Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes October - November• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 8, 1990 SITE VISITS 2 11:30 A request for a work session for density and setback variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge located at 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail. Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston i~ 1:00 site visits ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes from the September 10, 1990 meeting. - 2. A request to amend section 18.04.130-- definition of Floor area, gross residential (GRFA); 18.09.080 Hillside Residential District density control; 18.10.090 Single Family District density control; 18.12.090 Two Family Residential District density control and; 18.13.080 Primary/Secondary District density control, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail - 3. A request to amend sections 18.04.360-- definition of site coverage; 18.09.090-- Hillside Residential District site coverage; 18.10.110--Single Family District site coverage; 18.12.110--Two Family District site coverage; 18.13.090--Primary Secondary District site coverage; 18.14.110-- Residential Cluster District site coverage; 18.16.110--Low Density Residential District site coverage; 18.18.110--Medium Density Residential site coverage; 18.20.110--High Density Residential District site coverage; 18.22,110--Public Accommodation District site coverage; 18.24.160--Commercial Core I District site coverage; 18.26.120--Commercial Core II District site coverage; 18.27.090-- Commercial Core III site coverage; 18.28.124--Commercial Service Center District site coverage; 18.29.090--Arterial Business District site coverage; 18.30.110--Heavy Service District site coverage; 1.8.32.110-- Agricultural and Open Space District site Coverage and; 18.39.190--Ski Base/Recreation District site coverage, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail x - 4. A request to amend section 18.52.160---Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail 3 5. A request for a side yard setback and stream setback variance in order to remodel Unit 11, A & B of the Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 11, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing, Applicant: B. A. Bridgewater 1 6. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a four foot antenna set on the roof of the Solar Vail building located at 501 N. Frontage Road West, Part of Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: U. S. West Communications/Storms Consultants TABLED UNTIL 7. A request for a height variance in order to OCT. 22 construct an addition to Condominium Unit E- 6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. TABLED UNTIL 8. A request for an amendment to the approved OCT. 22 access plan for Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 146 and 126 Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne TABLED UNTIL 9. A request f. OCT. 22 dish in the request for 3, Block 1, Drive. Applicant; ~r a variance to allow a satellite Gore Creek 50' setback and a a floodplain modification on Lot Bighorn 1st addition, 3907 Lupine Ron Oelbaum TABLED UNTIL 10. A request for a conditional use permit in OCT. 22 order to sell beer at wholesale and to sell beer for off-site consumption at 143 E. Meadow Drive, Lot P, Block 5D, Vaii Village 1st Filing. Applicant: First Brewery of Vail/Dean Liotta TABLED UNTIL 11. A request for a for a major change to OCT. 22 existing development approval for The Valley, Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer r .. L • TABLED UNTIL 12. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, NOV. 26 Cascade Village, Area C in order to modify the Master Development Plan for Lots 39-1 and 39-2 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision in order to increase the height limitation from 25 ft. to 35 ft. and to increase the maximum allowable GRFA per lot from 3100 sq. ft. to 5500 sq. ft. Applicant: Andrew D. Norris TABLED 13. A request for a height variance in order to INDEFINATELY construct a retaining wall along Phase TI of the East Vail Bike Path on the North side of Bighorn Road, in the Colorado Department of Highways Right-of-way. Applicant: Town of Vail ~. • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 8, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry Tn the interest of visiting the Christiania Lodge site prior to the work session, site visits were moved to the beginning of the meeting. The work session portion of the meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. All members of the Board were present. A request for a work session far density and setback variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodae, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D. Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filina. Abblicant: Paul R. Johnston Jill Kammerer explained that a revised memo had been given to the Board prior to the site visits. All the areas in bold were changes to the memo which had been sent out in the C~~~~~~~ission packet. The reason the memo had been modified was because a number of dwelling units had been changed to accommodation units through the deletion of cooking facilities (i.P. microwaves) in the units. In addition to the dwelling to accommodation units changes prior to the meeting, the applicant brought in floor plan modifications which proposed the combination of accommodation units. These unit combinations would increase the size of certain accommodation units and decrease the overall project density to the point where no density variance would be required. Jill explained that the applicant was proposing to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge. Jill reviewed the background of the project, describing the proposed remodel by level. The variances requested including a 20% common area variance and setback variances. Jill then reviewed the zoning considerations, related policies in the Vail Village Master Plan and the proposal's compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for the Vail Village. There was a list of items for PEC discussion at the end of the staff memo. ~~ • In order to be considered a "Lodge" under the zoning definition, a lodge must have more square feet of accommodation units then dwelling units. Subsequently, this was the reason for the dwelling to accommodation unit proposal modifications and acc~.~~.~~odation unit combinations modification. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, commented that he felt a typographical error had been made on Page 6 of the memo which stated the 1990 proposed common area sq. footage as 59.5%. His calculations indicated the 1990 proposed common area sq. footage was 33~. Jay continued by reviewing background of the project and explaining why the 1987 approval was never built. The 1987 approval was for general improvement--i.e. baths, handicapped access etc. Economically the improvements were not feasible without a bed expansion as well. The present proposal would add two dwelling units an the apartment level. Thy proceeds from the sale of those units would make the project economically feasible. He stated that the concept of the "Cadge" would remain the same, however, small lodges needed the same common area facilities as large lodges. The floor plans presented prior to the PEC meeting had (in order to eliminate the need for a density variance} proposed combining 3 lodge rooms with adjacent rooms. However, the applicant would be willing to reverse the combination of units and pursue a density variance if instructed to do so by the • PEC. Regarding the setback variances, Jay stated that they were essentially the same as the 1987 redevelopment proposal setback encroachments. He felt that the 20~ common area allowance was not enough for a hotel. Presently, the lodge conformed. The increase was due to bathrooms with handicap access, hallways, an increased lobby, and the addition of one central laundry. Presently, laundry facilities were scattered throughout 6 small closets. Also contributing to the increased common area was the proposed enlargement of Sarah's Bar which was used for continental breakfasts, and a ski storage area. Jay commented that most of the areas that encroached iota the setbacks were due to the existing building already encroaching. The ports cochere encroached, but was an unenclosed covered space and bettered the aesthetics. This meeting being a work session, Jay asked for preliminary comments. He mentioned that the applicant had already received preliminary Design Board approval. • PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Diana suggested that the board go down the work session discussion list found in the memo one by one. Kathy wanted the applicant or a representative to go through the site plan and building plan and explain the encroachments and room reconfigurations. Bill Reslock, architect representing the applicant, reviewed the revised site plan and setback encroachments. Bill and the Board spent an extensive period of time reviewing the plans. Bill highlighted the areas of building and cantilevered encroachments in pink, deck encroachments in blue. He also pointed out extended roof overhangs. Kathy commented that there were essentially 4 areas of minor encroachments and the porte cochere and asked to review the floor plan and have the common areas explained. Bill Reslock proceeded to review the plans as follows: Ground Floor: -Common Bathrooms . -Ski Storage/slope access -Housekeeping -New entry for Christiania Realty -Elevator 1st Floor: -Lobby/upgrade (current lobby was basically a hallway) -New stairways -10% addition to Sarah's Bar (Accessary Use) 2nd Floor: -New Hallways -Stairways -Elevator Shaft Apartments: -New stairwells. Kristan suggested the addition of an employee unit. Jill asked about the fireplace in Sarah's Bar and Paul Johnston stated they would be converting the fireplace to gas. All fireplaces in the remodeled structure would be gas fireplaces. Connie Knight was concerned about the roof overhangs and Kristan explained that the porte cochere was the only area to overhang another property (T.O.V. Right-of-way). • • PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Connie was also concerned with the deck encroachments into the setbacks and Kristan explained that decks were allowed to extend 1/2 the distance into the setback. There were no proposed areas that would extend beyond what was allowed. There was a proposed deck that would encroach onto the Chateau Condominium property. Connie asked the applicant if the only reason for combining the combination unit with another accommodation unit and the Realty office on the ground floor and the combination of 2 other accommodation units with another accommodation unit on the 1st and 2nd floors was solely to eliminate the need for a density variance and Bill Reslock answered "yes". Connie commented that she personally would rather see more accommodation units provided and a density variance. Jay explained that the only 2 units to be sold would be those on the apartment level (3rd floor). Jim Shearer asked if the applicant planned to include a sprinkler system and Paul Johnston answered that the Fire Department was requiring the installation of sprinklers in the old and new areas. • Jim Shearer commented that he would like to see as many trees as possible saved. Paul Johnston commented that the cluster at the west end would stay. Jim stated that he felt it was important to landscape the parking lot, especially if the applicant was planning to remove trees. Kathy Warren commented that she had no major concerns with the setbacks but would like to see a site plan which clearly indicated the foundation of the building, decks and roof overhangs as well as the setbacks. Kathy agreed that the parking lot needed to be upgraded, Jim Shearer commented that it might be possible for the applicant to move the dumpster and free up additional parking spaces. Jill pointed out that the applicant did not own the property where Jinn was suggesting the dumpster be relocated. Vail Associates owned the property at the northwest corner of the site. Kathy felt that the trash enclosure area needed to be studied further and the area staked for the next meeting. Kathy agreed with the path/walkway concept as presented in the memo. She also commented that the back of the gate to the swimming: pool needed to be finished. Regarding the density, she felt strongly that employee housing needed to be addressed. Tn reality, she felt the applicant was removing a dwelling unit and making it into an • 4 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting accommodation unit when it could be made into an employee unit. She commented that if the applicant preferred, she could agree to an off-site employee unit. Chuck Crist had no problem with the setback encroachments. He agreed the parking lot needed to be upgraded and that the trash enclosure needed refinement. He felt comfortable with the Porte cochere. He could not agree with the removal of trees. Dalton Williams felt comfortable with the setback encroachments and Porte cochere. Regarding the parking lot, he felt Vail Associates should also clean up their half. Regarding the Mill Creek Path, he would like to see a stream walk and the split rail fence removed. He felt the trash enclosure should be more than a fence. it should be fully enclosed and well screened with landscaping. Dalton felt strongly that employee housing should be provided, He agreed with Kathy, if the applicant preferred, he would be comfortable with it being located off-site. Ludwig Kurz asked what increase in staff was expected by the expansion. Paul Johnston responded to Ludwig Kurz's question by stating a possible concierge and possibly some housekeeping staff • (2 or 3 people). Ludwig commented that he had no problems with the setbacks and agreed with Kathy, that he would like to see the foundation lines, roof overhangs etc. shown more specifically on the site plan. Ludwig was comfortable with the Porte cochere setback since it appeared to enhance the streetscape. Ludwig agreed with the rest of the board regarding the density. He would rather see a density variance than the loss of accommodation rooms. Ludwig was concerned about the loss of trees. Diana asked that the landscape plan be shown on the final plan. She also wanted to see a restricted employee unit and the apartment condos restricted for short term rental with the keys being issued at the front desk. She felt the pool and walkway area should include more common area. Diana had no problems with a density variance. She commented that the project had the GRFA available. She would like to see the lodge units remain. She also wanted to see the foundation lines, roof overhangs, deck lines etc. on the site plan as mentioned by many of the Board members. She did want to see the parking paved and landscaped and the trash enclosure screened. • _ 1 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting In order to give the applicant a consensus to plan by, Diana asked by a show of hands how many board members would like to see the 3 acc~a~....odation units remain and a density variance granted. The informal vote was 7-0 in favor. Diana commented that since the project had the available GRFA, she felt the Council might be more receptive to a density variance. The work session was adjourned. The regular meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: Avvroval of minutes from the Sevtember 10. 1990 meetina. Kathy Warren asked to have a sentence on page -~ deleted. A motion to approve the minutes for the Sevtember 10. 1990 • meetina with corrections was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR Since Item No. 2 and Item No. 3 were so closely related, they were discussed together. Item No. 2: A reauest to amend section 18.04.130--definition of Floor area. cross residential fGRFAI: 18.09.080 Hillside Residential District density control: 18.10.090 Single Family District density control: 18.12.090 Two Family Residential District density control and: 18.13.080 Primary/Secondary District density control. of the Municival Code. Applicant: Town of Vail • s PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Item No. 3: A reauest to amend sections 18.04.360--definition of site coverage: 18.09.090--Hillside Residential District site coveragg: 18.10.110--Single Family, District site coverage: 18.12.110--Two Family District site coverage: 18.13.090--Primary Secondary District site coverage: 18.14.110-- Residential Cluster District site coverage: 18.16.110--Low Density Residential District site coverage: 18.18.110--Medium Density Residential site coverage: 18.20.110--High Density Residential District site coverage: 18.22.110--Public ACC~,E«„odation District site coverage; 18.24.150-- Commercial Core I District site coverage: 18.26.120--Commercial Care II District site coverage: 18.27.090--Commercial Core TTT site coverage: 18.28.120--Commercial Service Center District site coverage; 18.29.090--Arterial Business District site coverage: 18.30.110--Heavy Service District site coverage: 18.32.110-- Aaricultural and Open Space District site coverage and: 18.39.190--Ski Base/Recreation District site coverage. of the Municibal Code. Abolicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz explained that the intent of the zoning code amendments was to close loopholes and clarify definitions. The intent was not to take away square footage. The staff and consultant were basically trying to keep ratios the same and calculations easier and less confusing. There were no changes to the height section at the present time. Kristan then reviewed the staff memo which explained the intent of the revisions. She reviewed the proposed changes including the GRFA definition, GRFA Ratio, and an analysis of the GRFA Changes. She explained how the credits were given a lump sum figure to be added in bulk to the existing ratio rather than as credits. The language to be used for the amendments was then reviewed. The proposed definition for site coverage was reviewed explaining that the new definition was that building cantilevers and all overhanging roofed areas would count toward site coverage. Kristan discussed the implications of the amendment and the staff recommendation. Policies on the interpretation of GRFA and site coverage were also reviewed. Chuck asked why, on page 7 of the memo, site coverage was stated as X percent and Kristan explained that it was written that way because the site coverage percentage changes according to the zoning of the property. Far example, single Family zoned properties were allowed 20~ site coverage whereas Hillside Residential zoned property was allowed a 15o site coverage. 