Vail owner, stated that he would not be directly affected, but felt that attention should be paid to what is necessary and what is not necessary. Where would the line be drawn setting the precedents. He felt that a preference had been given to the large projects. When he wanted to expand his home in West Vail, he couldn't get an additional foot over the allowed 250 additional GRFA, yet here the Marriott proposed to go overboard and he found it hard to believe the Commission was even considering the proposal. He felt 8 employee units for the expansion was negligible. He would rather see 57 employee units and 8 timeshare units. • a Diana Donovan, in response to the public comments, stated that the Marriott property had no underlying zoning. Tt was an SDD and with an SDD, flexibility was allowed. As far as the Mountain Haus was concerned, it was built under FAR zoning which was a legal alternative at the time. The construction of the Mountain Haus was what encouraged the Commission to change the zoning regulations. Diana wanted the public to know that it was great to have them at the meeting. However, the land use policies were established during a Town wide public process, and were now set. The Commission must follow the policies as they were currently set. Jay Peterson wanted to respond to the zoning issue with a little history. He stated that in 1977 the Town of Vail began "down-- zoning" property. The HDMF district was reduced from 50 to 25 units per acre. The "down-zoning" made many building non- conforming. The concern was more for other areas, not the core areas. He could understand the public's concerns, however, he could fill the room full of people who agreed with the project. When the large density projects began to be built, the staff was concerned. Through a year-long process, the public developed the Land Use Plan. The growth should be in areas with transportation, and support functions already in place. Before the Marriott began the proposed project they looked toward the Land Use Plan for direction. He understood feelings of those affected. However, the project did comply with the Land Use Plan and the board should make their decision based on the Land Use • Plan not public disagreement over private views or because it would set a precedent. Unless we were willing to say, no to growth, there would be changes. The direction should be controlled growth. Kathy Warren asked Jay Peterson what the basis was for the argument that an increase of destination skiers would decrease day skiers and Jay explained that the more destination skiers there were in the Valley, the less Vail Associates would market to attract day skiers and Peter Jamar concurred. Peter felt that Vail Associates marketing would adjust accordingly. Al Weiss asked what justified the rush for the Marriott project. Regarding the information presented, he asked haw much was fact, how much was fantasy, and how much was opinion as well as what was the offset to the Town? Ludwig commented that he agreed with Tom in his presentation that the additional development was needed and appropriate. He felt it was desirable to sustain growth and rejuvenate what the Town presently had. He hoped the public understood that the board did • s . not have concern far the Marriott's profitability. In terms of growth, he also agreed that controlled growth was needed. These areas were designated and already developed, why start elsewhere. Concerning the promised landscaping not completed, the board can require that the improvements be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Dalton explained that when he ran far Town Council, he talked with many people and asked them if they felt the Town needed growth. The consensus was, not in my back yard, not in West or East Vail and that it was needed. Given this, he felt that the growth would be appropriate and that the board should look at the Land Use Plan for direction and the growth should be concentrated in infill areas. Concerning the criticism regarding the landscaping, he wanted to ensure those concerned that the proposed landscaping would be completed by requiring a bond {if the project was completed during the winter) or be in place prior to an issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Chuck Crist asked how many new employees the project would require. Jay responded that the infra-structure basically was in place with the exception of additional maids and 1/2 maintenance person. The project would not generate as many employees as was perceived. The front desk personnel would remain the same. Chuck also questioned haw employee parking was being addressed and Tom answered that the employee parking was factored into the required parking for the project. Chuck questioned Peter's figures quoting expected occupancy of the timeshare project at 90~ and Peter explained that the figures were based on off season "bonus" time offered to timeshare owners. Jay continued the explanation stating that the numbers come from the Marriott and were based on the Marriott's experience with timeshare projects elsewhere. The Marriott used the timeshare projects to increase the use of their restaurants, health club facilities and other amenities during the off seasons. Chuck expressed his opinion that the current Marriott building was unattractive. He asked if the Marriott had any plans to make the property more aesthetically pleasing. Peter responded that the Marriott had a 4 million dollar budget for exterior improvements. Unfortunately, the Marriott recently painted the building and had not planned on repainting in the near future. The money was to be used to upgrade landscaping and other such improvements. Jay expanded by stating the Marriott had a chance to sell the property but had decided not to sell and made a commitment to the property. 10 • Kathy Warren quoted the SDD purpose and stated that in this case, there was no underlying zoning. She was totally unprepared to make a decision. She was not comfortable with the density with the GRFA proposed at 92 °s of the site area. She didn't feel that additional GRFA was the most appropriate use of the land and felt that the Marriott was asking for a lot. Kathy didn't feel that this was controlled growth and was disappointed that there was not more of a decrease in density from the wank session in January. Kathy felt the applicant could decrease the height more as they moved away from the building. Her two main concerns were that there had to be some type of underlying zoning and that the project needed to be reduced to a more reasonable density. Jim Shearer asked Mr. Lehigh, one of the Marriott representatives, if the Marriott was prepared to work with the Town on the left turn lane and Mr. Lehigh stated that the applicants had agreed to participate once the traffic counts had been verified and a percentage applied. A formula needed to be determined. Jim asked if the proposed pathways were to be lighted and Ned Gwathmey answered "yes". Jim also questioned what the colors of the walkways would be and Ned explained that the walkways would be pavers and colored concrete and the streamwalk/bike path would be asphalt. Asphalt was the appropriate material for a bike . path. Jim inquired what type materials would be used on the roof garden and Ned responded sod and shrubs, no large trees. Jim also asked what impact would the Marriott's purchase of the Streamside at Vail timeshare project would have on the Marriott. Would they share transportation. Mr. Lehigh explained that the infrastructure was in place. Jim also asked Mr. Lehigh if they had planned to offer Marriott amenities to Streamside guests and Mr Lehigh responded "no" . Jim explained that personally he had not decided whether to approve or deny the project. He would do the best he could in the interest of the Town of Vail to develop a reasonable position based on zoning and Tawn policies. In general, he wished the SDD process had more boundaries. The quoted over height limit of 10' didn't really exist since the underlying zoning was an SDD. He felt the addition would look better than a parking structure. He regretted the impact on the Vail Spa building and West Forest Raad owners. He was not . 11 impressed with the look of the existing Marriott building. He • said that it was part of the Town's overall goal to increase accommodation units and he did not know, nor want to know, how much an increase in Town revenue it would create or what the increased profits would be for the Marriott. It did give the Town 8 employee units and did seem to be compatible with the Town Land Use Plan. Connie Knight commented that she felt the proposed building looked great but that she didn't see any architectural relationship and therefore why relate height and mass to the existing Marriott? Diana Donovan stated that she didn't have a problem adding density but not quite as much and the location made sense. She did not like the flat roof garden level and felt that architectural changes could be made to make the building seem less dense. She felt that mare density could be added to the landscape garden. She explained to the Vail Spa's attorney that if he found the documentation he had spoke of earlier restricting the addition, the issue would be between the Marriott and the Vail Spa. The Town was probably not party to the agreement. Diana felt that the C~~~~~~~ission had focused too much on the philosophy rather than the fact of the project and felt the board needed to study more of the neighboring properties. She would . rather see the Garden level be omitted and the building spread out and down. She would like to see the project tabled until the Commission had more time to study the facts of the project rather than the philosophy of overall growth within the Town. Dalton Williams agreed with Diana that the discussion had become too philosophical. He also wanted to see the item tabled. Peter Jamar requested to table the matter to April 23 and Tom stated that the 23rd was feasible, but that date would not be confirmed until the applicant's presented revisions to their plans. A motion to table the item was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Kathv Warren. VOTE: 7 - 0 TN FAVOR OF TABLING • 12 Item No. 7; A request for a conditional use for a Learning Center Lab in the lower level of the nronosed parking structure and to add two new half levels of narking to the narking structure at the Vail Valley Medial Center on Lots # and F. Vail Village 2nd Filing 1191 West Meadow Drivel. Annlicant: Vail Vallev Medical Center. Kristan Pritz briefly presented the proposal explaining that the Vail Valley Medical Center was proposing to add two 1/2 levels to the previously approved parking structure on the northeast corner of the property. In addition, a portion of the facility would be used for a Learning Center Lab that would focus on biomechanical studies of athletes as a means of avoiding injury. She explained that she had letters from the applicant stating that no live animal research would be conducted in the facility. The staff recommendation was for approval of the conditional use request. The proposal was very complimentary to the overall master plan for the hospital site. There would be no negative impacts. Tf fact, the concept of providing additional parking beneath the approved parking structure was an efficient use of the hospital site. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they were exploring the break out panel suggested by the staff. • However, they would prefer not to make it a condition of approval. Chuck Crist commented that he had calculated a 17 space requirement far the Learning Lab and therefore a 9 space net increase and Kristan explained that the applicant had also added surface spaces making a total of 58 surplus spaces after the lab was removed. Connie Knight stated that the long range plan was to convert the space to parking and asked where the Learning Lab would go in the future and Jay explained that nothing was set at the present time. The applicant was in the process of completing a comprehensive long range plan. The Learning Lab could be moved to a future addition or in a present building area. Diana asked if the break-out panel to existing surface parking was still proposed and Mr. Feeney answered that nothing from the original proposal had changed, Diana still had a concern with Lot 10 being used in the parking space calculations and Jay responded that it had always been used in the calculations. Diana stated that she just didn't feel comfortable since the lease could be revoked with 3o days notice. . 13 A motion for annroval ner the staff memo with conditions as, follows was made by Ludwia Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer 1. No live animal testina be allowed in the Learnina Center Lab Facility. Diana commented that she would vote far the item but she felt that Lot 10 should not be included in the total parking figure. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR Item No. 8: A reauest for an exterior alteration. stream setback variance. view corridor amendment, site rnvPraae variance. and conditional use for a deck pnr.].osiare and new outdoor uatio for the Red Lion, Buildina. Abblicant: Frankie Tana and Landmark Properties, Tom Braun presented the changes as outlined in the staff memo. The vast majority of the proposed changes were positive. Jim Morter concurred with those items presented by Tom Braun. The basic changes included the elimination of another root line, the deck addition on the back side, and the roof change to accommodate the Rucksack private view as suggested at the last meeting. Dalton Williams commended Jim Morter and the applicant far respecting the private view of the Rucksack Condo owner. Jim Morter showed the new configuration of the restaurant tans on the model and Diana stated that it looked like a good solution to a necessary evil. Jim Morter commented that he did not like the proposal to be called a "deck enclosure". The area would be covered and conditions applied to the current windows would be continued with the Rekord doors. As far as the current conditions imposed on the windows, the applicant would like the opportunity to close the doors during inclement weather. Concerning the pocket park, he felt if they took the planter (by the Sczechwan restaurant) out and put the trees at grade, it would open the area up. The applicant's plans were to repair and point, not replace the brick wall. They would like to keep the character of the old brick wall. Jim Shearer pointed out that to fix the wall would be expensive and Jim Morter stated that they were aware of the cost involved. 