7 • PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Tom Sraun, the consultant on the project, showed slides that depicted different scenarios of GRFA and site coverage. Greg Amsden, a concerned citizen, asked if height measurement were included in the code revisions and Kristan explained that there were no revisions to the height measurements. However, she realized that the surveyors needed more explanation for the Improvement Location Certificates. She explained that staff planned to issue a policy statement to the local surveyors and builders. Greg felt that a clarification of which grade was to be used to determine height would be helpful. Discussion then centered around deck and roof overhang scenarios regarding site coverage and many drawings were done to help depict those scenarios and discussions followed. Diana felt that the way the site coverage policy was written, it penalized thane who planned 4 ft. decks. Stan Beard also felt that the way the revision was written, it did not make since. He felt 4 ft. of deck should be allowed under an allowed 4 ft. of roof overhang. Kathy c~~,,,«ented that it was to be considered site coverage because it added to the mass and bulk of the building. Michael Hazard felt that the proximity to other properties should be considered in the analysis of site coverage. On a property bordering forest land, the deck should be allowed to extend aut further. He also commented that, as presently written, the result would be unsafe decks. Designs would be designed with 6 to 8 foot decks and only 4 foot overhangs thereby creating snow buildup on the deck. Kristan wanted to clarify that Michael advocated not allowing decks and overhangs into the setback and Michael felt that lower levels would be okay, it was the upper levels (i.e. third floor and above) that added mass and bulk. Kristan commented that she understood Michael's concerns. However, she felt it was a DRS concern. Michael Hazard asked if there would be a grace period between adoption and implementation of the code revisions. • 8 • PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Tom Braun explained that he had discussed the issue with Larry Eskwith and he was still researching the law on vested rights. He felt that the Council may put any condition they wanted. Tt could be any project not permitted or not submitted for DRB. The issue had not been discussed in detail as of yet. Kristan felt that staff would be asked to make a rec~~~u~~endation. Diana felt it would be safe to say the changes would not be implemented until the first of the year. Kristan stated that when the vested rights issue was determined, she felt that the staff and Town would give some type of grace period. No matter what the grace period was, someone would end up affected by the changes. The changes would have to be implemented by some date. The intent was to allow a reasonable time period. Diana felt that the site coverage changes would not be a problem unless the designer was trying to push the limits. Jay Peterson, speaking for himself, felt that the changes proposed to the site coverage would cause a problem for the smaller lots and those lots with steeper slopes. He felt the Town would experience repercussions with higher, boxier styled homes. He suggested the possibility of increasing site coverage to 20~ for the small and steep lots. Galen Aasland stated that he supported the GRFA amendments. He shared Jay's concerns with the small and steep lots, especially since the cantilevers were proposed to count as site coverage. Kathy Warren commented that she calculated site coverage figures for a 12,000 sq. ft. lot and the outcome caused her to agree that changes to the site coverage percentage for the small and steep lots should be considered. ^iana commented that the intent of the lower site coverage allowance was not to allow use of all possible square footage if a good design could not be implemented. Tt was a design issue. Galen Aasland felt that the allowance for cantilevers helped the designs. Jay felt that by disallowing the cantilevers, the board was encouraging less aesthetically pleasing homes. Kathy Warren commented that the site coverage should be changed to correlate with the GRFA changes. She would rather adjust the . percentage allowance for site coverage rather than allowing cantilevers on certain lots. She suggested the possibility of incorporating a decreasing ratio similar to the GRFA ratio. 9 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Kristan commented that most lots had not had problems. The variance process would still be available. The intent was to make sure the formula worked in general. Dalton felt that the designs found on the smaller lots had been nice due to the allowance far cantilevers. He agreed with Galen that same form of compensation should be made for that which was taken away. Jay commented that if the allowable site coverage percentage for small and steep lots were increased to 20~, it would help. Dalton felt that the height of an entrance door to crawl spaces should be four feet. He also felt that the 600 sq. ft. garage allowance per constructed unit should also state that it be used by the constructed unit. Regarding the covered 3 side enclosed decks, they should count as GRFA. He felt that the 475 additional square footage used to compensate for the deletion of credits should not only be allowed per constructed unit, but should also be contained in each constructed unit. Dalton asked why employee housing was not addressed, and Diana responded that it would be amended when the final housing recommendations were completed. Dalton felt that the area found within a "U-shaped" building should count as site coverage even if it was not roofed since it added to the bulk and mass of the building. Dalton commented that the staff memo, on Page 9, stated that the "design review provides an avenue for modifying an inappropriate design that otherwise satisfies zoning standards." During his term as the PEC member on the DRB Board, he felt that the DRB did not feel it was appropriate or their position to deny inappropriate designs. This issue needed to be clarified with the DRB. Kristan explained that Dalton's concern could be addressed when the Design Review Guidelines were revised. Chuck Crist stated that he was still concerned that covered decks, porches, terraces or patios should count toward GRFA. Kathy explained that the task force had originally discussed using a 33~ opening as the criteria. Kristan commented that the Design regulations should not be revised to stop one type of architectural design (i.e. U-shaped buildings or the extensively covered deck) when they are not the majority. to PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Chuck commented that the issue in question was the 3 walled porches etc. He also felt that interior unroofed courtyards should be considered as site coverage. Pat Dauphanais commented that the covered deck was the most intelligent way to add depth to a plain surface home. The exterior space was used as an architectural detail and should not be counted as living floor space. Dalton explained to Pat that the purpose of the amendments was to try to control the mass and bulk of a home. Covered decks etc. added mass and bulk. Pat felt that the issue was better dealt with at the Design Review Board level. Diana commented that the DRB, except for the PEC assigned member, did not even know the definition of GRFA. They were looking for a balance. Chuck Crist understood Pat Dauphinais's concerns and felt that a condition could be placed that would count spaces enclosed by 3 . walls if they exceeded X number of feet. Basically, he wanted to avoid a 3 sided enclosed area such as the large, well known hat tub room on Mi11 Creek. Mr. Slifer, on a philosophical point, felt that the Board tended to focus on the bigger homes and forgot about the smaller local areas such as west and east Vail. He felt that the Town did not need to be as concerned about the larger homes, since the type of people and money spent on them basically guided a nice design. He felt the board needed to focus on the small and steep lots in order to try to help the local resident. Kathy Warren explained the Eagle County codes and how they did not work. She suggested possibly changing the percentages found within the site coverage formula. Kathy suggested that the word "structural" found within the proposed site coverage definition be removed. She felt it might be a loophole. She also asked that the crawl space definition be changed to state "...as measured farm the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor..." She felt the inclusion of the work "structural" in this sentence could open the code up to a 10 foot crawl space with a framed floor that could be removed later. ' • 11 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Diana felt that the reason for giving the 475 sq. ft. was that the square footage was for needed legitimate space--airlock, storage etc. The additional 475 sq. ft. should be allocated to each unit. Ron Riley, an interested citizen, commented that for a larger home to receive extra credit for an extra large garage, they would be required to build a secondary unit, and even though the garage space would not be allocated to the secondary unit, it would be providing employee housing. Jim Shearer commented that in general, the Board was trying to simplify a complicated formula on a fair and equitable basis. He felt the Board needed to research possibilities for the small and steep lots and possibly develop a new formula. Connie felt the garage credits should be given only if the structure was built. Diana stated that she was against upzoning lots by giving extra sq. ft. (475 sq. ft. per unit}. She supported the amendment only if given for each unit, not used as a credit for the total lot. Regarding site coverage, Diana felt the revisions were going in the right direction, but felt the need to determine how to read enclosed space as site coverage. She felt a deck with a roof overhead should be counted as site coverage and could agree to increase the coverage on small and steep sites. Tom Braun felt that the direction he was being given was to identify more specific elements of decks which distinguished between one that added bulk and one that did nat. Kristan felt that the site coverage amendment should be tabled and with the direction given, reworked. Ludwig Kurz felt that the revisions were headed in the right direction. The overhangs and decks needed to be more clear, He felt there were some Loopholes that needed to be addressed. He felt staff should consider increasing the scale for site coverage on steep or small lots. A motion to amend the GRFA section of the zoning code oer the staff memo with the following chancres was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathv Warren 1. Section II Paraarabh 1, sentence 3 Strike word "structural" from "exterior structural wa 11 s" • 12 • PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting 2. Section II fA] 3. Strike ward "structural" from "earth or structural floor" Kathy Warren, in discussion after the motion, felt that the wording in Section A stating "development shall exclude" should be changed to "development shall not include". Chuck Crist amended his motion accordinaly and Kathv Warren seconded the amended motion In additional discussion, Kathy stated that she was still concerned about the 50 sq. ft. that was included in the 475 sq. fit. for bay windows. She felt it was arbitrarily included. Diana commented that she was still concerned that the 475 sq. ft. addition of sq. ft. rather than credits would be used ali in one unit rather than the intent that they were needed accessories to be used in each unit. Dalton Williams commented that he did not wish to vote against the amendment but felt the garage spaces should only be available • and allocated to each unit. A primary unit should not be able to utilize the garage credit intended for the secondary unit. VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR, CONNIE KNIGHT WAS ABSENT A motion to table the amendment to the site coverage section of the zonina code was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE: 5-0 IN FAVOR. CONNIE KNIGHT WAS ABSENT Since the meeting was running late and the .applicants for items 5 and 6 had been waiting an extended period of time, Ytem No, 4 was postponed until the end of the meeting. Ttem No. 5: A request for a side vard setback and stream setback variance in order to remodel Unit il. A & B of the Vail Rowhouses. 3b3 Gore Creek Drive. Lot 11. Block 5. Vail Village First Filina. Anulicant: B. A. Bridgewater Andy Knudtsen explained that the applicant proposed to remodel Units 11A and 11B and combine them into one dwelling unit. The aspects of the remodel included removing the fourth floor deck on the north elevation; removing the segment of spiral staircase leading to the fourth floor; changing the windows on both the 13 • PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting south and north elevations; expanding the floor area to the north by shifting the walls adjacent to the decks out by one foot; changing the roof from a gravel roof to a gable roof with shake shingles; and reorganizing the exterior storage in the courtyard in front of the unit. The remodeled unit would have the same gross residential floor area (GRFA) as the combined area of the existing two units. Andy reviewed the zoning considerations, and the criteria and findings far a variance. The staff recommendation was for approval of the request. Staff felt the approval would not be a grant of special privilege because other variance applications had been approved for similar requests in the Vail Rowhouses. Staff found that the location of the lot lines was an extraordinary circumstance that was not typically found in the HDMF zone district and that other property owners in the same development had received variances from the strict interpretation of the zoning code for similar type of requests. Kathy Warren questioned the need for a variance. Diana Donovan commented that an expansion of the building to the rear should be explained in the zoning analysis in the staff memo. • Andy explained that an existing wing wall determined the rear setback that the proposed expansion would not extend beyond the existing wing wall. A motion to approve the requested variances per the staff memo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR, CONNIE KNIGHT WAS ABSENT Item No. 6: A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a four foot antenna set on the roof of the Solar Vail building located at 501 N. Frontage Road West. Part of Lot 8. Block 2. Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: u. s. west C~~~~.~~unications/storms Consultants Andy Knudtsen explained that the applicant proposed to construct an antenna system on the roof of Solar Vail to provide cellular phone service in the valley. An accessory building to hold transmission equipment would be constructed immediately east of the building. The proposal was considered a conditional use because staff had determined that it was a "public utility and public service use." The public utility use is listed as a conditional use in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. 14 PEC Minutes 1.0/8/90 Meeting Andy reviewed the zoning analysis and criteria and findings related to a conditional use request. The staff recommendation was for approval with conditions. Staff believed it met the conditional use criteria as discussed and it was in accordance with the purpose section of the HDMF zone district. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that the applicant had agreed to screen the trash enclosure. Kathy Warren c~~~u«ented that door did not read correct on the elevation drawing. The plans called for an 11' tall building and an 6'8" door. The drawing did not depict the dimensions accurately. Ray Perlmutter, architect for the applicant, explained to Kathy that the floor actually started 4" below the door and would recheck the drawing to make sure it was accurate. Diana asked if they would still need the exterior set of stairs and Ray answered they probably would. Kathy Warren asked if the building would have siding and Roy respanded it would. Kathy Warren felt that the retaining wall issue needed to be addressed and Jay Peterson explained that he would address the issue with Johannes Faessler, the owner of the property, but did not feel the burden should be put on the applicant, as they were simply leasing the space. Diana and Kathy asked what the antenna would look like and Larry Storms, representing the applicant, explained that the antenna would be set in the middle of the roof and would be painted light blue or grey nonreflective material in order to minimize visual impact. There would be no strobes. Andy Knudtsen c~~~~.~~ented that the staff did discuss the possibility of additional sites. Larry Storms explained that the applicant may need other sites in the future which have not currently been addressed. Any new sites would be repeater stations, which would be small in comparison to what the board was reviewing presently, Diana c~,~~,~~ented that the retaining wall needed to be tied into the proposal as well as the dumpster. She also suggested that the exterior stairway be addressed by the Design Review Board. . Larry Storms explained that the stair access was for the cell building only. There would be no access to the main building. 15 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Jay asked that the timing on the wall and landscape be extended until spring. A motion to aomrove the conditional use request per the staff memo with the following conditions was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Dalton Williams. Conditions: 1, The annlicant shall screen the dumvster with a five foot high fence 2. The annlicant shall slant seven spruce and five asaen trees in the area between the mechanical building and the N. Frontage Road 3. The annlicant shall treat the antenna with a non- reflective material. if needed, 4. The annlicant is to insure that none of the retaining walls are built over 6 ft. high. 5. The a~olicant shall submit a plan to improve the existing timber walls to be acted on within 1 year. Diana asked that the motion be amended to add "or other acceptable solution" to condition No. 1. A motion to amend the 1st condition of apt~roval to state "The applicant shall screen the dumpster with a five foot high fence or other acceptable solution" was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Dalton Williams. VOTE: 6-0 TN FAVOR. CONNIE KNIGHT WAS ABSENT Item No. 4: A reguest to amend section 18.52.160---Off Street Parkins and Loading Exemptions. of the Municipal Code . _ Applicant: Town of Vail Tom Braun explained that the parking section of the zoning code had allowed for certain areas of the Town to be designated exempt from on-site parking requirements in order to minimize vehicular traffic in the pedestrian areas of the Village and Lionshead and allow property owners an alternative for meeting parking demand. . To achieve the goals, the program required property owners to pay for parking demand created by new development in lieu of providing parking on-site. 16 PEC Minutes . 10/8/90 Meeting Tom explained that there were two main issues with the program that were addressed by the amendments. There were many properties, particularly in Lionshead, that were located a considerable distance from the mall and had vehicular access that did not affect the pedestrianized area of the Mall. Allowing those properties to pay in lieu of providing parking on-site was inconsistent with the goals of the program. SPCOnd1y, as written, any property in CCI and CCII could remove existing on- site parking and pay into the parking fund to compensate for the spaces. There are benefits to removing spaces from the Village core, however, there were many other properties where the removal of existing spaces would provide no public benefit. Tom reviewed the summary of changes and amendment proposal as outlined in the staff memo. Kathy Warren asked if the Lodge was to redevelop, would they require on-site parking or be allowed to pay in lieu. Tom explained that, with the amendment, in the event of total redevelopment, the Lodge would be required to provide all spaces on-site. In the event of small additions, they would be allowed to pay in lieu, Diana wanted to make sure that the parking structure, adjacent to the Lifthouse in Lionshead, could not be removed and redeveloped. She felt the structure was linked to certain surrounding buildings for parking requirements. Jay Peterson commented that the structure provided parking for the Lifthouse, Vail 21, and other neighboring buildings. The structure was owned by Rosenquist and Lazier. He suggest the board take what ever action they felt necessary and he would notify the owners of that action. Tom asked the Board what they felt should be asked for regarding security for the pay in lieu fee which currently is allowed to be paid overtime. Jay Peterson commented that for buildings that were not condominiumized, in order to place a deed of trust, the entire building would have to be liened. Jay was worried that the lessee could force the owner to pay if the lessee defaulted. Diana felt that the Town needed collateral. Jim Shearer suggested that the owner be a guarantor by a second signature. • Diana suggested that the PEC Board allow the Council to decide. 