14 Jim Mortar, regarding the private condo entrance, felt it was • inappropriate to have the entrance to a multi-million dollar condo came under the entrance to a Chinese restaurant. Regarding the 9' enclosure, if it was not approved, it was possible that the rest of the restaurant improvements would not be completed. Jay stated that he understood the staff's position to not consider the economics of a project. However, from a practical standpoint, the proprietor must maximize the revenue possibilities. He felt that the applicant had given a lot and was not asking for much as presently proposed. Jim Mortar then explained the rear deck area and the extensive landscaping that was proposed. Yvonne Mullaly, Rucksack Condo owner, questioned the validity of Mr. Slifer's statement of the Mill Creek Condominium owners agreement with the project. she spoke with an owner within the last week who had no knowledge of the project. She stated that she and her husband had dinner with the Tangs and that during the course of the dinner, Mrs. Tang made the statement that they were expanding because she didn't like the view from her living room. Xvonne felt the project would reduce her property value. Yvonne also questioned how the trash would be removed and Diana explained to Yvonne that the trash would be handled in the same manner that it was currently being handled. . Tom Braun explained the other items requested in addition to the exterior alteration and view corridor amendment. The stream setback variance was for an area that already was in the setback. The Conditional Use Permit was for the rear dining deck and the site coverage variance was for a 2~ overage of what was allowed. The permitted coverage was 80~ and the requested coverage was 82a. The applicant was proposing a 23 sq. ft. net gain which was a .25~ increase. General concerns were expressed regarding construction during the summer and Diana explained that the Town had strict guidelines for traffic control and managing construction impacts. Yvonne expressed concerns that even though the applicant reduced the building mass to provide some view, there was still a deck in the area. She was also concerned about the noise level that would increase from the rear dining deck. Yvonne questioned whether the applicant was using vaulted ceilings. She felt that if there were vaulted ceiling proposed, the applicant could lower the ceilings in order to provide her a view. • 15 Jay, in response to Yvonne, stated that Rod Slifer had represented that the proposal was accepted by the condominium association. That when asked at the last meeting if the condominium board or all owners had accepted the proposal Jay had stated that he did not know. Apparently, some of the owners within the Mill Creek Condominiums were not notified by the representative of the Association. Jay did not want the PEC board to feel that he had misled them. Sid Schultz, representing Bob Galvin the owner of 2 units on the 2nd floor of the Mill Creek building, stated that Mr. Galvin had no knowledge of the project until the last week. Sid read a letter from Mr. Galvin. The point Sid wished to make was that regardless of what Rod Slifer had represented as president of the condominium association, there were a number of owners who were not aware of the project. Greta Parks, representing Pepi Gramshamer, stated that Pepi was unable to stay for the meeting and had requested her to read a letter from him in opposition. (Letter attached) Diana Donovan added to the record a letter from Margret S. Burdick in support of the project. (Letter attached) Connie Knight felt that architecturally the 9' deck enclosure along Bridge St. was pleasing. However, she was not for the enclosure on the East side of the building. She was adamantly • opposed to encroaching into the View Corridor. She was against the variance on site coverage. Basically she was against all of the request with the exception of the 9' deck enclosure. Jim Shearer asked the leasees of the commercial space what impacts the 9' deck area had and Jan Ray responded. She explained that they had been owners of the restaurant for a little over 1 1/2 years. She had been in the restaurant business for approximately 20 years. She explained that the 9' area simply did not work. It was like dining in a hallway. Most people do not like dining alone and consequently, her staff did not pay as much attention to the area due to the lack of customers who wished to sit there. If covered and enclosed, the space could be utilized in the winter and summer. Kathy Warren asked if the maximum ridge height was under the allowed 43 feet and Tam responded that it was 42.6'. Kathy wished to thank the applicants for their diligent effort in working with the PEC. In general she was in favor of the exterior alteration except the 9' deck enclosure. She felt the deck area did get used contrary to Mrs. Ray's statement. As far as the Rekord doors were concerned, she felt that the applicant should be allowed to close the doors during inclement weather. She felt it was acceptable to allow the applicants to repair • 16 rather than rebuild the brick wall that the brick wall was definitely a part of the total project. The brick wall should be addressed even if the Rays' did not follow through with the commercial portion of the proposal. Kathy had no problem with the stream setback variance request and the conditional use for deck dining {on the east side) was acceptable. She appreciated the applicants keeping the rear deck on their own property. Regarding the site coverage, Kathy felt it was the "nature of the beast". Responding to Pepi's letter regarding the number of variances asked for, she felt that what was being asked for was small in proportion and the Town would be gaining protection from future expansion. Chuck Crist felt that the modifications to the rear dining deck were good. He was in favor of the conditional use permit for the deck. He was supportive of the site coverage variance and the stream setback variance. Regarding the exterior alteration, he felt the applicants had done a goad job. Chuck liked the Rekord doors and felt the applicants should be allowed to close the doors during inclement weather as well as at late night hours in order to reduce the noise to the neighbors. Chuck also had no problem with the 9' deck enclosure. Dalton Williams was in favor of the stream setback, site coverage variance, conditional use permit, and the outdoor patio. He felt that the Red Lion building would not in reality encroach into the view corridor and therefore was not in opposition to the amendment. He greatly appreciated the time the applicants had invested in working with the neighbors. Unfortunately, not all people can be pleased with a project of this size. Dalton felt the venting was a great improvement. He suggested investigating an acoustic material to be used if the vents were noisy. He suggested that the restriction on the doors be expanded so that they were required to stay open, weather permitting, year-round so as to offset the closing of them during inclement weather during the summer. As far as closing the doors at night for security reasons, he recalled that in many cases during the summer the Red Lion had typically closed as early as 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Dalton did not wish to see the doors closed any earlier than 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. and would like to see them opened during the morning. Dalton was not in favor of the 9' deck enclosure. He felt that with the Rekord doors in place with the current structure, the 9' area would be opened up. Ludwig Kurz felt that most of his feelings had been reflected by the rest of the board. In general, some inconvenience was going to happen and he sympathized with the Mullalys. However, he felt that the developers/owners had shown sensitivity and restraint. • 17 He agreed with Kathy Warren that the brick wall needed to be . repaired by at least one of the applicants. Tf the Rays' did not follow up with the commercial improvements the Tangs should be responsible. Ludwig did not feel there was any appreciable infringement into the View Corridor. He felt the applicants needed to be complimented. Diana Donovan also wished to compliment the applicants and felt the impact on the Rucksack building was unfortunate. She felt that most of the requests were simple technicalities. However, the View Corridor amendment did concern her. She would leave the decision to the staff as to how to handle the amendment, whether to move the line or change the picture under the line. She would prefer not to see the line redrawn. Technically she agreed with the restaurant owners regarding the 9' deck enclosure. She asked in return the Town receive some benefits to publicly used areas. She suggested that the applicant change the approach to the stream tract on the east in order to make it more inviting to the public. As it presently looked, she felt it seemed too private. She would also like to see the applicant spruce up the plaza area by the private condominium entrance and the Sczechwan restaurant by adding a bench, more landscaping and reconfiguring the newspaper boxes. Jay responded that he felt the applicants would be willing to work in that area. Diana liked the old brick wall as long as it was repaired. She felt the restrictions on the windows needed to be continued to the Rekord doors. She felt a statement of inclement weather was too much a matter of interpretation and felt that the staff was reasonable and would not cite the applicant if they closed the doors during a thunderstorm. All windows located in stucco areas should be recessed 3"s. The vents should be state of the art. She appreciated the consideration given to the Rucksack views and felt the roof forms were much better. She felt it was imperative that the public area in the rear of the building look public. She suggested stepping stones be used to offset the hard straight walk presently there. She also liked the restriction the Tangs were willing to impose on the GRFA. In general Diana was in favor of the requests with the following conditions: ~. DRB require recessed windows 2. Red Lion Logo reapplied to the new building. 3. The applicants work with the Town to help find a solution to traffic problem in the Parking and Transportation Study. 4. Any trees killed be replaced. 5. The applicants work with Winston and Associates with improvements in the plaza area by the Rucksack including a curved wall, bench on planter wall, newspaper box improvements, condo entrance, and landscaping. . 18 6. The stream tract improvements be redesigned to . encourage public access and stream bank stabilization on both sides of Mill Creek. 7. The entry to the Bridge St. Condo should not be visible from Bridge Street. Jay wanted the board to know that the Tangs would make all exterior alterations except the two decks/enclosures. The brick wall and plaza would be redone. The only item that would not be completed based on the approval of the 9' deck enclosure would be the Rekord doors an the front and rear of the building. A motion for approval of the SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE per the, staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton, Williams. VOTE: 6 - 1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED, A motion for approval of the STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 6 -1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED A motion for approval of the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT per the. staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim • Shearer. VOTE: 7 - 0 IN FAVOR A motion for approval of the EXTERIOR ALTERATION per the, staff memo including the staff recommended conditions of, approval with the following additional conditions of. approval w~.s m~.~e by Jim. Shearer and seconded b~~ Chuck Grist. 1. As a part of this redevelopment. the applicants agree to point and repair the brick wall along Bridge Street and in the area of the sma11 plaza at the northwest, corner of the site. Improvements to this plaza sha11. also include upgrading existing benches. planters. newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and. landscaping. 2. The streetscape improvements shown along Hanson Ranch, Road are considered conceptual. and the applicants shall agree to work with the staff and Winston, Associates in refining this design relative to the Vail Vili.aae Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also, apply to the plaza area referenced in condition No. 1, 19 and the landscape improvements proposed ad~iacent to Mi11 Creek. 3. All windows located on stucco wall Blanes shall be recessed a minimum of 3". 4. State ~f the art, venting shah he used to reduce negative impacts (smell. smoke. etc.) emanating from the site. 5. The owner/developers of the residential development on_ this site sha11 agree to permanently restrict Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). building height and density on this site to what is permitted by this approval. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this restriction and the restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office at Eagle County. 6. Anv trees damaged or killed within two years of the completion of this ~x'O~Prt ~hal_7 be replaced with similar size and type tree. y 7. The Red Lion loco shall be retained as a part of this redevelopment in approximately the same size and location. 