17 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Tom explained that the last section of the memo deleted the parking variance section of the code completely. Chuck Crist asked where the Mountain Haus and Garden of the Gods fell within the new amendment and Tom explained that they were not included in the pay in lieu program. Tom explained that the Village Center and the Sonnenalp (by Slifer Square} could pay in lieu for small additions, but in the event of redevelopment would be required to provide all spaces on-site. Diana felt that the Ladge Tower, Village Center and the Sonnenalp should all have to provide on-site parking if redeveloped. Dalton asked Tom how the Gondola Building was different from the Lionsquare Ladge and Tom explained that the Lionsquare lodge had mall frontage. Tom explained that if things changed, there would always be criteria to create new areas. . Diana asked how the Lazier/Rosenquist structure was to be addressed? Discussion centered around whether it would be advantageous to leave the structure within the Overlay Map boundary or to remove it from the boundary. Tom felt that realistically, the owners of the structure could fight the restriction on the basis that the lot/structure was not tied to other buildings. Diana suggested that the amendment be changed to disallow the removal of existing spaces, not existing required spaces. She felt it would create a loophole for an applicant to remove spaces by change of use and then create a need for additional spaces by another change of use. Regarding the Lazier/Rosenquist parking structure, Diana felt the decision should be left to staff to research. The boundary line should be placed on whichever side would guarantee that existing parking remain. A motion to rec~,~~~~~end to the Town Council approval of the requested amendment to section 18.52.160--Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, of the Municipal Code per the staff memo with the following chances and conditions was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Diana Donovan. • 1. Mob to araohically show areas. 18 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting 2. Outlvina areas such as Landmark. Village Center, Sonnenalp, Sitzmark, Lodge Tower, Lodge at Vail. Studio, and Mill Creek Court Building allowed to use Pav-in-lieu for small additions. Tn the event of redevelopment, they shall be required to provide all parking on site. 3. In Lionshead, no existing spaces can be eliminated for anv reason whatsoever, including but not limited to chance of use. 4. in the Village Core, existing barking may be removed and replaced by pav-in-lieu except the Lodge at Vail, Village Center, and the Sonnenalp may not remove existing parking for anv reason. 5. Security for payment of the pay-in-lieu fee shall be made by the owner in the form of a second guarantee signature. 6. Graphic line to be drawn to include or exclude the Lazier/Rosenauist parking structure by staff discretion . following research and which ever shall take into consideration the Board's direction to keep as much parking as possible. Discussion after the motion: Diana commented that the Board's intent was that the Lazier/Rosenquist parking structure not be removed. If staff is unable to document ties to other buildings as parking requirements, the issue would need to be addressed. VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR, CONNIE KNIGHT ABSENT Ttem No. 7: A reauest for a height variance in order to construct an addition to Condominium Unit E-6, Lot P. Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. 141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. Item No. 8: A reauest for an amendment to the approved access plan for Lots 5 and 6. Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. 146 and 126 Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne 19 PEC Minutes 10/8/90 Meeting Ttem No. 9: A request for a variance to allow a satellite dish in the Gore Creek 50' setback and a request for a floodplain modification an Lot 3, Block 1. Biahorn 1st addition, 3907 Lupine Drive. Applicant: Ron oelbaum Item No. 10: A request for a conditional use Hermit in order to sell beer at wholesale and to sell beer, for off-site cansum~tion at 143 E. Meadow Drive., Lot P. Block 5D. Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: First Brewery of Vail/Dean Liotta Item Na. 11: A request for a for a mayor change to existing development approval for The Va11ev. Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer Item No. 12: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade Villaqe. Area C in order to modif~r the Master Development Plan for Lots 39-1 and 39-2 of, the Glen Lyon Subdivision in order to increase the height limitation from 25 ft. to 35 ft. and to, increase the maximum allowable GRFA per lot from 3100 sa. ft. to 5500 sa. ft. Aunlicant: Andrew D. Norris Ttem No. 13: A request for a height variance in order to, canstruct a retaining wall aloha Phase II of the East Vail Bike Path on the North side of Biahorn Road, in the Colorado Department of Highways Right-of-way. Applicant: Town of Vail A motion to table items 7, 9. 10. 11 to October 22. item 8 to November 12. item 12 to November 26, and item 13 indefinitely was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz VOTE: 6-0 TN FAVOR, CONNIE KNIGHT WAS ABSENT' 2a ~ R ~ ~ REVISED 10/8/90 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 8, 1990 RE: A request for a work session for density and setback variances in order to allow construction of an addition to and the remodeling of the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston I. BACKGROUND On May 11, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve density and setback variances in order to allow the construction of additions to the Christiania Lodge. It was the Community Development Department staff's opinion that approval of an increase in density would be a grant of special privilege and therefore the staff had recommended the request be denied. At the time the PEC considered the 1987 redevelopment proposal, public hearings had been held to review the Vail Village Master Plan. However, the plan was still in draft form and had not been formally adopted by Council. The Goals and Objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan supported the 1987 remodeling proposal and therefore the PEC voted to approve the density and setback variances. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, no building permit has been requested so no construction has occurred. _ A comparison of the 1987 redevelopment su~amission, 1990 redevelopment submission and existing conditions follows in the Description of the Proposal section of this memo. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REMODEL Mr. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania Lodge, proposes to add a third floor to the existing structure, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a porte corchere, to expand Sarah's Bar, and to add common area to the Lodge under this proposal. This request will require density and setback variances. The following is a summary of the development proposal: • 1 • A. Ground Floor (Garden Levell -(1 dwelling unit @ 511 sq. ft.) Changed from D.U. to A.U. is a result of microwave removal. (kitchen -(6) 7 acc~.~„~~odation units @ 1563 sq. ft. + 511 = 2074 sq. ft. -Common area @ 2179 sq. ft. -Chateau mechanical area @ 271 sq. ft. -Christiania Realty Office (conditional use permit has been obtained) @ 237 sq. ft. B. First Floor -(1 dwelling unit @ 551 sq. ft.) Changed to A.U. -(7) 8 acc~.~~~~~odation units @ 1775 sq. ft. + 551 = 2326 sq. ft. -Common area @ 1422 sq. ft. -Airlocks @ 141 sq. ft. -Restaurant @ 1178 sq. ft. -Fireplaces: 2 C. Second Floor -(5) 1 dwelling unit @ (2054) 492 sq. ft. Changed 4 . D.U.S to A.U.s -(7) 11 accommodation units @ 2053 sq. ft. + 1562 361.5 sq. ft. -Common area @ 623 sq. ft. -Fireplaces: 2 D. Third Floor !Apartment Level}. -2 dwelling units East unit @ 2135 sq. ft. West Unit @ 2156 sq. ft. = 4291 sq. ft. -Common area @ 164 sq. ft. -Fireplaces: 4 E. Mechanical Loft -Mechanical @ 205 sq. ft. -Common area 2 13 sq. ft. F. All fireplaces are gas except for one wood burning unit in Sarah's Bar. Nate: summary of Total Sq, ft. 3 D.U.s at 4783 sq. ft. 26 A.U.s at 8015 sq. ft. ~ 13 D.U.s • 2 • III. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED A. 20o Common Area Variance Common area includes halls, closets, lobbies, stairways and common enclosed recreation facilities. The allowed common area on this site is 2,646 sq. ft. Presently, 2,255 sq. ft. of common area exists. The proposal adds 2,192 sq. ft. of additional hall space, lobby area, accessory office, and storage. A variance is necessary for the 2,192 sa. ft. of common area over the allowable of 2.646 sa. ft. B. Setback Variances The Public Accommodation zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the lodge. A zero setback exists on the east side of the property as the Christiania Lodge connects directly with the Chateau Condominiums to the east. A 17 foot setback exists on the west side of the property as the southwest corner of the building encroaches three feet into the 20 foot setback area. The rear setback is 20 feet. The proposed additions will further encroach into the front, rear and west-side setbacks. A proposed Porte cochere off of the main entrance will have a support column that will be located at the property line. A zero setback is needed for the subuort column. The roof of the Porte cochere would also overhana 3 feet onto the t~ublic riaht-of-way. The roof overhang would not extend beyond the existing 3 foot planter encroachment. The proposed Christiania Realty Office's covered entrance at the northwest end of the site will encroach 11 ft. into the setback. Currently the corner of the building at this location encroaches 5'-6" into the setback. With the construction of the covered entrance, the resulting setback would be 9'-0". • Two additions are proposed to the front facade of the . building. One of the additions is a new entry to Sarah's lounge, the other is to the lobby. These two additions will not encroach any further into the front setback then the 1'-6" the existing face of the building currently encroaches. The covering of the entrance to Sarah's Bar will not extend beyond the existing 6'-6" planter encroachment. The western most addition will encroach 8 ft. into the rear setback. At this same location the 3rd floor apartment overhang encroaches l0 ft. into the rear setback and a second floor deck overhang encroaches 14 ft. into the rear setback. Because the second floor deck overhang encroaches the greatest amount into the rear setback, a variance is necessary for the 14 ft. encroachment. The final addition to occur on the site is the expansion of Sarah's Bar. This expansion will not encroach into required setbacks. In addition to the above mentioned encroachments, to the front, west-side and rear setbacks, the roof overhang on the proposed new lobby addition will project into the zero east-side setback situation. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: Public Acc~,~~~~~odation B. Site Area: .38 acres or 16,540 sq. ft. C. Density: (25 d.u.s allowed per acre, 1 d.u = 2 a.u.) Allowed: 9 d.u.s = 18 a.u.s Existing: 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.s Existing over allowable: 5.5 d.u.s 1987 Proposed: 1 d.u. and 28 a.u. = 15 d.u.s 1990 Proposed: (6} 3 d.u.s and (20) 26 a.u.s = 16 d.u.s 1990 Difference from existing: 1.5 d.u.s Total amount over allowed after 1990 remodel: (7} 5.5 d.u.s . 4 D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. of . buildable site area.} Allowed: 13,232 sq. ft. Existing: 7,397 sq. ft. 1987 Proposed: 10,075 sq. ft. 1990 Proposed: 12,758 sq. ft. Remaining after 1990 redevelopment: 474 sq. ft. E. Common Area: (20~ of allowable GRFA) Allowed: 2,646 sq. ft. Existing: 2,255 sq. ft. 1987 Proposed: 4,220 sq. ft. or 30~ of allowable GRFA 1990 Proposed: 4,447 sq. ft. ar 59.5 of allowable GRFA 1990 amount over allowed: 1,801 sq. ft. F. Accessory: Christiania Realty Office and Sarah's Bar (10% of allowable GRFA}: Allowed: 1,323 sq. ft. Existing: 780 sq. f.t • 1987 Proposed: 1,146 sq. ft. 1990 Proposed: 1,415 sq. ft. 1990 amount over allowed: 92 sq. ft. G. Setbacks: Required: 20 ft. all sides Existing Front 15 ft. East Side 0 ft. West Side 17 ft. Rear 20 ft. H. Site Coverage: (.55 of site area) Allowed: 9,097 sq. ft. Existing: 5,235 sq. ft. 1987 Proposed: 6,090 sq. ft. 1990 Proposed: 5,984 sq. ft. 1990 Remaining: 3,113 sq. ft. 5 1990 Proposed 0 ft. 0 ft. 5'-6" encroachment 14' encroachment . I. Landscaping: (30~ of site area) Required: 4,962 sq. ft. Existing: 7,490 sq. ft. 1987 Proposed: 6,635 sq. ft. 1990 Proposed: 5,943 sq. ft. J. Height: Allowed: 48 ft. sloping roof 45 ft. flat roof Existing: 36 ft. sloping Proposed: approximately 44 ft. flat K. Parking: Existing Use # Spaces Proposed # Spaces Accommodation Units: 25 units = 17 Dwelling Units: 2 units = 4 Sarah's Lounge: 6 Realty Office: 1 Christiania Condos: 9 Total 37 or 37 spaces required 34 on site 3 spaces grandfathered (20) 26 units =(14) 18.4 ( 6) 3 units -(17) 6.5 8 1 9 (49) 42.9 ar 43 or (49) 43 spaces required - 3 arandfathered (46) 40 spaces which must be provided to mee parking requirements. V. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The following is a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Objectives which relate to this project: GOAL #~1, - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Ob`iective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. s 1.2.1 Policv: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3..1 Policv: The development of short term acc~s,u~~odation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are 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, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and c~~«~«ercial • facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. • f 4.1 Ob-i ective Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the difference roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. GOAL #5 - INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE Sub-Area Concept No. 8: "Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." The Urban Design Guide plan calls out for the path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The addition of a stone foot path would be a positive .improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village area. • Even though the path was originally proposed for the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash room far Cyrano's as well as several utility boxes which make it an unpleasant area to walk through. VII. WORK SESSION DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Setback variances. 2. Upgrading of existing parking area through paving and landscaping. The applicant needs to demonstrate how the required parking will be provided. Staff would like to see the applicant upgrade the existing Christiania parking lot located across the street from the lodge as a part of this proposal. Vail Associates owns the entire lot and uses the western portion of the parking area. The Christiania has a long term lease with Vail Associates far the eastern half of the lot. • a Staff will require that the applicant landscape the entire lot and asphalt the portion of the lot which is leased. Plant materials should be placed along the southern and northern periphery of the lot in order to screen the lot from adjacent properties and pedestrian ways. The provision of this landscaping was a condition for approving the plan in 1987. 3. Construction o£ Mi11 Creek Path/Trash Enclosure. Staff suggests the applicant construct a foot path with a small seating area along the east side of Mill Creek. The path would be an informal stepping stone path with a seating bench adjacent to the creek. The path would be located between the Christiania split rail fence and Mill Creek. 4. Screening of trash enclosure and Relocation onto applicant's property. Staff will require that the applicant relocate and construct a trash enclosure to screen the lodge's trash area. Currently the lodge's dumpster and a portion of a paved parking area is located on V.A. awned property adjacent to Mill Creek. The Town proposes to construct an off-street loading area for the Village on this . property in addition to the above mentioned Mill Creek path in order to allow for the construction of the Mill Creek path and to allow for the construction of an off- street loading area, this paved area should be removed and the dumpster located on Christiania property. The construction of the Mill Creek Path and Trash Enclosure were also conditions for approving the plan in 1987. 5. Porte corchere encroachment. 6. Condominium Notification of redevelopment proposal. 7. Lease on parking--is an off-site parking approval required from Council or is arrangement with Vail Associates a grandfathered situation. • 9 i. . I. ..~}~` `L' +'l ~ ~ ' ' , ', ~ ,~,. ,J, ~~ ~` . ~4. o ahi .~ ~_~ rr ~ +', h ~ ~ .. ~ ` / ,. .. .. _~.r.,.,...._.~.~.,__,_r...:.,...,... .,...._._. i• ' ° ~ ~ f. c i f .. ~, .. ?i, ' _... ~ , I ~~ ~ ~~~ ,. i• • ~~= .,:~ .-~ . y: .j ' .~''~,~,1 ~J •w .. ~:z ., ;, . ;~ 1. :~ I_ ~ ~u ~.;,F < ~~ ~ ~ cr~~ l (}. i ,: ;~~ ~ tl ~, ~ , ~ II II I~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 'N t, ~ _ k:~i' i \~ , i. IIII{ i~',..,. r. 1 ~ ~ r', ~.. ,~ • i• i• _.. . •,_ s:...,. `;~; r_ '~N . ~ .tS .. - i;' ..11 . - ~. '#. •t., I" I 31 ;t, I .. ,. ~ 1, ii1 ~ti~~ - j~l ~~ ~ ~ ~ y+1~1 .: ~... y• °at i::i,°j.,~ . •Y.. I~i~;a ~ ~ ~ 1' .{ • L i7 ~ - S ~. ,.~,~..i ., t _~~ Fy a '~ 4 1s 1• 1 dry ^'~l ~~~~ ~ ~;~# }~ :til ~ kl' `t.i i V 1 rtr I` I illf IIIVI Illl 1 ~ , . . l~~~I 1 I~L If~~ `L`L ~ ' i • Il~fi~~ _- - i~ ~~.~~~ ~ I~~1r~~1~4 ?~ . ..: , .. ~. I,- ~p ., ^'~ V '• S, 1• ~•~ } ~ `: _ .. ~ ~, ".ii E v 5~4 ~ '~ ;~i( • ouv~ro-io~ 'awn uvn iv v~n~~~.~stat ~~, x dI~ t !~~ I ref{~ ~' ...._ ft~___ I ~.I I. _ I. I - __ . _ ~I .l--.. .~ ~ ~ I .. .... ~ ~Til, ~i_i.a_ ~ I I,_i_~_~_; k~~_~~ - ~ 1..:~:-:- ~ ' . . I- _ 1 ~ I~ _t_i ~i _-_ r_ _ t _-..s iI~_--,.._.. ~ _ -~r T - ' ~ I -'; ~-~ j~ ~: - - - ~--~~-. ,,i k. ,I, ~ . II 1 ~ P ,.i .. I~. ~C ,' ~' III ~ 11/~/U`s l~? 4~ S~j:I, Ijl= ~.____ I,a it i "' ~, lr.,e, _ ' ~ if 1, `till ~l~_._.: '. .. ~~ I ~~., .... _ k I ~~~ ~I I. ~ ~ I~~I i ~ f ~.~ L_L_L ~_;II. ~:.n ~ ~- ~. _. ~ , ~i Iii ~ ~ I~I:I~_l.a,_V~~:~ 1!_I-~-~-i ~~~i ~~ J _.. - ~-`-. ~r~l.).. ~~1' !~ , il! f _l~ ,r v ~~. w. n. ~' i' LIB I~ _ ~F ~. y~ i I ~ ~ __ 4J1 ~ ~, ~~ ~,li~ r~' III ._f~ , ~f. ` X15 r. •, ~Ji' `'t `'~ q ~ ~~ ,. ~I'r ~ ~ i till ~I ~ ~ I d a c~, i," }~. 0 ~= ~: w x 0 z T ?- ~ i• i ~ ~~~k¢~ -- -~ :~~r~_~_ ,~ 0 i• --. ., ~~ ::~~ :~ } ~~ ~ ~_ fi ~ . ..-~ . ~~ ~~, ~, ~. o ~~ C~ ,, T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development/Tom Braun PATE: October 8, 1990 RE: Amendments to Site Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area I. INTRODUCTION: REASONS FOR AMENDMENTS The bulk and mass of residential development has historically been controlled by building height and site coverage regulations. A limit on square footage, traditionally used to control density for non-residential development, has increasingly been used by communities as a third factor in controlling building bulk and mass. These zoning tools are used in Vail and each plays a role in ultimately defining the scale of residential development in the town. In addition to the well documented problems with regard to enforcement and administration, the ability of these regulations to effectively control bulk and mass has been questioned. Existing inadequacies in site coverage and . gross residential floor area (i.e. loopholes), have become evident over the past few years. Generally, the problems with the Town's bulk and mass controls are: GRFA The existing "credit system" creates many administrative problems and the definition does not effectively limit the development of floor area. Site Coverage The organization of site coverage regulations is confusing and the definition allows for development in excess of the regulation's intent. Buildina Height While there are some isolated difficulties in measuring building height, these problems were not considered a high priority and are not addressed as a part of this amendment process. It should be noted, however, that during the public meeting process a number of architects requested very slight increases in allowable building height for structures on steep slopes. Amendments to site coverage and GRFA are designed to simplify administration, close loopholes and prevent development that is inconsistent with the intent of the regulations. In quantifiable terms, the following amendments propose little change to existing regulations, • 1 • The maxa.mum allowable site coverage is still 20~ of the site area and GRFA essentially remains a .25 ratio of building to site area (for single family, two family and primary/secondary lots}. Amendments center around definition changes that clarify how site coverage and GRFA will be measured. The following amendment proposals to GRFA and site coverage have been developed over the past few months during meetings with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} Task Force and at joint Council/PEC sessions. II. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (proposed definition) 18.04.130 Floor area, gross residential !GRFA) Gross residential floor area (GRFA} means the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior structural walls (i.e. not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes}. GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical chases, vents, storage areas, attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces ar patios, as described below. A. Single Family, Two-Family, Primary/Secondary, and Hillside Residential development shall exclude the following areas from calculation as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces ner allowable dwelling unit. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above (attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be exempt from calculation provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart}. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or leSS of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth or structural floor to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. • 2 . 4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios with no mare than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not Less than 25~ of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace or patio, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as defined above. Deductions from the total square footage shall then be made for garages, attics, crawl spaces and covered ar roofed decks as defined in paragraphs 1 through 4 above. III. GRFA Ratio The proposed GRFA definition does two things. First, it simplifies the method of calculating GRFA by eliminating all allowances and credits (with the exception of garages) and by including all floor area within the exterior walls of a structure in GRFA calculations. Secondly, the definition reduces the amount of square footage that can be built on a lot. The resulting reduction in GRFA is not an objective of this effort and therefore the following modifications~to the GRFA ratio are nranosed in order to compensate for the decrease in allowable GRFA scruare footsore. A. Analysis of GRFA Changes: In terms of how GRFA is measured, the following changes will be made through this amendment (square footage indicated is on a per unit basis): Credits Credits for storage (200 sq. ft.}, airlocks (25 sq. ft.) and mechanical (50 sq. ft.) space will be eliminated. Square footage for these credits (275 sq. ft. per unit), will be added to the GRFA ratio on a per unit basis but only if the unit is constructed. In the past, credits were given based on the allowable number of units per lot. For example, an a duplex Iot, if only one unit was built, the owner could still utilize 400 sq. ft. of storage, even if the second unit was not constructed. Stairwells and Elevator Shafts Under the existing definition, stairwells and elevator shafts are counted as GRFA at the lowest level only. The proposed definition will count stairwells and elevator shafts at each level. Based on minimum building code requirements for stairs, 150 square feet will be added to the GRFA ratio. . 3 • "Covered Roofs or Decks" Covered or roofed spaces that are enclosed by no more than 3 walls and that are less than 25~ open will now count as GRFA (See GRFA definition, item No. ~). "Habitable Soace" The term "habitable space" has been eliminated from the GRFA definition. This term allowed the construction of "void spaces" throughout units. Crawl Sbace and Attics The proposed GRFA definition is designed to count everything within the enclosing walls of a structure as GRFA. The only areas not calculated as GRFA are attics and crawl spaces that satisfy floor to ceiling height requirements (See GRFA definition items Nos 2 and 3). This is essentially unchanged from existing regulations. A 12 sq. ft. opening is allowed to access the crawl space, instead of the current nine sq. ft. Miscellaneous Spaces Interior spaces such as vents, flues, fireplaces, landings and bay windows now count as GRFA. 50 sq. ft. has been added to the GRFA ratio to compensate far this change. Measurements Square footage is still measured from the interior face of exterior walls. However, the "interior face" has been clarified to prevent wall modifications designed to reduce square footage. Garaae Allowance This is the only "credit" remaining in the proposed system. No change is proposed to this section. A single family lot would have a maximum garage allowance of 600 sq. ft. A primary/secondary or duplex lot may have a garage allowance of up to 1200 sq. ft. even if only one unit is constructed as the allowance is based on allowable units. While the actual numbers will vary due to building design, it is estimated that under the proposed GRFA definition, if no compensation were made for square footage, approximately 950 square feet of floor area would be taken away from each duplex and P/S lot in the Town. This 950 sq. ft. number is based on the following existing credits, average stairwell area, and void areas: . 4 • Duplex, Primary/Secondary or Single Family Hillside Residential Storage Credit 200 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft. Airlock Credit 25 sq. ft. 50 sq. ft. Mechanical Credit 50 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. Overlapping Stairs 150 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. Flues, Vents, Bay Windows 50 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. Total 475 sq. ft. 950 sq. ft. In order to compensate for square footage which would be lost if the proposed amendments are adopted, it is necessary to modify the existing GRFA calculations by building 950 square feet back into the system for each duplex and p/s lot and 475 square feet for each single family lot. Caretaker units allowed in certain single family zone districts or hillside residential zone districts will also be allowed to utilize 475 sq. ft. L' Increasing the existing .25 GRFA ratio is the most direct way to add square footage to a lat. Allowable GRFA is based on lot size; the larger the lot, the more GRFA allowed. As a result, it is difficult, if not impossible to modify the existing ratio so that all lots receive 950 square feet or 475 sq. ft. - increasing the ratio will "award" more square footage to larger lots than smaller ones. While many alternatives have been studied for building this square footage back into the system, the mast equitable way to compensate far the reduction in square footage under the new definition is to add 475 square feet per unit to the existing .25 ratio. Essentially this is what is now being done now under the existing credit system. B. Language far Amendments: The recommended alternative will amend the density control section of the Two-Family, Primary/Secondary and Hillside Residential zone districts to read: 1. Density Cantral - Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Zone Districts Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots less than fifteen thousand square feet. The following GRFA shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area; plus b. Ten square feet of GRFA for each ane hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thausand square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area; plus c. Five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. In addition to the above, four hundred seventy-five square feet of gross residential floor area {GRFA} shall be permitted for each constructed dwelling unit. 2. Density control - Single Family Not mare than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site. The following GRFA shall be permitted on each site: • a. Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first twelve thausand five hundred square feet of site area; plus b. Ten square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area over twelve thousand five hundred square feet. In addition to the above, four hundred seventy-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each constructed dwellings unit. 3. Density Control - Hillside Residential Not more than ane dwelling unit plus ane caretaker unit shall be permitted on each site. The following GRFA shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty square feet of site area, plus • s b. Five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred • square feet of site area over twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty square feet. In addition to the above, four hundred seventy-five square feet of gross residential floor area {GRFA) shall be permitted for each constructed dwelling unit. IIT. 82TE COVERAGE (proposed definition) 18.04.360 Site coverage Site coverage means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of the site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls, or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include, but not be limited to eaves or roof overhangs in excess of 4 ft., buildings, garages, carports, port cocheres, arcades, and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces and patios, The most significant change resulting from this new definition is that building cantilevers and all overhanging roofed areas will now count as site coverage, These changes address what is probably the most significant issue regarding the existing site • coverage regulations - portions of buildings that add considerable bulk to structures are not always counted as site coverage. In order to implement this change, the wording of site coverage control in each zone district (with the exception of CCI and CCII), will be changed to read as follows: "Site coverage shall not exceed X % of the total site area". This change is designed to eliminate the confusing manner in which site coverage is presented in the code. Under existing regulations, three different terms (site coverage, building and structure), are used to define site coverage. In some cases, these terms conflict with each other. This modification will clarify the intent and administration of this regulation. This amendment does not address construction disturbance on steep lots, vaulted ceilings or houses with "U-shaped" courtyards. Staff will address site disturbance, revegetation and overall site planning during the amendment process for the Design Review Guidelines. It is staff's opinion that these issues can best be handled through guideline amendments as opposed to the site coverage amendment. IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THERE AMENDMENTS • These amendments will take effect fallowing review and approval by the Town Council. At that time, all new development proposals will be required to comply with these regulations. Approved development under construction at the time the amendments take affect shall be allowed to be completed as approved under previous regulations. The issue of how to address development proposals that are in the review process, but not yet approved, is less clear. The issue of vested rights is a complex legal question. The Town Attorney has provided the Town Council with a proposal that will clarify the town's position an vested rights. This proposal has direct ramifications on how these amendments will affect proposals in the review process. Additional information on this issue will be provided during the review of these amendment proposals. There is at least one example of an existing 5DD (The Dauphinais Subdivision, SDD No. 22) where GRFA on single family lots is established by ordinance. In this case, the project is affected by the GRFA definition change, but does not benefit from the new GRFA ratio (because the GRFA is set by ordinance). Amendments to this SDD will be initiated to modify the permitted GRFA or "grandfather" the use of existing credits. V. RECOMMENDATION When evaluating these amendments, it is important to understand the purpose, and limitations of zoning regulations. A basic premise of zoning is that regulations apply uniformly to all projects and all parcels throughout the Tawn. While this assures consistent treatment, it does not account far unique site characteristics or unique design proposals. Development must "fit" into the parameters established by the zoning regulations. As a result, there is a limit to what zoning can do to control. and define development that will occur in Vail. There will always be examples of development that "seems appropriate" or "acceptable", but does not fit zoning standards. Likewise, there will be development that meets zoning standards, but for other reasons may be considered "unacceptable". In the case of the former, the variance process is in place to review proposals that deviate from zoning requirements. In the latter situation, Vail's design review guidelines provide a final measure of control over development. a Design review and the variance process provide both flexibility and control in the development review process - a level of flexibility and control not found in zoning standards, Design review and the variance process are the mechanisms available to respond to unique or special circumstances. There will always be sites with unique characteristics (physical hardships), that will warrant relief from zoning standards. Likewise, design review provides an avenue for modifying an inappropriate design that otherwise satisfies zoning standards. While "field testing" has been done during the development of these regulations, there is no way to definitively state what impact these proposals will have on new development. There are unique circumstances involved in every development, and no single zoning regulation can be expected to address every situation that may arise. Zoning controls provide a framework for guiding development. The design guidelines, and to a lesser degree the variance process, will ultimately determine the characteristics of new development. Amendments to the GRFA and site coverage definitions may not solve every "perceived" problem with development in Vail. Some may consider these changes a further encumbrance on development, while others may regard them as not going far enough to control development. zn evaluating these amendment proposals, it is important to consider the underlying goals of this effort: 1. To clarify the intent of the regulations; and 2. To simplify the administration of the regulations; and 3. To close the loopholes inherent in existing regulations. The proposed amendments will accomplish these goals and objectives. These proposed amendments mark the first step towards the comprehensive revision of the Town of Vaii Zoning Code. Many other amendments will be presented over the next year. These amendments will be accomplished based on a work program as defined by the staff, PEC and Council. wp:pecgrfa 9/13/90 • s To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development/Tom $raun DATE: October 8, 1990 RE: Amendments to the Pay in Lieu Parking Program T. TNTR4DUCTI~N The parking section of the zoning code has allowed for certain areas of the Town to be designated exempt from on-site parking requirements since 1973. It was not until 1982, in conjunction with the adoption of the Village and Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plans, that the present parking program was established. The purposes of the program are to minimize vehicular traffic in the pedestrian areas of the Village and Lionshead and allow property owners an alternative for meeting parking demand that may be created by remodels or infill development in these areas. To achieve these goals, the program requires property owners to pay far parking demand created by new devel~~,.,,ent in lieu of providing parking on-site. There are two main issues with the program that are addressed by these amendments. 1} Any property located in the CCI or CCII zone districts is required to participate in this program. However, there are many properties, particularly in Lionshead, that are located a considerable distance from the Mall and have vehicular access that does not affect the pedestrianized area of the Ma11. Allowing these properties to pay in lieu of providing parking on-site is inconsistent with the goals of the program. 2} As written, any property in CCI and CCII can remove existing on-site parking and pay into the parking fund to compensate for the spaces. There are benefits to removing spaces from the Village core, however, there are many other properties where the removal of existing spaces will provide no public benefit, The entire pay in lieu parking program, as outlined in section 18.52.160, will be repealed and reenacted. The most significant change to this section is that the Village and Lionshead will be addressed separately. The amendment will also set forth the specific conditions in which the parking program may be used to satisfy parking requirements in these two areas. Tl. BUMMARY OF CHANGES The following is a brief summary of the mayor changes proposed to the parking program. Paraaraoh A. The introduction has been expanded and a purpose statement for the parking program has been added. An additional finding (compliance with the Town's Master Plan), to be made by the Council when exempting an area has also been added. The reference to loading areas has been deleted because this program is implemented far parking spaces only. Paraaraoh B. Paragraph B lists the two approved exempted areas, the Village and Lionshead, and specifies haw the program can be used in these areas. The only change to Vail Village is that the Lodge at Vail and Lodge Tower Condominiums will no longer be able to utilize the program to remove existing spaces. This property is singled out because it has vehicular access off of Vail Road that does not directly impact the Village Core. These properties would still utilize the parking program for any parking demand created by new development. There are many changes to how the program can be used in Lionshead. First, the area eligible for participation in the program has been reduced to those properties with frontage on the Lionshead Ma11. Second, the program can only be used for meeting parking demand created by new development or a change of use - the program cannot be used to compensate for removing existing spaces. Finally, if a property is demolished and rebuilt, the parking demand cannot be met through payment into the program. The reason far this last change is that if a building is demolished, it is then feasible to construct additional off- street parking parking on-site, Paraaraoh C. This paragraph outlines details pertaining to the implementation of the program. A number of these changes simply consolidate and reorganize how information is presented. The payment schedule has been changed from the anniversary of the building permit to the anniversary of the first payment, the property owners signature is now required on the promissory note (if the applicant is not the owner), security for any unpaid balance will be provided in the form of a deed of trust on the property in which the parking fund is owed, and a provision requiring a minimum payment of $1,000 per space has been deleted. 2 While fees assessed by the parking program have been discussed, the current fees of $3,000 per "commercial" space and $5,440 per "residential" space are not changed by this amendment proposal. A Town Council work session to discuss the fee structure is scheduled for October 23. If they are to be made, changes to the parking fees will not be known until after this meeting. The staff would like to procede with amendments to this section of the code as proposed, and initiate any changes to the fee structure at a later date. • Tmplementating the changes proposed by these amendments would not be affected by subsequent changes to the fee structure. Section 18.52.180 This section of the parking regulations states that any parking variance shall be required to contribute to the parking fund. This section essentially implies that "pay in lieu" can be done anywhere in the Town through the variance process. This provision is in direct conflict with the purpose of the parking program. The section should be deleted. III. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL The following is the entire parking exemption section of the code: 18.52.160 PARKING EXEMPTIONS: A. There are unique areas in certain parts of the Town that will benefit by prohibiting the construction of new off-street parking facilities and by the gradual elimination of existing off-street parking facilities. The Town Council, by resolution, may exempt certain areas from the off-street parking standards that require off-street parking to be located on site if alternative means will meet the off-street parking needs of the area. The purposes of exempting an area from off street parking standards are to reduce vehicular traffic in pedestrianized areas and provide property owners in pedestrianized areas an alternative for satisfying parking demand created by new development. • In lieu of providing off-street parking on site, property owners or applicants in exempted areas shall satisfy parking requirements by contributing to the town parking fund (herein referred to as the Parking Program}. In recognition of the unique characteristics of these areas, specific conditions and limitations on the use of the Parking Program may be imposed on an exempted area. Prior to exempting any area from the off-street parking requirements of this chapter, the town council shall determine the following: 1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempt and in the interests of the town at large; 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere iii the Town; 3, That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempt; 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for . tha provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by alI uses in the area to be exempted; 5. That the exemption of any area shall be consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. B. Approved exempted areas and conditions or limitations on the implementation of the Parking Program in these areas include the following: 1. Vail Village a. Applicability ~ A11 properties located in the Commercial Core I zone district shall be required to participate in the parking program to meet parking requirements in accordance with this chapter. • ~ b. The Parking Program in Vail Village shall be used to satisfy parking requirements created by new development, improvements, or any change of use, as required by this chapter. c. In order to reduce vehicular traffic in the pedestrian areas of Vail Village, all properties located in the Commercial Core I zone district, with the exception of Lot 5C, Vail Village First Filing, (commonly known as the Lodge at Vail and the Lodge Tower Condominiums), may utilize the Parking Program to compensate for the removal of any existing off-street parking spaces. 2. Lionshead a. Applicability - A11 properties as indicated on the Lionshead Parking Program Overlay Map shall be required to participate in the parking program to meet parking requirements in accordance with this chapter. b. The Parking Program in Lionshead shall be used to satisfy the parking requirements created by new development, improvements, or any change of use in existing development, as required by this chapter.TTie parking program shall not be used to compensate far the removal of any existing off-street parking spaces. c. The Parking Program shall not be used to satisfy the parking requirement created by the redevelopment of a property involving the demolition of an existing building. The parking demand of such redevelopment shall be satisfied with off-street parking located on- site, as required by this chapter. C. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop, redevelop or change an existing use on a parcel within an exempted area which would require off-street parking, the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicular parking. 1. The parking fee for uses listed in section 18.52.100, with the exception of dwelling units or accommodation units, shall be three thousand dollars per space. The fee for dwelling and accommodation units shall be . 5 five thousand dollars per space. The parking fee for uses not listed in Section 18.52.100 shall be established by the Town Council. when a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the parking requirement schedule (Section 18.52.100), the parking fee shall be calculated using that fraction. This applies to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on-site requirements. 2. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change of use and not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. 3. The owner or applicant has the option of paying the total parking fee at the time of issuance of a building permit or paying over a five-year period. If payment is to be made over a five year period, the first payment shall be paid on or before the date the • building permit is issued. Four annual payments will be due to the Town of Vail on the anniversary of the first payment. Interest of ten percent per annum shall be paid by the applicant on the unpaid balance. If the owner or applicant chooses to pay the fee over a five year perio3, he or she shall be required to sign a promissory note which describes the total fee due, the schedule of payments, and the interest due. In the event the applicant is not the owner of the property, the owner of record shall also sign the promissory note. The promissory note shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property far which the parking fee has been incurred. 4. If any parking funds have been paid in accordance with this section and if subsequent thereto a special or general improvement district is formed and assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payor shall be credited against the assessment with the amount previously paid. 6 5. The parking fee established by the Town Council shall treat all similarly situated owners and applicants equally. If any payor's funds are not used by the Town for one of the purposes specified in 18.52.16 B. G., within five years from the date of payment, the unused portion of the funds shaX1 be returned to the payor upon his or her application. In accounting for funds expended from the parking fund, the Finance Department shall use a first in/first out rule. 6. The parking fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, the construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. 18.52.180 VARIANCES: This section is deleted. wp:parkamdt 9/29/90 • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 8, 1990 RE: A request for a side setback variance in order to remodel Unit 11 (A and B) of the Vail Rowhouses, 303 Gare Creek Drive, Lot 11, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: B.A. Bridgewater T. DESCRTPTTON OF PROPOSED USE The applicant proposes to remodel Units 11A and 11B and combine them into one dwelling unit. The aspects of the remodel include: removing the fourth floor deck an the north elevation; removing the segment of spiral staircase leading to the fourth floor; changing the windows on both the south and north elevations; expanding the floor area to the north by shifting the walls adjacent to the decks out by one foot; changing the roof from a gravel roof to a gable roof with shake shingles; and reorganizing exterior storage in the courtyard in front of the unit. The remodeled unit will have the same gross residential floor area (GRFA) as the combined area of the existing two units. The variance request is needed specifically to allow the major reconstruction of the roof and to allow the one foot expansion of each floor to the north (See attached plans). The roof design will change; however, the height will not increase. This construction activity is located in the side setbacks because of the way the development was subdivided. The HDMF side setbacks are 20 feet. The Vail Rowhpuses were originally subdivided in a way which created nonconforming side setbacks. The units and lots are approximately 21.5 feet wide, with each unit's side wall being right on the side, property lines. The 20 foot side setbacks overlap, leaving a zero square foot building envelope. It is for this reason that a side setback variance is almost always required for any modifications to the Rowhouses on lots 7-13. (In the 19&0's, a condominium map was filed for lots 1-6, erasing the lot lines separating the units. Side setback variances are not necessarily required for work done on those units.) • l II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: HDMF Lot Area: 2380 square feet Allowed/Required Existing Prouosed GRFA: 1.428 sq. ft. 2387.9 sq. ft. 23$7.$ sq. ft, Site Coverage: 1309 sq. ft. 1067 sq. ft. 1073.5 sq. ft. Height: 45 ft. 36 ft. 36 ft. Setbacks front: 20 ft. 23 ft. 23 ft. rear: 20 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. sides: 20 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Gore Creek: 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. (Note: There is no Gore Creek setback variance needed.) III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 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. The proposed alterations will create a slightly larger area of encroachment into the setbacks, as indicated on the attached floor plans. On the north side, staff believes that the reorganization of the windows and the small expansion of each floor will not create a negative impact on existing structures in the area. There are a wide variety of treatments an each rowhouse, and these changes are along the lines of other remodels in the building, Staff believes that these changes, viewed from the streamwalk or the condominium complex north of Gore Creek, are appropriate for the building and do not negatively impact the surrounding properties. • On the south elevation, the anly apparent change will be the roof. Staff believes this change is an improvement in the relationship between this rowhouse and the other structures in the ~ricinity because it adds visual interest to the building and does not block views from the units an either side. 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a staecified regulation is necessary to achiever comr~atibility and uniformity of treatment among site in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special orivileae. The Vail Rowhouses have iat configurations which make it almost impossible to modify the units without variances. In fact, the exiting units already encroach significantly into the required side setbacks. These encroachments are due to the fact that the Lots are very narrow. Staff believes that there are extraordinary circumstances due to the original lot layouts of the Vail Rowhouses and that approval of the variance request would not be a grant of special privilege. Other Vail Rowhouses have received similar setback variances for remodels. • 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of oouulation. transportation. and traffic facilities. Aublic facilities and utilities and public safety. The staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. 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: • Z. 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 ar enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request, as we believe it meets the criteria and the findings far a variance. It is not a grant of special privilege because other variance applications have been approved for similar requests. The proposal is not potentially injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. bastly, staff finds that the location of the lot lines is an extraordinary circumstance that is not typically found in the HDMF zone district and that other property owners in the same development have received variances from the strict interpretation of the zoning code for similar types of requests. c:\mo\bridgewater • ~ 2: ,a ~ ~ l '[C ~ i~ . \ ,' r ~ i ~ , 4, ~~ ~; ~ti ~~ ., ~~~~ i u e~ItY~e~rat4c ~~. t ~: vq~,um . , ~ - .L . I I I 3~ . . ~~ ----~- ----- -_ ~ ~- ~.. .~~ I t~ ~f: u f ~ ;u .tire ~ ~ ~~~ iyE ~s~, js >!~ ~~: 3 r `~^ > •e~ . #~VJ v~i~N -_. _~ - ~' New v~t-I~ 1 . ,,. r + ~;x ~. a - -.. _ _.... .. i A J+ ' ~ _. _ ~1JrtiFti ~riFa/ _' F~ ~.... ~..~~ ~~ Lam. 5 ~:.n"%' :,.3{:: t~t:.~~ti~'',._,y ~ ~ ~~L~ _ I 19 '~~ i (~~f4 ` Iti^ i __ i ~ ..M~~ t- ~?~i~-1~ 1~1k~ 1 'I is i+ ~~ ~~ '• '~ ~ @~ ~~ `r .. 7 3 q ~, + y Nom' wE~-ts~?-- - ~ ~ ( ,, ~ f,' ~J~1. wl S ~ H'. iY~ a .< ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~4/. ~ r -bt > 1( - yy.~4`~ i W~ ~ 4 '19NtS/3 #i~l - ~r N~7 ~ Y~(~V~~[..J~~+' `~^ ' O r I u y`• ;,~~7'' i • Ta~~ ~ ~: ' . ,fir{~.:; ~ _ ~ .,:~<. "' ~ y s1 _ ~ It T ..: ~,r .. [I' ,3 . ~ ;,>r,~ 4{i ` fti' _1.x.11 r ~ ~.'~~ ~.... .` r *~ ~^ :,~ c ~-s ~ i s `~ j"17'*~'.~i'fr-} yd'^' -~ tT r' ~~.. ~t(!yil it l"~{KJ~Xt] 7 ... ~,. 111 j,ry(y• ~ ~r ~k r .i . y;.-~,~.5. _~M! .'~ • '+~ / °g y •° • 4 • _ i1: , ~: 1~; - - ~ ". t f ~ t ~. :~ ~ of ,., k ~° ~``,. ~ 1~~ ~ )' - , - ' - ~ - - ...~~ ,' }~. 1` 1 d: 'trl~t'~!,"~rE~ A3` Owl r .. ~ ~: r .n -'awl ^~r',arrJkt,.t. .}~ t 71 T'"~ rK"C; j'~f1f7NyM I N f1lFl r~ T~ TO ROOM r IAN i~Ea {4} ~~ r , s"` .: ~ ~' _ T t7, _:i'4..^~a~{ "'~~.~~x'~',xy"~.>. Y~'L~f': ;~, ~' !'ks #f .LS!`, `,~' . ' _.. 'n{,~°5~ r .. ` ~~cy, ~ ~' r ~ t~fi r"~, r•w'P+ ~ w y ~,+, r a y ,," •' ~ r '~ ~Fi ~r tr ~•,t~ ~' ~ S~•, R0011~ 14Ah!/NLNY~LR' ~wCE1~iNO NT. t ~=,r r• 'IpP - :~'r X~~~ti +~ai ~, ~~•' +'}~ ~ a'yV ~MMI~!!l'~l6f,i. ~ kf ;^<#tLdOQ t+rs~.i`' s .tis r ri •'+-.-~~''' .'f~~Yr$r-i,' •1r ' _ ~~ ~~ ri„ ,ih t' ' v',r~~ 4. .. •WA6L$,.` _' . . ~CZ'ILIHG ~" si.- .. rQQ.rti~ At 6C~ ~~wr ' taMllQ TIL!• . ' ~,•tlxTi. C ~' L! L r ~_ xr~Tll~ML ~s 4t9lfl~'P ~'lak7 ii~~? ~T +4'~,~. 4~ y~~! A~ CEO Or `, F D,N L ~'r 1QevrW.roopvw-~4 ~r' • ~ Y e~:.:11,1 !~ ~ S ~ ~ }~ 74[1! A~.1gIQ Q W+~l`. ~, ! ft .yyyT~~ts _T~~ ~ L .1 »;gc~ •:~}~P~:' ~ Mrr . wpL6 ~ ~ '{~~~~ ~~. '/fir} ~fFf4 }C ~ Y N~i ~ ~: +.}l 'ri ~` _ ~e-~ 1 be Y ~.' R k4/i!~..!y.. e,n,~ ~' a1 4..~ `E R , b Y h ry ~ 1.~ ;~ .. _. ~ ... ? OkAPL11C KCT.•10F11-A ~71tiS' c ~ - _ ' °ti ~c' . DIlAMYINO'BYMBOLI3'''sr t f': ,. .,,;,, f ~~ J ~' ~ - Alt!!, .rs- d4l f. ~ ~~ ~ •~...,r . 1..r4r V ~ _ .~.. Z"•r'..) ~ S i~;:..-' ~ ._.r 3 .~.~, l~lvAT1A!•e_~~. - t IOI. ~. ~v: q~~. rja71400 r~ s 'OEOl fq ~`, ~ ~: ~d ,;, . r ~ ~:f.. r i • r w. - -,- `r'• L. l.' 'lMRlf.sr.: - t :"Z. ~ r ~ 3.~ ,n :. .. .. ~•- y. '~! ' ii A2J T1ly~ .r - ~ ~ 4T~.a"-.if ~; ~IA1itt IIINIL~ M r , '.O'' .tfligpl,r7'lylw.,~ '~S w f s~"~f~ ' ` ~'J ~ Kt•w . ~ ,~._: ',., ~ r1 ~ •-.~ r !!1Q-ION MO.;. ~• ~ y • i01V-A1~ilf~f !.:. ~~IAIO ! ' O.':MEf.7,~NtL ~~~~~y~.-~.,t;:. . .. _ .. ... , ~ ~ a 7i- NMb'N ~.' :,'_ r my ~ .~~ f'.... ~~r. ' 7??~~~ 1 . } ry- b : ,SSr:~.~ ~5i;' °.e ~k:- a a ~ ~• ~ r+ r. ~ OITAI) ~1; }r~~ ~ y `r.'.r 1~ L t J `',~~ _ ~ ~ ~F .~+t-.1 hr L~Ef`•'~-r ~ .~l~f ~f111~ n~ At~ llt~.~RTtMlt ~~~'~ !'i ~11tl1r`IIO.;~y.k. • '.'1~Cr .~. r y ~ t ;~ ~J 'r a'~ rl ~ E~* x ~L. ~ '.r~ .3T~~ ~Y' _ ~r'Y~:!:~SL ~~x )~~~s~` ~'{{~~rs~„1.; r~e`.S;°~. - .. .. ]N...i I B. .Q... ~~Yt.Y.i. } T~ iti~~ L .~' . ~. iwf ,A„ pig ,~,I1e .:: Jr 1~. . .. f'n-'1< u r.' §;3: ! 7. ~,r.~%.~ l:J'~i6/;CY~'>.i~~af.'la ~v 1~L ~~ f•~: 5..1.:~ i? t ',~~' I ,.fy.. r.'tP: ,~:r 1.-1 iL~...~ y.. _ • .. * ~. . i '! ~i .~'~ . 'h • ~~~ ~ ... ~ ~ ' t ~ ' ~t' ~ ~ i ~ ~. ~..~Fh ~~ ~ ~ I C. ~ i- ~~ ' _ xtia V ' _ ~ , ~ }~ ' ~ ~ ~ . f r ' a .,. L r ~ ~~ , ~ -~ . 7_{ -i .'.i.. *. ~ , _ ` , - 4H~ Y- ~ .t ~ R~ + ~ FAN 1111 r~ ~ ''.~ a . t~ ! ' _ ..~.. 1 ! ~_i. ~~ - ~.~ E F y ~- ~ ~ - i .~1.~ ;Y. 1 . •, t ^, .. ~~ a ~~~ 1.~1l~_,I~ G~~KSf~;~~ _ ..._ ~~ ~L . ,tit°.. , k~• . ... .. ,. • • .~'~~ ~ .. , ..... . ~_ ~ ~ ~~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 8, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a four foot high set of antennas and an accessory mechanical building on the Solar Vail property located at 501 North Frontage Road/ A portion of Lot 8, Block 2, Vail/Potato Patch. Applicant: Storms Consultants for U.S. West I. DESCRTPTZON OF PROPQSED USE The applicant proposes to construct an antenna system on the roof of Solar Vail to provide cellular phone service in the valley. An accessory building to hold transmission equipment will be constructed immediately east of the building. The "antenna system" is made up of three, four foot high antennas mounted on a two foot high triangular structure. The antennas are approximately 1.5 inches in diameter and are manufactured with a non-reflective surface. The color will be light blue or grey. . The accessory mechanical building will be 12 feet wide, 24 feet long, and 11 feet high and will have a flat roof. It will be located on the east side of the building. The exterior will be finished with wood siding and will be painted to match the existing building. Same site work will be done to provide space for the mechanical building. Anew retaining wall to the north of the building and some stairs to the south will also be installed. The interior of the building will have rows of shelves. They will extend from the floor to the ceiling and will hold the radios that generate the transmissions. The rows of shelves are located in the center of the building to allow adequate ventilation and to allow access to service the radios. The purpose of this proposal is to be one of several transmission sites. The network of antennas work together to blanket the area, guaranteeing high quality transmissions for cellular telephones, The applicants are proposing other antenna sites at Shrine Pass and the other near the I- 70/Minturn exit. This proposal is considered a conditional use because staff has determined that it is a "public utility and public service use." This use is listed as a conditional use in the High Density Multiple Family zone district (HDMF), Section 18.20.030. Although this use does not have a specific • definition in the Town's Zoning code, staff believes that there is a close match between the proposed use, as described above, and this category. The Town of Vail Police Department recently applied for a conditional use to build a 40 foot tower with a ten foot antenna. Staff determined that the proposal was a "public service facility." The design review criteria prohibit roof antennas unless they are approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) as a conditional use (Section 1g.54.o50 (c)7). II. ZONING ANALYSTS Maximum ReauiredlAllowed Existing Prooosed A. Setbacks: front 20' 48' 48' rear 20' 120' 120' east side 20' 50' 38' west side 20' 25' 25' B. Site coverage 55~ 11.6% 12.30 C. Height 45'' 34.8' 40.8' D. GRFA No change as the proposed structure is considered mechanical area. E. Parking No additional parking is required with the additional mechanical space. F. Units There are 24 existing units. Na change is proposed. III.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. Relationsh;in end impa~.t of the use on development objectives of the Town. The objectives listed in the Zoning Code in the purpose section for the HDMF zone district state that: "The high-density multiple-family district is intended to provide sites for multiple-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty-five dwelling units per acre, together with such public • _ and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and res©rt qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district." (Section 18.20.010) This proposal complies with the purpose statement of the zone district as it is a conditional use that is listed in the zone district. 2. The effect of the use on light and air. distribution of pouulation. transportation facilities. utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. The proposal will. have no impact on the Town services listed above. No site parking is removed to allow far the mechanical room. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to, congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control, access. maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parking areas, This use will not impact traffic as it will generate approximately one trip per month. U.S. West/New Vector expects that the mechanical equipment will require a monthly service call. Other than this impact, the proposal does not affect the issues listed above. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The character of the area will b~: affected by the additional mass and bulk of the equipment building and the antenna. The impact on the surrounding • uses from these additions will be minimal because the few surrounding uses are located far from the new building and antenna. The surrounding uses are the Red Sandstone Elementary School, the N. Frontage Road, and I-70. There are no adjacent uses to the north or east. Concerning the school, the new mechanical building will not be visible because it is located on the east side of Solar Vail. Concerning the roads, the speed of drivers on the interstate is such that they are not likely to notice the antenna or building. Because the antenna is short compared to the distance from the antenna to the edges of the roof, it will only be seen from distances greater than 189 feet. From this distance, travelling at b5 miles an hour, drivers are not likely to notice it. Planning staff discussed other options with the consultant. There are two locations to the north of Solar Vail which could accommodate the building. One is between a large retaining wall and the building. This has drawbacks, as it congests the space immediately outside the dwelling units which look out to the north. Another option is to Iocata the building above the retaining wall; however, the wall may not be strong enough to retain the hillside and support the weight of the building. As a result, staff decided that we could support the location on the east side of the building if the applicant mitigated the impacts of additional mass and bulk by improving the appearance of the area. The improvements include ~:nclosing the existing trash dumpster and planting seven spruce and five aspen trees. Staff believes that these improvements will result in more attractive landscaping than is currently around the building. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fo3,lowi.na findings before arantina a conditional use hermit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance, V. STAFF RECOMMENDIITTONS Staff recommends approval of the conditional use proposal. We believe it meets the conditional use criteria as discussed above and that it is in accordance with the purpose section of the HDMF zone district. Staff review has shown that it will be operated in a way that is not detrimental to the Town and that it complies with the provisions of the Municipal Code. We therefore recommend approval with the following conditions: Prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the mechanical building, the applicant shall: A. Screen the dumpster with a five foot high fence; B. Plant seven spruce and five aspen trees in the area between the mechanical building and the N. Frontage Road; and C. Treat the antenna with a non-reflective material, if needed. c:\mo\uswest • ~a5~p ~~ \ ru 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O OW ~ r ~ 313.1 ! .7 S~'j rx .,. e~~o ,a _ .'PROPDS~~ iJSWN~l. - ~ 1\i+ir V~ ~l~ I ~~~~L:i ec, i sf E,mrnC -'~ "" . _. X757./ * f CLY7Cl7~'7~ T ~~ -... _ iz ~rA7~Cr44E rw.l lp.lRsso . ~""'~ sO f1fY R1°W E7XDlbG•St3RJ + tb -,-,.`.. .., {I{.; --~ / ~ m.r ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ a~ ,. ,1:. a~^ a.+ae SMGtF/ r5,%tlr~ ~ to lt1., f nl./ ~ 171.1 ` t 77 i - ~ 19. 1 \ r as~v °r ~~~~~ r7~ca , ,~. .~... '~~ ~ , ~ ..71.1 ,.~ ~r as.t r7 ~~ ~~ . ~Rxn~ eti `' _ 11.7" ' ~ /. 301.9\ ~~. 711 1 ~'•- ~~~ .~~- rr r~ \ '~ .,. Ko fjr 1 Ki Hr`s ~i191 ' 1 370~~ 711.1 / 3 ' hl ! 716.1 ' y~zo -'- ~..~- ~ ~ ie __.._~~ r~ ~ ,r. ~ ~- a ~t .r !0 ~ A6 yip<,1 __. ......~.... ....~,._._._.._. 717.1 ._ ... _.._ ..-.~.- _.-+ 103.1 ~~~ ~~ • eat.e rNrERSrarsracNWar ra/~.o.fs: (NOHrNFRI?N]a&flrl7AA1 E?~15YfNl~ CbNrtwR'1~1~~M~.1~,1 ~xI~T l N ~ coM-rouR ' U.S. l~I~s`I" N~.~Y ..TQ~. !-a~'C3~T', f f~ G, - ~Q~r ~aY ~.r~v~~. Arch ~rt~~~ ~. . M ,. ~ ,~ o ~ ra zo >~T I - ~ O " D I i~l ~ Cx ~~t ~ e t wt` G • • • 3) CF' LULAp ~wre'a' ~YYIE ANTENNAS (TYPICAL} • i ~ PAE~FA$Ri{AtEO ASDUNTINC ""^ PI,Ai£ORIA ON 109 ~F ExISTINC AWi ~~« ~tl z~ ~~ _ .. . ~~ ~} e p~ ~, V" t•~ ~~~ D6L~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ // (2) 4' P.V,C, PIPES (TO 9f PAINTED 7D fAATCFI CpLOR pF fxlsnNc au1LO1NC) _... cDAx CASE {INSIQE P.1'.C. PIAE) AAP~Y YDING TO f0U1P, 9LDC. TO uATCN Cx15TINC 51DIN~ aN $u1Lo1NC. BEJILDING ISOMETRIC NOi t0 SCAIE • ' ~~.~N~ST' .~ ~.~ . NCwvetrotr e~ou~. INC. r[r~c• evl~our~ u[v~ilorss ~ r~.~lvocr, nc{AID ItG~ '[a]vASI • v~k ILHGUd{4. {MAVH )n GAFC_ T "'"-"~I M/nOVAL / bilC I a • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 8, 1990 RE: PEC Special Meetings Schedule Below are listed the upcoming special meetings far the PEC. Please place these dates on your calendar. Penny will call you with the times once the agendas are set, October 9, Tuesday October 16, Tuesday October 17, Wednesday 8:30 a.m. October 29, Monday PEC/Town Council Joint Work Session Special Development Districts and 250 Ordinance. Briefing on GRFA and site coverage. PEC1Town Council Joint Work Session CCI and administration amendments. Zonina Code Task Foree (Diana, Jim, Kathy, and Dalton} Discussion of CCI and Administration amendments. Suecial PEC Meeting Rezoning for Mountain Bell Site: Affordable Housing Development. c:\mo\pecschedule To: Town Counc Joint Work From: Department Date: October 9, Re: Amendments it/Planning and Environmental Commission Session of Community Deve~.apment/Tom Braun 7.990 to the Special. Development District Chapter The following draft of chapter 18.40, special development districts, represents a major revision to how SDD's will be implemented in the future. Clearly, the most significant change to this chapter is the Resort Development Density Bonus Section and Affordable Housing Density Bonus Section. This memo summarizes the major changes proposed to the chapter. Following this summary is an account of issues that were discussed during previous work sessions, but are not incorporated into this amendment proposal. I. MAJOR CHANGES TO SDD~S 18.40.010 Purt~ase No major changes 18.40.020 Definitions No changes 18.40,030 Aoblications Zone districts in which SDD's may be proposed are listed in this section. Four districts, residential cluster, low density multiple family, parking and heavy .service have been added to this list since the last work session. As proposed, property zoned single family, two--family, primary secondary, hillside residential, agricultural open space, greenbelt natural open space and ski base rec are not eligible to req~~est a SDD. 1.8.40.040 Development Review Procedures In addition to minor wording changes, a work session with the planning commission is now required before a formal application for a SDD is made. Notification of this work session will be provide to adjacent property owners, 18.40.050 Submittal Requirements New submittal requirements include a title report, written verification of service from applicable utility companies, a description of employees generated by the development and a statement outlining the development objectives achieved by deviations from the property's underlying zone district (if applicable}. 1 18.40.Ob0 Development Plan, Development standards, previously located in a different section, have been moved to this section. The section states that development standards (building height, setbacks, site coverage, floor area, etc.), are established by the SDD's development plan. Density, units and GRFA, are limited to what is permitted by the property's underlying zone district -with the exception of density bonuses that may be approved in accordance with the bonus sections. 18.40.070 Bses No change 18.40.080 Design Criteria This section now requires the Council to find that "deviations from the project's underlying zoning standards benefit the project, the neighborhood and the community. New and expanded design criteria address view corridors, sun/shade patterns, open space accessibility, traffic impacts, internal circulation, pedestrian circulation, employee housing, project amenities, Town infrastructure, conservation and interim phasing plans. 18,40.090 Resort Develot~ment Density Bonus, This section establishes the maximum density bonus that may be proposed by a SDD. This determination is made based on amenities (affordable housing, public improvements, landscaping/ open space and project amenities} provided by the project. Final approval of a density bonus is made based on the project's compliance with SDD design criteria. Highlights of density bonus section include: *Maximum bonus that may be granted is 400. *Bonus can be used for development of accommodation units only. *Only properties in Density Bonus Overlay Distr~.ct (Village and Lionshead areas} may request bonus. *To encourage the development of affordable housing, any project requesting a density bonus must first satisfy the affordable housing bonus. Only after the maximum bonus from affordable housing is achieved (30~}, can an applicant request the last 10~ bonus. *The use of all units approved by this section will be restricted to either accommodation units or affordable units. Please review section 18.40.090 for additional information on how this system would be implemented. 18.40.095 Affordable Housing Density Bonus This section, when finalized, will provide a density bonus for projects developed exclusively far affordable housing. An increase of up to 25~ may be approved. 2 • • 18.40.100 Amendment Procedures No changes 18.40.]_1Q Rpr~reati~n Amenities Tax No changes 18.40.120 Time Requirements No changes 18.40.130 Fees The only change to this section is the use of outside consultants to review SDD proposals. Currently, the Town Council is required to affirm the Community Development Depax;..~ent's decision to utilize an outside consultant. This requirement would be deleted. It should be noted that in the event of applicant disputes the need for an outside consultant, an appeal of the staff's decision can be made to the Council. The only real change from this amendment is that a meeting with the Council is avoided if all parties are in agreement with the staff's decision. 18.40.140 Existina Special Development Districts Minor changes recognize the new SDD's that ,have been approved since this chapter was last amended. II. ISSIIEB NOT ADDRE88ED BY THIS AMENDMENT The following is a summary of some of the issues raised over the past few months that are not directly addressed by this proposal. Application Fees It was suggested that application fees be raised, or an hourly fee be assessed in to compensate for staff time spent reviewing SDD's. The application fee for a new SDD is presently $500, five times the amount charged ether PEC applications. While it is true that SDD's can require a great deal of staff time, other applications that are not SDD's can be equally time consuming. From a philosophical standpoint, time spent working on these projects is considered to be part of the department's job. More often than not, development review becomes lengthy because the staff is working to make the project a better one for the community. Underivina Zonina There are three existing SDD's that do not have an underlying zone district. Two of these, Simba Run and Cascade Village, were accepted by the Town during the annexation process. The third is SDD No. 7., Northwoods. A potential problem arises when considering amendment proposals because these is no underlying zoning to use as a basis far reviewing development standards and for determining allowable uses. The mixed use nature of these SDD's would make it difficult to find a zone district that would "fit". Tha.s is particularly true for Cascade Village. There are na changes proposed to address this situation. Deviation from Development Standards, It was suggested that the maximum density bonus potential be reduced far projects that deviate from the development standards of their underlying zone district. It is felt that the SDD design criteria are more than adequate to prova.de a thorough review of the impacts resulting from any such deviation and such a provision is not necessary. Reaulatina All Sauare Footacre. It has been suggested that the SDD process regulate all square footage in a project (retail, common areas, meeting facilities, etc.) and not just GRFA. Staff recommends that,SDDs still allow for increases in commercial, common area, and recreation areas as long as the design criteria are met. In addition, staff would like to see affordable housing required 'for the additional commercial above what is allowed under the zone district. If and when an across the board requirement for affordable housing for any new commercial development is established, than this new requirement should also be applicable to SDDs. Staff's rationale is based on the following reasons: 7..) the development of "non- GRFA" square footage has not been considered a problem in the past, 2) the entire square footage control system in Vail is designed around GRFA, it would need extensive revision, 3) many of the uses accommodated by such square footage - retail, recreation, meeting rooms and guest services are encouraged by Town goals, 4) regulating, this type of space is contrary to the purpose of SDD's - providing flexibility and the existing unlimited commercial allowed in CCI, CCII and CCIII, and 5} the design criteria are adequate for reviewing the impact of this type of space on a building's bulk and mass. Impacts of Development Granting density increases under this system may prove to be inequitable because the potential exists for the "last guy in" to be saddled with providing off-site improvements to mitigate the impacts of development - impacts that are in part due to previously approved development, This is a valid argument. It has not been uncommon, however, for development proposals to mitigate impacts for which the development is only partly • responsible. Vail Gateway's left tur necessary primarily because of traffic traffic is generated by projects other same situation is found with the left for the Doubletree expansion. n lane off of Vail Road was on Vail Rvad. This than the Gateway, The turn lane to be constructed Affordable Units .. On site and Off site? It was suggested that there be greater density bonus potential for providing affordable housing units on-site as opposed to off- site. This has not been built into the bonus system. Affordable units must be provided on-site. If the Council and PEG wish to allow for off-site units, the applicant would use the development rights of the off-site location in order to provide the affordable units. • wp:sddcovmo ZO/4/90 • ~ .__ CHAPTER 18.40 • SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (draft) Sections: 18.40.010 Purpose {amended) 18.40.020 Definitions {unchanged} 18.40.030 Application (amended) 18.40.040 Development Review Procedures (amended} ,18.40.050 Submittal Requirements (amended) 18.40,p60 Development Plan (amended) 18.40.070 Uses (amended} 28.40.080 Design Criteria (amended} 18.40.090 Resort Development Density Bonus (new section} 18.40.095 Affordable Housing Density Bonus (ta be adopted) 18.40.100 Amendment Procedures (unchanged) 18.40.110 Recreation Amenities Tax {unchanged) 18.40.120 Time Requirements (unchanged) 18.40.130 Fees (amended} 18.40.140 Existing SDD's {unchanged} 18.40.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision 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 Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan, in conjunction with the standards of the zone district in which the special development district is located, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in Section 18.40,060. 18.40.020 DEFINITIONS Unchanged from the existing ordinance 18.40.030 APPLICATION Application for approval of a special development district may be made for property located in the following zone districts: • 1. . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Residential Cluster (RC) Low Density Multiple Family (COME) Medium-density multiple family (NOME) High-density multiple family (HOME} Public Accommodation (PA} Commercial Core 1 (CCI} CU~~u«ercial Core 2 (CCIY) Commercial Core 3 (CCITT) Commercial Service Center (CSC} Arterial Business District (ABD) Heavy Service (H} An application for approval of a special development district may be filed by any owner of property to be included in the special development district or his (her} agent or authorized representative. The application shall be made on a farm provided by the Community Development Department and shall include: 1. A legal description of the property to be included in the special development district 2. A list of names and mailing addresses of alI adjacent property owners 3. Written consent of owners of ail property to be included in the special development, or their agents or authorized representatives 4. Submittal requirements outlined in Section 18.40.050 5. A development plan as outlined in Section 18.40.060 • 38.40.040 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the special development district. B, Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall participate in a pre-application conference with the Community Development Department. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and the review procedures that will be followed for the application. • C. The initial public review of a proposed special development . district shall be a work session held by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This meeting shall be scheduled by the director of C~«u~~unity Development at a regularly scheduled meeting. Notification of this work session shall be provided to adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of section 38.66.080. Submittal requirements for the work session shall be as determined by the Director of Community Development. Following this work session, a formal application for a special develapment district may be submitted. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the proposal in accordance with the applicable provisions of sections 18.66.060. A report of the Community Development Department staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission. A report of the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the Town Council. The Town Council shall consider the special development district in accordance with the provisions of sections 18.66.130 through 18.66.160. 18.44.050 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following information and materials shall be submitted with the application for a special develapment district. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Department of C~.~u«unity Development if it is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to the Design Criteria (Section 18.40.080), or that other practical solutions have been reached. ~. 1. Application farm and filing fee. 2. A written statement describing the project to include information on the nature of the development proposed, proposed uses, proposed densities, contemplated ownership patterns and phasing plans, and (if applicable) a statement outlining how the proposed development deviates from the development standards prescribed in the zone district in which the proposed special development district is located and what specific development objectives are achieved by such deviations. 3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the property to be included in the special develapment district, to include the location of improvements, existing contour lines, natural features, existing vegetation, water courses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel. • 4. A title report, including schedule A and B. 5. A complete set of plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel {site plan, floor plans, elevations, etc.) if applicable. 6. A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed development to include a unit and square footage breakdown of all proposed uses, parking and proposed densities. 7. A site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal site development features and vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems. 8. Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than 1/8" = 1', in sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of uses, and general scale and appearance of the proposed development. 9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than 1" = 50'. 10, Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques far demonstrating the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property in the vicinity of the proposed special development district. 11. Amassing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed development in relationship to existing develapment on the site and on adjacent parcels. 12. A preliminary landscape plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site development features such as recreation facilities, paths and trails, plazas, walkways and water features. 13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 18.56, hereof unless waived by section 18.56.030. 14. A written statement from applicable utility companies verifying their ability to provide service to the site, including a statement describing any adverse impacts on surrounding properties or the community at large that may be anticipated if service is provided to the proposed special develapment district. • 15. A description of the number and classification of seasonal and year around employees generated by the development and a plan describing the method by which the applicant will meet the housing needs generated by the development. The plan shall state specific commitments proposed to meet employee housing needs. 16. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of the Cu~~~,~unity Development Department. With the exception of the massing model, four complete copies of the above information shall be submitted at the time of application. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, reduced copies in 8.5" x 11" format of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution to the Planning Commission and Town Council may be required. 18.44.060 DEVELOPMENT PLAN An approved development plan is the principal document for guiding the development, uses and activities of a special development district. A development plan shall be approved by the Town Council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of the ordinance approved by the Town Council establishing the special development district and all applicable submittal material necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking and circulation plan, open space plan and a preliminary landscape plan. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, building height, floor area, site coverage, open space, landscaping and parking requirements shall. be established by the approved development plan. Density, including units and gross residential floor area, shall be as permitted in the zone district in which the special development district is located, with the exception of density bonuses that may be approved in accordance with sections 18.40.090 and 18.40.954. 1,8.40.074 USES Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council as a part of the formal review of the proposed special development district. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the zone district in which the special development district is located. Under certain • conditions, commercial uses may be permitted in residential special development districts if, in the opinion of the Town Council such uses are primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall be compatible with the residential character of the special development district. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, shall be established by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan. 18.40.080 DESIGN CRITERIA The following criteria and objectives shall be used as the principal means for evaluating the proposed development plan of a special development district. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the standards prescribed by the zone district in which the special development district is located, it shall be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the site, the project, the neighborhood and the c~~~u«unity that outweigh the adverse affects of such deviation. No application for a special development district shall be approved by the Town Council unless it is found that: 1. Community Plans The proposed development plan complies with all applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. 2. Underlying Zoning/Uses The range of uses and activities permitted by the zone district in which the project is located are appropriate for the proposed development and will provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding development and uses. Deviation from the development standards of the zone district in which the project is located will benefit the design of the building, the site, the surrounding neighborhood and the community. 3. Project Design Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Building height, setbacks, site coverage and building bulk are sensitive to surrounding development and properties. • ` Massing of the proposed significantly increase properties and does not private view corridors. development does not shadow patterns on adjacent adversely affect public or 4. site Planning Site planning is sensitive to natural features, maximizes open space provisions and improves the overall aesthetic quality of the site. Buildings are located on the site to produce a functional development responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. 5. Open space Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, and are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site. Open space plans maximize opportunities far access and use by the public, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. Easements, deed restrictions, public dedications and other means as deemed necessary are implemented to assure land remains open and accessible to the public. • 6. Parking/Circulation The public street system can accommodate increased trip generation resulting from the new development, or improvements proposed as part of the development plan are sufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development. Internal circulation improvements are designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, accommodate service and delivery functions and encourage and facilitate the utilization of public transportation facilities. The proposed parking plan is in compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Pedestrian circulation provides safe, convenient and aesthetically pleasing walkways throughout the project, and where possible, linkages with existing public and private pedestrian walkways. ~ ' 7. Geologic sensitivity Natural and/or geologic hazards have been identified and the development has been designed in response to such hazards, or such hazards that affect the proposed development have been mitigated. 8, Housing Type and Variety Residential development within the special development district meets the needs of the community in terms of variety and housing type as established by community goals and policies. The proposed special development district complies with all employee housing requirements as mandated by the Town's employee housing policies. 9. Project Amenities Project amenities such as public art, recreation facilities, convention and meeting rooms and other facilities are designed to provide guest or user services typically associated with resort development. 10. Infrastructure/Town Services Adequate utility capacity is available to serve the development without adversely affecting service levels for existing or future development in the area. . The project is designed to assure safe and efficient access and service by the Town's Fire Department and Public Works Departments. The design of drainage improvements and utility connections are sensitive to existing natural features and designed in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the site and surrounding areas. 11. Environmental Issues Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the development plan. The proposed development is designed, built and operated to maximize energy and resource conservation. 12. Project Phasing Project phasing or subdivision plans will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special, development district. • Interim landscape/site improvement plans will be . implemented between phases, and the completion of interim improvement plans are guaranteed by a cash bond, letter of credit or some other assurance acceptable to the Town. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with all applicable design criteria. Further, it shall be demonstrated that the development objectives of the project are consistent with community goals and that the develapment provides town-wide benefits beyond what could be achieved if the property were developed in accordance with underlying zoning. 7.8.40.090 RESORT DEVELOPMENT DENSITY BONIIS The purpose of the density bonus section is to allow, under certain circumstances, the development of residential density in excess of density permitted by the zone district in which a special develapment district is located. The areas eligible for density bonuses, and the type of residential development permitted under this section, are intended to achieve the goals of the Vail Comprehensive Plan by increasing overnight accommodations in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas. This section establishes the maximum density that may be requested by a special development district eligible far a~ density bonus. Increased development rights are not granted by this section. Final approval of a density bonus is made as a part of the review and approval of said special development district. A. Any property located within the Density Bonus Overlay District that is eligible to request a special development district may request a density bonus in accordance with this section. A property may receive a density bonus only once. B. Development permitted by a density bonus approved in accordance with this chapter is limited to accommodation units. Accommodation units developed under this section shall be restricted so as to prohibit their conversion to condominium or time share ownership. A dAClaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder, in a manner acceptable to the Town Attorney, for the benefit of the Town to insure that said restrictions run with the land. • C. The approval of a density bonus requires a two-step process that involves determinating the maximum density bonus that may be requested in accordance with this section and approval of a special development district in accordance with section 28.40.040. Compliance with density bonus amenities listed in subsection D. establishes the maximum density that may be requested as part of a special development district proposal. Final approval of a density bonus is based on the proposed development plan's compliance with aII applicable special development district design criteria as outlined in section 18.40.080, Application far a density bonus shall be made as part of an application for a special development district, In addition to submittal requirements outlined in section 18.40.050, submittal requirements for a density bonus request shall include all written and graphic material necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with density bonus amenities. The review of a density bonus request shall be done concurrent with the review of the special development district per Section 18.40.040. • The Town Council, with recommendations from the planning and Environmental Commission and Town staff, shall determine the maximum density bonus that may be requested by the special development district proposal. The special development district and the density bonus request may be approved, approved with modifications, or denied by the Town Council based on the proposal's compliance with section 18.40.080 - special development district design standards. D. The maximum density bonus permitted be determined by the bonus amenity request for a density bonus shall b affordable housing bonus amenity as proposed development plan. If the housing benefit is achieved, one or amenities may be proposed. under this section shall schedule below. Any e required to provide the an element of the maximum affordable more additional bonus Density bonuses shall be approved for bonus amenities consistent with the purpose and standards outlined below. In no circumstances will density bonuses be approved for amenities or improvements existing at the time the density bonus is requested. The percentages indicated below reflect the maximum percentage increase in accommodation units that may be developed in accordance with this section. The percentage increase is based on the total accommodation units permitted by the zone district in which the proposed special development district is located. l0 A project's maximum density bonus shall be determined based on the additive total of each of the following four bonus criteria. When applicable, partial units shall be rounded up. In no case shall the total density bonus exceed 40~ of the accommodation units allowed by the zone district in which the proposed special development district is located. E. BONIIS AMENITIES 1. Affordable Sausinq (maximum 30~) The purpose of this bonus is to encourage the development of affordable housing in conjunction with new development. An affordable housing unit or affordable studio unit shall be as defined in the Vail Affordable Housing Plan and Policies. A density bonus of up to 30o may be granted for the development of accommodation units. The amount of density bonus requested under this subsection shall be at the discretion of the applicant. The development of affordable housing units equal to 30~ of the requested bonus accommodation units shall be required in order to receive this bonus. When applicable, partial units shall be rounded up. For example, the "by-right" development potential of a site is fifty accommodation units. A maximum of fifteen "bonus" accommodation units would be possible on this site (30~ of 50 is 15). In order to achieve the maximum bonus, the development of five affordable housing units would be required (30% of 15 is 4.5, or 5}. Likewise, an applicant requesting ten bonus accommodation units would be required to provide three affordable units (30~ of 10 is 3}. Affordable housing units shall be constructed on-site. Affordable housing units constructed on-site shall not be calculated in the overall density bonus request for the special development district. Any proposed special development district that achieves the maximum density bonus from affordable housing may request an additional density bonus for the following bonus amenities: 2. Public Improvements (maximum 10%) The purpose of this bonus is to encourage the development of public improvements and facilities in order to mitigate the impacts of new development. Examples may include public improvements outlined in the Vail Village and Lionshead Urban Design Guide 11 Plans, the extension of public walkways, trails or paths indicated in the Vail Recreation Trail Master Plan, public transit facilities such as bus stops and parking facilities in excess of requirements made available for public use. At the discretion of the Town Council, a density bonus of 1-10% may be approved for public improvements provided in the development plan of a special development district. The final determination of the density bonus shall be made based an the overall public benefit provided by the improvement. 3. Landscaping/Open Space (maximum 5%) • The purpose of this bonus is to encourage open space and landscaped areas in special development districts. A density bonus of 1% may be allowed for every 1% of landscaped site area in excess of the landscaping requirement established by the zone district in which the special development district is located, provided the landscaped or open space areas are designed to provide significant public benefits. The final determination of public benefit shall be made by the Town Council, and may include the dedication of land to public ownership, the integration of open space areas with existing open space parcels, open space located and designed for public access, or other considerations deemed appropriate. ~. Project Amenities (maximum 5%) The purpose of this bonus is to encourage the development of project amenities that provide economic or aesthetic benefit to the community. Examples of project amenities include convention or meeting facilities, recreation facilities and the permanent display of public art. Public art shall be located in a prominent location and shall be approved by the Art in Public Places C~,~u~~ission. Convention or meeting facilities shall be large enough to accommodate groups of at least 25 people. At the discretion of the Town Council, of up to 5% may be approved for project final determination of a density bonus based on the public benefit provided by a density bonus amenities. The shall be made the amenity. 12 All improvements or amenities required by this section shall be constructed in conjunction with the development of the special development district. At the discretion of the Town council, the completion of significant site improvements, public art, and affordable housing shall be guaranteed with a letter of credit or cash bond payable to the Town of Vail. E. Up to an additional four hundred (400) square feet of grass residential floor area shall be permitted for every bonus accommodation unit. This additional gross residential floor area shall be used only for the development of bonus accommodation units approved in accordance with this section. 18.40.095 AFFORDABLE SOUSING DENSITY BONUS The Affordable Housing Density Bonus is designed for projects that are developed exclusively far affordable housing. In such cases, a density bonus of up to 25% over the property's underlying zoning may be possible. This section is independent of the "affordable housing bonus amenity" in the Resort Development Density Bonus Section, 18,40.090 (E1). An affordable housing density bonus request is proposed as a special development district and evaluated based on the SDD design criteria. This section will be drafted following completion of Affordable Housing Study. It is anticipated that this section will be completed before the formal review of amendments to the SDD chapter are initiated. 18.4fl.lOfl AMENDMENT PROCEDURES A. Minor amendments: Minor modifications outlined in Section 18.40.020 B. may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated an a completely revised development plan. Approved modifications shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor. amendment, and a report of staff action of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district that may be affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the department of Community Development. Notification shall be postmarked no later than five days following staff action on the amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. In all cases, the report to the . Z3 Planning and Environmental Commission shall be made within twenty days from the date of the staff's decision on the . requested amendment. Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 1.8.66.030 A. of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. B. Major amendments: Requests for major amendments to an approved special development district shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in Section 18.40,040. Owners of property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, and owners of all property within the special development district that may be affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Department of Community Development). Notification procedures for major amendments shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. i 18.40.110 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX A recreation amenities tax shall be assessed on all special development districts in accordance with Chapter 3.36 of the Vail Municipal code at a rate to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This rate shall be cased on the rate of the zone district in which the special development district is located, or the rate which most closely resembles the density plan for the district, whichever is greater. 18.40.120 TIME REQOIREMENTS A. The developer must begin initial construction of the special development district within three years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the special. development district is to be developed in phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase. • 1.4 .. B. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any phase of the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Tawn Cauncil shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to re-establish the special development district following procedures outlined in Section 1.8.40.040 of this chapter. " 18.40.130 FEES The filing fee for special. development district applications and requests for mayor amendments to approved special development districts shall be five hundred dollars. The filing fee for minor amendments to approved special development districts shall be one hundred dollars. Projects deemed by the Department of Community Development to have significant design, land use or other implications on the community may require review by professionals outside of Town Staff. In this event, the applicant shall reimburse the Town for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant selected to review an application for a special development district shall be .selected and utilized by the Town staff. The Department of Community Development shall determine the amount of money estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting services, and this amount shall be provided to the Town by the applicant at the time of application Any unused portions of these funds shall be returned to the applicant following the review of the proposed special development district. Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the estimated amount shall be reimbursed to the Town by the applicant. 