8. The developers/owners are strongly encouraged to parti,cie~ate ,i..n developing solutions to traffic. loading and delivery problems in Vail Village. 9. The Rekord doors !or other type of window system installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge Street shall remain totally open during business hours between June 15 and September 15 of each year. These windows may be opened at any other time during the year at the discretion of the restaurant management. 10. The applicants shall complete stream-bank stabilization work on both sides of Mill Creek over the entire length of the Red Lion property. The final design and implementation of these improvements sha11 be subject to review by the staff and the Design Review Board. 11. The owners shall agree to participate in. and not remonstrate against, a special improvement district in the Village if and when one is formed. VOTE: 5 - 2 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT AND KATHY WARREN OPPOSED 20 A motion for the recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the VIEW CORRIDOR NO, 1 AMENDMENT per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathv Warren. 1. That the photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at a time when the expansion is completed. The Commission preferred this alternative as opposed to modifvina the line that delineates the View Corridor. 2. That the specific reasons ~ustifvina this reauest be included in the preamble of the ordinance authorizinq this amendment. VOTE: 6 - 1 WITH CONNTE KNTGHT OPPOSED Item No, 9: NWCCOG Mta. - Wilderness Legislation: april 12. 1990 form 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Silver Creek) Kristan explained that the Federal Wilderness Legislation meeting would be held at the above mentioned time and place. The meeting . was interesting though attendees where not allowed to participate. Diana explained that there was a charge and the Town was expected to cover the cost. Ttem No, 10: Reschedule PEC meeting of Mav 28 (Memorial Davl to June 4th. Diana stated that this change was apparent and asked the members to note the change. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p,m. . 21 • ~asthn~ ~ramshammrr, inc. Pepi Gramshammer Sheika Gramshammer April 9, 1990 Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Te I e phone: 303/478-5826 231 East Gore Creek Drive Vaii, Colorado 81657 Vail has become a very successful ski resort. We're constantly working to improve our town and mountain, and it is a wonderful place. Now is a critical time for us, and we must take the right steps to maintain the unique qualities of our town and control the growth of the Village that everyone loves. As many older buildings in Vail Village are remodeled, we must be careful to maintain the scale on which the Village was originally designed. The issue we're talking about today concerns the Red Lion`s request far variances to add two stories to their existing building, which would almost double their square footage. if this is allowed to take place, the precedent will be set for the expansion of other buildings, which would add many, many square feet to the Village core. Where does it stop when so many variances are .granted upon request? With increased density will come many negative impacts, in terms of deliveries, parking and trash removal. These wi11 be long term, not temporary, problems. For so many years, the Village has been a construction zone in the summer. ,rust when we thought all of the construction was completed, we're starting again! And, let us not forget that enormous increases in property taxes far all Vail Village business owners will result from such expansion. If the ~ted Lion construction project - with 4 stories -- is approved, other buildings will follow suit, and Bridge Street will be like a shaft of high rises, with only a narrow walkway for foot traffic. With increased deliveries, etc., if there's one car parked on Bridge Street and another attempts to pass, there will be no room for pedestrians. I urge you to consider all of the implications of the Red Lion's request carefully, so that our town can grow gracefully and function properly. Sincerely, • ~ ~ ~~ y p-~.ww~ ~ ~~ l.~ Pepi Gramshammer ~anga2et c~. ~u'u~ic~x J~. C~. Lomax 7254 ail, eo~o¢ac~o SJG5E April 9, 3.990 To: The Planning Commission Town of Vail Vail, CO krom: Marge Burdick P.4. Bax 1268 Va1I, CO $1658 I am writing cnncexning the proposed addiCion to: The Red Lion Inn Apartment 304 Bridge Street, Vail, CO $1b57 Mrs. Dscar Tang, owner Morter Architects, archiCect The blueprints and model were just shown to me and l was told the GRFA of the proposed addiCion is 9,327 S.F., well under the allowed 11,166.32 S.F. The massing is attrac- tively done and has a graceful flow to it. There are three units proposed in lieu of eighC units allowed. Frankie Tang has shown her usual good taste in design, which pleased me. My deep interest in this proj ect sCems from the facC Chat Larry Burdick and I built the Red 'Lion Inn in 1962, and that apartment was my home. This plan brings a proud legend of a building back Co life. The present owner of the apartment and the lessees of the restaurant seem to be working well with one another in the corporate plan pf the Front of the resCaurant and the new expansion of the apartment. It was brought to my attention that a small amount of space on the front, northwest side of the building is d~aaga2~k cs. L~uzc~ic~ J~. L~. Lox T250 Mail, r?aLoaado &765& needed to be included in the covexed patio. I understand that need and hope you will be able to allow it. The lessees will have a short time to recoup the loss of funds expended for Che improvements, due to the remaining time in their lease. It is commendable to me that they are willing to make so great a contribution to this plan. Bridge Street was Vail's first street, oux first black. The Red Linn Inn was the first privately owned restaurant and skiers €rom Vail and the world met there. It is paxt of Vail's history and did not deserve the shabby treat- ment it has recieved since being sold. Now, this proposed plan should bring Bridge Street the style it used to have and if it is acceptable to you, I, fox one, will be filled with gratitude. Sincerely, ~l•.~ t ~u ~ y d ~,! ~ iL Margaret S. Burdick • cl~u~c~uz~L ~S. L~i~~~~Lte~ J~. C~. ~ox 120 ~/a(L, ~~oLoeu~o 81658 Llpr. it 9, 1.990 To: The P1ann ing Commission Town of Vail Vail, CO From: Marge Burdick I'.O. Bax 1.268 Va i ~, LO 8].658 I •am writing concerning the proposed addition to: The Red Lion Inn Apartment 305 Bridge Street, Vail., CO 81657 Mrs. Oscar 'fang, owner Morter Architects, architect The blueprints and model. were just shown to me and I was told the GRFA of the proposed addition is 9,327 S.F., well under the allowed 1.1,166.32 S.F. The massing is attrac- tively done and has a graceful flow to it. There are three units proposed in lieu of eight units allowed. l~rankie Tang has shown her usual Bond taste in design, which pleased me. My deep interest in this project stems from the fact that Larry Burdick and I built tyre 12ed Lian Znn in 1962, and that apartment was my home. This plan brings a proud legend of a building back to life. The present owner of the apartment and the lessees of the restaurant seem to be working well with one another in the corporate plan o.E the front of the restaurant and t-he new expansion of the apartment. It was brought to my attention that a small. amount of space on the front, northwest side of the building is • el~u~9arEE c~. ~Li'LCiiePt J~. C~. lam. ox 1250 ~1aiL, ~aLozado ~'1G58 needed to be included in the coveted patio. I undersCand that need and hope you will be able to allow it. The lessees will have a short tune to recoup the Toss of funds expended for the improvements, due to the remaining time in their lease. zt is commendable to me that they are willing to make so great a contribution to this plan. Bridge Street was Vail's first street, our first block. The Red Lion Inn was the first privately owned restaurant and skiers from Vail and the world met there. It is part of Vail's history and did not deserve the shabby treat- . _ . . s• ___ wL~ ... ...•. .-. .. ~. c+r~r~ •TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 14, 1990 RE: A request far a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot 11B, Matterhorn Village Subdivision, 1718 Geneva Drive. Applicants: Franziska and William Clem T. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Tn 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 C1ems have applied for a conditional use permit to allow them to use two bedrooms in their single-family home in a Primary/Secondary zone district for a Bed and Breakfast. one bedroom contains 128 sq. ft. and one contains 223 sq. ft. Two guests could stay in each bedroom, for a total of 4 guests. IT. CRTTERTA AND FTNDTNGS 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 an develanment 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, narks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. Four guests can be accommodated at one time and it is unlikely that there would be mare than two guest vehicles. There is a bus stop two blocks 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 narticuiar reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control. access. maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. There could be approximately two additional vehicles driving to the Clem's residence in Intermountain. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4. Effect uoon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. • The 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~erati~ns.m~v by allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance Nn. 3Z._ SeriPs..~f 1889. Bed and Breakfast operations sha~l~be subiect to the_ following requirements: a. Off-street designated narking shall be required as follows: One space for the owner/proprietor bias one space for the first bedroom rented plus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom rented. The Clems' property contains more than the required 3 parking spaces. b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. The Clems do have enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service. 2 c, Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional uarkina is strongly discouraaed^ There will be na removal of landscaping. d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one, residential name elate sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sian Code. The Clems are 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 urouerty owners such as uarkina suaces 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 apulication for a conditional use permit. Not applicable. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the, following findings before granting a conditional use Hermit 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 ar improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 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. 3 • TO: Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental CflIR3t11ss1 an FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 9, 1990 RE; Fireplace Ordinance Discussion Backaround: The staff would like to discuss the current fireplace ordinance as a result of requests from local architects, home owners and general contractors. This issue is presented to Council now instead of at a future date as a part of PEC recommendations for an overall air quality plan because of public request. The question which is being raised is the feasibility of allowing a woodburning firebox to be constructed and equipped with a gas log in addition to the one woodburning fireplace per residence currently allowed. At this time, gas log technology requires the same type of firebox and vent that is required for a woodburning fireplace. Current technology does not allow for the installation of a gas log set unless it is installed in a woodburnina firebox equipped with an A vent. The current ordinance allows for the construction of one woodburning fireplace per residence, an additional woodburning unit if it is a certified "clean-burning" unit {clean woodburning stove} and an unlimited number of gas appliances. The gas appliances are an entirely self contained unit which do not require a woodburning firebox for installation and have a B vent. An additional option under the current ordinance is to allow two certified woodstoves per residence in lieu of a woodburning fireplace. The ordinance also allows for the construction of woodburning fireboxes to be equipped only with gas logs in accommodation units. This provision was allowed because of the availability of access to public accommodations by Town staff for periodic checks to insure no conversion to wand has occurred. • The amendment being proposed by several local architects, contractors and homeowners would allow construction of one woodburning fireplace far burning solid fuel and unlimited fireboxes with an A vent for the installation of gas logs. It is felt that the gas logs are more aesthetically pleasing than the presently allowed gas appliances. The staff would like to present several possible alternatives which could be considered regarding this amendment to the ordinance. Alternatives: n U 3. Allow the installation of any number of fireboxes for the installation of gas logs only - no burning of wood allowed. Unlimited gas appliances would also be allowed. 4. Prohibit the construction of any new fireboxes in any construction - allow far gas appliances only. 5. Allow far one woodburning fireplace and one gas lag installation per residence. Present Situation: Z. Maintain the existing ordinance which permits the construction of one firebox per residence only - this could be used for wood or gas log installation only. bo not permit the construction of any additional woodburning fireboxes. 2. Eliminate the use of woodburning fireplaces in new construction. One woodburning firebox could be constructed per residence for the installation of a aas loo only and an unlimited number of additional gas appliances could be installed, There are pros and cons to be considered in each of these situations as with any situation. ~J Alternative Pros 1 *Maintains existing limitations on woodburning Cons *Does not decrease the number of wood- burning units. *Does not present enforcement problems. *Does not meet existing p4bl.:ic demaY3ds . Alternative Pras 2. *Reduces number of woodburning units. *Reduction in air pollutants. Cans *Daes not meet the Public demand for multiple, large fireplaces or desire for "real" fire. *Enforcement easier as *Gas cost and all units are gas. availability. *Potential to encourage *Time for Enforcement. people to construct gas, units as apposed to woodburning units thereby decreasing air pollutian. *Allows for many gas fireplaces. *No increased degradation of air quality. 3. *Reduces number of woodburning units. *Reduction in air pollutants. *Meets the demand for gas, but may not satisfy the desire for "real" fire. *Time for Enforcement. *Enforcement easier as all units are gas. *Gas cost and availability. *No increased degradation of air quality. *Potential to encourage people to construct gas units as opposed to woodburning units thereby decreasing air pollutian. *Allows for many gas fl.replBCP_S. • Alternative Pras 4, *No increased degradation of air quality reduces air pollutants. *Enforcement easier as all units are gas. Cons *May not meet public demand as the gas appliances are currently not acceptable. *Does not address desire for more aesthetic gas log units. *Allows for unlimited gas appliances. • *Gas availability question and cost. *Time for enforcement. The enforcement problems associated with several of these alternatives are two fold. First, if there is mixed use allowed, wood and gas, it will be difficult to determine if people have converted from gas to wood. Second, if the cost of gas should ever escalate to the unaffordable range there is a possibility that the gas logs will be removed and woodburning occur. Enforcement poses a problem because of current staffing. Tn most cases, the only time we would ever discover a violation would be as the result of a complaint. ~. *Satisfies current *Enforcement problem market demands. due to mix of gas and woodburning. Recommendation: The staff has presented a range of alternatives for your consideration. At this time, staff prefers Alternative 3, which allows far unlimited gas logs and gas appliances. This alternative could be attractive enough to owners so that woodburning becomes undesirable. Air quality would be improved as new woodburning units are not constructed. However, our concern with alternative 3 is that a means to insure that conversion to woodburning does not occur would be critical to the success of this proposal, Without this assurance, staff could not support Alternative 3. The enforcement issue is also simplified as the unit is only allowed to have gas. Other alternatives that mix woodburning and gas logs or gas appliances should be studied ~.n more detail by staff before recommendations are made to the PEC and Council. • i• ~ 1 ~ .,..,. ~ ~ r r - ^ H ~'~' ~ J Z .,- -- ~ 1J ~_ ~ J Z 0 J 71~ J z ~i~ic~l•~-Ioi©ioic ~~ ~~~T-1c~lolololol, .•a ~ N ~ ~.. ~ ~ Y ~ / W F~ J H J FWr- J .1 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 DEFINITIOfdS; REGULATING THE NUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION OF SOLID FUEL BURNERS; REQUIRING HEAT EFFICIENT UNIT5; PROHIBITING COAL USAGE. WHEREAS, the setting of the Tawn 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 Tawn 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, SE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE T04JN 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; _~_ I_ 8.28.02Q Definitions (1) Solid Fuel Burner: A fixed apparatus that burns fuel to provide heat, including, but not limited to, a masonry fireplace, prefabricated zero clearance fireplace, freestanding fireplace, Franklin Stove, or air tight stave. (2) Oregon Method 7_: 5ha11 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 0.33x10-6 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 ward, 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 devices in 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 ena solid fuel burning device per lobby. Solid fuel burning devices in individual -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 sa long as said fireplace is designed and constructed so that said fireplace cannot be used or modified to burn solid fuels. Gas firep]aces shall be permitted in any unit. (C) Additional Solid Fuel Burning Devices,: Each dwelling unit may have two solid fuel burning devices in the fallowing types of combinations: one fireplace and one clean woodburning stove or two clean woodburning stoves. 1. No building permit shat] be issued far installation of any clean burning solid fuel burning device in any building of the Town of Vail unless the Vai] 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 hlethad 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. A11 sand fuel burning devices shall be constructed, installed, mainta:~ced and operated in such a manner that their operation will result in an increase in heating energy, i.e. that the heat supplied -4w 8.28.040 Coal Usage Prohibited The burning of coal is hereby prohibited within the Town of Vail. 8.2$.050 Refuse 8urninq 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 far 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 ,~f~D PkSSED O1~ FIRST P,EADING THIS ~'~ day of 1983, and a public hearing shall be held an this ordinance on they' of ~~i 7983, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council C~. Vail r~nici~l Building, y'ail, Colorado. Order°pd p+ab1 fished in full this ~~ day of (~ ._ ~ , 1 Rodney E. S7 ife~, ~~ayor ATTEST: F Panel a R. 6randr,~eyer ,~ l . i ._ . ORDINANCE N0. 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 SDLIO 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 a11ow certain types of gas burning fireplace logs to be utilized in solid fuel burning devices; and WHEREAS, the Tawn 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 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 Cauncii of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: 1. Section 8.28.D30 Solid Fuel Burning Devices of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail paragraph B. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 8.28.03D 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-X and which are also accommodation units pursuant to the definition of such contained in the Zoning Code, may install equipment, flueW, fireboxes and other.features in accordance with the applicable listings of U.L., A.G.A. or other recognized testing organizations • ~ ~ ~ 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 shat] 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: "Caution - 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.Ofio 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 prevision 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 lawn 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 ~ro,~ects within the Town to install technologically superior gas logs this current building season, the Town Gaunci7 1 < < ~ 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. b. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper far 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 ~]u1Y , 1987, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 28th day of ~ulY , 1987. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem A ATTEST: nu,~ ~ . ' ~~v~t er.,~c,~,r,~..~ Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 14, 1990 RE: A request for a site coverage variance for an addition on Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 64 Beaver Dam Road. Applicant: H. Ross Perot I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is the owner of a single family home located at 64 Beaver Dam Road, and is requesting a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of an attached three- car garage, and a major remodel and expansion of the existing residence. LJ 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 45%), the site coverage requirement far 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 25o request and this will be reviewed by the Design Review Board at their May 16th meeting. The proposed residence meets all zoning standards, including GRFA. Ii. ZONING ANALYSIS Total Site Area: Allowable Site Coverage: Existing site Coverage: Proposed Site Coverage: 15,6$1.5 sq. ft. 2,352,2 sq. ft., or 15% 1,154.0 sq. ft., or 7 % 3,358.0 sq. ft., or 21% The applicant's request is to allow a 6% increase in site coverage, or 1,005.8 sq. ft. This results in a site coverage of 21 ° o. • 1 III. CRITERIA AND FYNDINGS 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 reauested variance to other existina or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 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 will be cavered 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 4 feet. The existing graveled, surface parking lot will be eliminated, and a revegetation and landscaping plan for this area has been proposed (see attached). The applicant could remove a portion of the garage which would decrease site coverage. However, staff's opinion is that it is preferable to have the parking enclosed to avoid the view of parked cars and retaining walls. 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., The Town planning staff has historically been supportive of requests for the addition of covered parking. Tn this particular situation, given the present siting of the house, and the steep grades, 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 z hardship upon the applicant. This is because on the one hand, the zoning code promotes the construction of garages within the front setback area of steep lots. And conversely, the zoning code 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 effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of nooulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safety. 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. 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. 3 V. 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 stapes 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. 4 ~ i, !~ / ~ `' b 1 r, _..`~ J 1j4/j7 !~` Jj '`~ \ :'~ ~~ X ~~ s ..~~ ~s ~~ \.~ ~ ~m z a 'h i'. m ~ ~, ~ _ _.~ _U~'~__~__ M ~ -5tap-r-•1 ~~r-I :J+-+t~~ laf2~vE A~ ~-E ~ , ~ _ ~ °_~„~15"i'~I-tea ~GYa~ d~ ~A~/~1""1 ~'~ ~ ~ ~. . R ~ -= -- ~ ~ RSPHRLT DR.`E --- ~ ~ ~ ~ \ +48.0. • ~ ~ .~ ~ 50 ~ ~ • ~ +48.0 ~ ~ ~ J f) GRRRGE W ` ~ ! , ~ \ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~r \ NTER y y .~ ELEVRTO - ~ ~ VEST IB f ~ \ -~~T ~ +ES. ~ EX fST ING ~ I SPRUCE TREES I I~ l y ~ ~ I\y V _ ~ t f ..' 7 T ~ ! +7 XISTHJG., WHCL - , ~ ~ ~ ~ +70,5' BE REMOVED _ ~ \~ `_ _`_ ~~ r ~ II ~~ +7g. y G ~~~ ~~ ~ i -- ~ ~ _ DECK ~ +i o I r - -~~~ ~~ __ _ ,• __ ~ ~~ 11~ _ ~~ ``' ~ti_ , `- EX IST fNG 1 88 ~ ~~ - STRUCTURE - ~- -.~ ~w _ -~, ~ j •~ r ~• '.. ~ O ~ i ~, i J ~ \~ ~ - ~ \ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~' ~ J ~ ~ r • • +l~ 4 ~,'• - r ~ ~ ~. • ~. ,~ .^--. I ~~~ ~' ~ I ~ • I ..-.. ;•~~r .-~ r~ ~~ ~~ r ~~ I'I • • ti.~f yr, f # { ~ I ~ ~~w ^r tiy" ~ ' ~ ., ~ 1 I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ `~I . { - 1 ~ ~ ' I ~' II ~~ 4 Y ~~~ ~- ¢-' -- -~-Y-- • ,` . ,, y= ~-`~ \ n'~ : t ~i ,Y ~I~ 1, r'~ ~'• ~. ,ti 1 ~ ~ ~:. .. ~.~ N : ~r^~ .~ ~~~ r~ ~, I Q 11 W ~ J ~ W - E.. • r .E ~ _ _. Jr' ;_ ~~.. .,,..- a1r-~,Ft'~'i ~,,,~ ~. ,._ ,~ _ J` ~ « ~_' ~' _' i ~ L -- `. ``~~ 1! l~ ~- ~ ~ ~ 11 .. _..:_ ..=-'.. -fir .. . l • ~ ~ ~ ~ J` _.~ ~i~- ~-:~ -- • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 14, 1990 SUBJ: A request for a final plat for a major subdivision for SDD No. 22, a resubdivisian of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. I. Final Plat Review The Dauphinais Subdivision final plat, as presented by the applicant, substantially conforms to the previously approved preliminary plan. Such preliminary plan was unanimously approved by the PEC on March 26, 1990, by a vote of 7-0. II. Staff Recommendation. Staff believes that the Dauphinais Subdivision final plat is in compliance with the intent and purposes of Chapter 17.16.110 of the Town Subdivision regulations (Major Subdivision Review Criteria) and the Town Zoning Cade, The staff recommendation is for the approval of the final plat with the following conditions: 1. The PEC chairperson shall sign the plat when the Subdivision Improvements agreement has been finalized and approved by the Tawn engineer and Town Attorney. 2. The Subdivision Improvements agreement shall provide the Town of Vail with sufficient collateral to guarantee construction and installation of their required improvements per the Town Engineer, PEC, and community Development requirements. Td: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 14, 1990 RE: A request for a final plat for a major SDD No. 16, on a portion of Parcel A, Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem I. Final Plat Review subdivision for Lion's Ridge - Phase TII) The Elk Meadows final plat, as presented by the applicant, substantially conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plan. Such Preliminary Plan was unanimously approved by the PEC on April 9, 1990, by a vote of 6-0. TI. Staff Recommendation Staff believes that the Elk Meadows final plat is in compliance with the intent and purposes of Chapter 17.16.110 of the Town's Subdivision regulations (major subdivisian review criteria) and the Town's zoning code. • The staff recommendation is far approval of the final plat with the condition that the PEC chairperson not sign the plat until the Subdivision Improvements Agreement has been finalized and approved by the Town Attorney. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement will provide the Town with sufficient collateral to guarantee construction and installation of the required fire hydrants and access road construction and paving. •