1$.40.140 EXISTING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DT$TRICT3 Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of special development districts No.'s 2 through 25. The Town Council specifically finds that said special development districts No.'s 2 through 25 shall remain in full. force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Tawn of Vail. These districts, if not commenced at the present time, shall comply with Section 18.40.120, time requirements. wp:sdddraft 9/30/90 15 ,QnN1~Q ~ U ~ w `-rJ~~ 1 Q~I~~ ~~~-' .....~? . r ~ ~ . ;. .. , ~ I ~' w ~. . r /rte ~ ~ ~ .._... _. '. _...~QiyG[. --- - ~ I ~ , ' Y .` 4 ~ I ~e~G.ei ~ `Gv~dv~ IdFi9 ' ..._-- . -- .. .: ., 4 i ~ +' w ---._._ ,, , ~~ ~_.~. g.7~. ~'-nova .~~~~ ~ ~ ,- ;~._,ryc~ .... -, .. ~. '~~ / T .~ -_ ~ .. ~ y I ,~~ . . ~ ~ ~t . ,~ . _~. .. . ~ .. _ . - - - :.------ -- _ i .. ._ .: :~~;: ..... . . .._ .. . ~ .. .. .- ~. . ~ y i.~,,Y ? L :. ~'~x .. ~ x r r' ~ '~ F ~ a'' r ~ -.'b PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIDN October 22, 1990 11:00 Site Visits to Affordable Housing parcels. 11:30 A worksession for rezoning of the fallowing properties for "affordable housing" development: a. Mountain Bell site described as a tract of land in the South Half, of the Southeast Quarter, Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado. b. A property commonly known as the Pedotto property located to the south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain Subdivision more specifically described as a parcel of land in the SW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado. • c. A property located to the north of Safeway and Chamonix Lane in the Vail Heights Subdivision, Lots 5- 13. 1:15 Site Visits to PEC Agenda items _---------------------------------_w-----------------_--_--~------------ SITE VISITS 2;00 Public Hearing 1, Approval of the minutes from the September 24, 1990 and October 8, 1990 meetings. 2 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to sell beer at wholesale and to sell beer for off-site consumption at 143 E. Meadow Drive, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: First Brewery of Vail/Dean Liotta • - 3. A request for a height variance in order to construct an addition to Condominium Unit E- 6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. 3 4. A request for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I in order to allow construction of an airlock entry at the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, 304 Bridge Street, Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John S. Ha/Szechwan Lion Restaurant 1 5, A request for a major change to existing development approval for the Valley, Phase VI. Applicant: Edward ~neimer • TABLED UNTIL 6. A request for setback variances in order NOV. 12TH to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge located at 356 Hansen Ranch Raad, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston TABLED UNTIL 7. A request for off--street surface parking at NOV. 12TH the "Holy Cross parcel." Applicant: Vail Associates TABLED $. A request f~ INDEFINITELY dish in the request for 3, Block 1, Drive. Applicant: ~r a variance to allow a satellite Gore Creek 50' setback and a a floadplain modification on Lot Bighorn 1st addition, 3907 Lupine Ran Oeibaum • .~ r • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL C4MMISSTON October 22, 1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Shelly Mello Andy Knudtsen Betsy Rosolack Penny Perry The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. A worksession for rezoning of the Mountain Bell, Pedotto and Oberlohr uroperties for "affordable housing" development. Diana explained that the board was addressing the appropriateness of the rezonings requested and she invited public comment. Kristan made a few comments explaining that she wanted to allow time for the audience to speak. She emphasized what Diana had said about the priority of the meeting being the consideration of the rezoning requests for each of the properties to Medium Density Multi--family. Kristan explained that the Mountain Bell site was presently zoned Agriculture/open Space. She explained that Medium Density Multi-family zoning would allow 18 units per acre. The Vail Heights and the Pedotto properties were zoned Primary/Secondary. The applicant was requesting the rezoning of both properties to Medium Density Multi-family. Kristan wanted the public and the board to evaluate the appropriateness of the rezoning requests in relationship to surrounding land uses. She explained that in the Land Use Plan, the Mountain Bell site land use designation was Public Use. The other two sites were designated Medium Density Multi-family land use. Kristan pointed out that the back of the staff memo contained a comparative density analysis of adjacent properties for each of the sites. The meeting was then opened to public comment. The first member of the audience to speak was Dave Chapin from Larkspur Lane. Dave felt the issues were vague. He asked Lynn Fritzlen if she had a conflict of interest by being on the Council and also being the project architect. Kristan explained that Lynn would not be able to vote as a Council person on the issue. Dave was concerned about the number of cars generated by the proposed Pedotto site development. He estimated the project would generate a demand of about 70 cars and he felt that the neighborhood would not be able to handle the additional traffic. Dave was also concerned about the appearance of parking areas for those cars. 1 . ,:-; r ' • Bill Pierce, representing the applicant, said the developer had now reduced the number of unit from 45 to 39 units at the Pedotto site. Lynn Fritzlen explained that the maximum number of units per building would be 6 and some of the buildings would have only 2 units. The buildings would be 2 to 3 stories and less than 35 ft. high. She stated that under the existing Primary/Secondary zoning, the site could be platted into 7 lots and 14 units of 2000 sq. ft. each could be constructed. Lynn felt that under the proposed development, the property would be developed with less GRFA, more landscaping and less site coverage than would occur if 14 Primary/Secandary units were developed on the site. Dave Chapin wanted to make sure the Town realized they would be doubling the number of people in the area and asked whether or not the Town would be prepared to double services. Jean Reed, a property owner in the area, explained that those property owners who had lived in Intermountain for a while were trying to bring the whole neighborhood up to Vail standards. She said area residents were not against the rezoning but were against the increased density. She asked for the opportunity to have the neighborhood mature and became less dense. She also asked for time to get signatures on a petition to show how the other property owners felt. She suggested solutions such as perhaps Stephens Park be explored for this hauling. Dalton asked Jean if she was concerned with the proposed project density, architecture, clustering or if she only wanted single family homes constructed on the Pedotto site. Jean replied that the fewer additional units added to the neighborhood the better. Dalton felt that most persons' perception of affordable housing was simply condominiums. He explained that they could be many things, such as single family homes. Jean responded her objection was to the rezoning. Bill Pierce stated that the vast majority of the structures were two bedroom units and he showed a single family home attached to another single--family home. He compared the size of the proposed buildings to the Camelot Townhomes and said the proposed buildings were much smaller. 2 r `, r •' . PEC Minutes 10/22/9Q Meeting Bi11 also compared the Pitkin Creek Park project density which was 18.8 units per acre, the Bighorn Lodge project and the Faessler proposal project density. The proposed Pedotto site project density would be 15 units per acre. Jean commented that they expected two people per bedroom, and that would equal four cars per two bedroom unit. Bill Pierce replied that the numbers they use far parking cars came out of the Eagle County study. He also added that the person planning this project also had an extensive history of management. The level of management would be same as found for a condominium project. There would be a manager on each site. Dalton then referred again to mast persons' perception of affordable housing. He asked Jean when looking at the mixture of types of housing if she was still against the project. Jean repeated that she was against the increased density. She said that this was a starter community and was affordable now and was dense enough as it was. They had been working hard to be part of the Town of Vail as the Town of Vail is perceived. She was not against the architecture of the proposal. Jill Harrison then spoke and explained that she had written the article in the paper about the project and did not mean to be derogatory. She spoke to Lynn Fritzlen and said that Lynn had contacted her when she was running for Council. A lot of people think that Lynn would be voting on the proposal. At this point, Kristan interrupted to ask Jill to discuss this in private with Lynn. Jill then mentioned that if the project was not owner occupied, it would be all rental. She felt that there had been enough mistakes made in Intermountain already and she also did not feel that $970 rent for 2 bedroom could be called affordable housing. She said that her unit including utilities and condo fees did not add up to $971. Kristan explained that the Council had not yet agreed to the proposed rental numbers. Mike Chapman then spoke as president of the Camelot Townhomes adjacent to the Pedotto project. He said that he was not referring to the "not in my back yard syndrome:" but he felt that the fact that these would not be owner occupied was objectionable. Mike added that Intermountain had slowly changed from mostly rental to mostly owner occupied but was still the mast dense area in Town. Another area of concern was the fact that the October 15 memo mentioned that Mr. Campbell had contacted adjacent property owners, and to Mike's knowledge, no • • • •. PEC Minutes 1.0/22/90 Meeting one had ever tried to contact him. Further, Mike added that he had not been sent a legal notification. He said that Camelot was a Townhome development and there were nine different owners and each should have received a notice. Kristan replied that she would check on that for him. Mike then mentioned the fact that there would be an elimination of a view corridor far the Camelot Townhomes. He also added that last week a survey company that was out staking the project stated that there were major discrepancies in boundaries and he wanted this verified regarding the site acreage and so on. Considering impact on land values, he felt that this project would lower the land value. Finally, he said that there was confusion of the times of the meetings. His notice said 2:00 and then he heard 11:00. Diana Donovan replied that this project was on a fast track and the way to keep up with it was to watch the newspaper for the most current time. Kristan said that the meeting that was Tuesday night was scheduled in response to give another opportunity for people to respond. Mike said that it was confusing as to which meeting was important to go to. Diana said that this was the proper meeting to be at. Irwin Bachirach of 2'701 Snowberry stated that he built a single- family home on a Primary/Secondary lot hoping that others would do the same. He reminded the group that about six months previously, Johannes Faessler's proposal was turned down by the Planning Commission and by the Council. He felt that this new proposal was not good for the neighborhood that it was presently zoned for one Primary/Secondary unit and proposed was 39 units. He was also bothered about Lynn's position. He stated that he had voted for Lynn to protect his neighborhood. Finally, the fast track confuses the neighborhood. Ilene Duke did not agree with the increase in density and she was concerned about this being pushed through so quickly. She was curious to know why the Town was not pursuing the employee housing in Berry Creek. Kristan responded that the Council still had not determined how to develop the Berry Creek site. Ilene said that as a tax payer, she had money invested in Berry Creek and that it should be the first priority. 4 • •: PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meet~.ng Kristan explained that the Town was not proposing the projects that were before the board at the moment, the proposals were from a private developer. Ilene asked how the Town would control the number of people living in each unit because the prices being charged for each unit would dictate the number of people living in the unit. She once again mentioned why this was being pushed through so quickly. Kristan said that they had decided to allow for an extra meeting in October because affordable housing was important to the community and that notification had been done. Ross Davis was in the audience and said that he was on the board of two condo units in Intermountain and did not receive any notification. Kristan said that there had been no effort to ram something through. That there was no staff recu,~~.~~endation at this time. She talked about procedure. She said that Ross needed to explain which addresses needed to be corrected to the staff. Kay Cheney of 2754 Basingdale explained that she also bought a Primary/Secondary lot and built a single family house on it. She asked about the staff preference far Low Density Medium Family noted on page seven and Kristan replied that the staff felt that Low Density Medium Family was a better way to achieve the same results. Kay responded that if the board approved the rezoning they still would not have any control over what would be constructed on the project. Kristan replied that everyone should look at the rezoning as to whether or not it would be correct for this area. She also added that perhaps if conditions could be added, called conditional zoning, it may make it more acceptable. She explained that the zoning would have to be approved at a Planning Commission meeting and then it would have to go to a Town Council meeting for two evening sessions and then after that it would go to the Design Review Board to show exactly what the buildings would look like. 5 ~ .. PEC Minutes 20/22/90 Meeting Kay wondered why the charts in the back of the memo did not show the number of single-family and duplex buildings in the neighborhood and Kristan explained that she felt that the number of units in a Multi-family were more difficult to estimate, where as it was easy to see the number of single-family and duplex units in the area. Kay felt that they should have listed the other less density units. Kristan said that they were working with the attorney to see if they could rezone and use restrictions on the rezoning with regard to number of units, total GRFA, eta. Patty Frank of 272 Lupine Court, mentioned that the neighborhood had worked hard to clean up the area and that they were against additional density. She felt that they could not enforce the traffic and parking problems and that already the problems were huge. She felt if the units were owner occupied the people would take better care of the area. She added that there was a petition going around that would be submitted to the Council. Will Miller, manager of Montaneros, reminded the group that the number one priority was to construct affordable housing. He spoke of the need for affordable housing and stated that he provided affordable housing far 1/2 of his employees. He felt, however, that the residents of Intermountain made a point well taken. He felt that he did not necessarily support the Pedotto site because it was obvious that it must be sensitive to the neighborhood. He wondered also if the land east of the tennis court at Ford park could be considered. He applauded the will of the Board to try to solve the problem and to try to look at other areas. He also asked if anyone in the audience was there to represent Mountain Bell or the Vail Heights area and there was one person present who felt the Mountain Bell site was a good site. So Will said to the Board that they had two out of three sites that might work. • Jill Brown felt that if the whale parcel was divided into 7 Primary/Secondary units it would make sense but felt that by having the project M©MF, there could be an additional 135 people. She spoke of the number of cars next door to her created by a two bedroom condominium. She explained that the proposal would create twice the number of cars. Jill felt that there were many things needed in Intermountain before they could increase the density such as parks and bike paths. She said that since shop and restaurant owners all lived dawn valley, why could nat employee housing be located down valley. 6 ~~ PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Ross Davis felt that the proposed rents were outrageous. He felt that the Council and the developer were coming in for demands of a quick zone change under the name of affordable housing. Ross felt that people had the right to depend upon the existing zoning without preemptive changes. He felt that these proposals should not be fast tracked but should be thoroughly deliberated. He said that the zoning could be Primary/Secondary on the Pedotto site and would have owner occupied units. Kay Cheney stressed to the board that Intermountain was concerned about this area and that was why there was so many neighbors at the meeting. She also painted out that after the Faessler proposal came up, the Intermountain residents also stressed their feelings and she felt the procedure followed was correct. Dave Tyrell spoke with regard to the Vail Heights site. He felt that even people in Townhomes were concerned about additional density. He also did not feel that this housing would be affordable. He was concerned about the number of units per acre and wondered when Vail Heights was annexed into the Town why the density was lowered. He felt that at 1.6 units per acre it would work. He was in favor of affordable housing but repeated that he did not think that this was affordable housing. Kathy Warren asked Dave about the parking situation at Pine Ridge which Steve was representing. Dave said that they had 62 parking spaces for 31 units but that it just was not enough. Some of the people would park at Safeway and that 60~ of his units were owner occupied. He said that some of the people parked an the road, some an the cul de sac and some on Town of Vail property. He also said that the original surveys were flawed and that there might be some survey problems with this land. Bob Nelsen, an Intermountain property owner, said that he was for affordable housing but he was against rezoning in any residential neighborhood. He felt that 20~ would be affordable but they would be like shoe boxes. He said to be viable, you would have to build at $45.00 a sq. ft. and that 95~ of the units would have to be occupied 12 months out of the year. He said the amount charged could go down but in fact the rent would go up. He also added that he felt Lynn Fritzlen was turning her back on the Intermountain people. He suggested that perhaps Stephens Park should be called Pedotto park. He wondered if more units could be built in the Mountain Bell area. He also felt that the list of schedules was confusing. • f # PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Diana answered regarding the Mountain Be11 area stating that all the area that had been platted was the only area that was buildable. Bill Pierce explained the proposal a little more. He felt that the rent was at market rates initially in order to repay the cost of the project. He said that 20% of the units would be controlled as low income units and that 12,000 was a maximum income the occupants could be making. He mentioned that the developer had agreed to keep these units as employee units for 50 years and then the property would revert to the Town, Regarding the survey, he said that the closing was within 3/10ths of a foot which was equal to four inches. He then repeated that the project could be subdivided into seven lots equivalent to 14 dwelling units. If each had 4 bedrooms, it would be 54 bedraoms, 5 bedrooms per units would be 70 bedrooms and that they were proposing 50 bedrooms. He said that this was not a fast track. The final approval would be January 14th or January loth. He said fortunately, the developer was willing to have a long term plan. He said that if Mr. Campbell could not rent the units at 90% occupancy as needed, it would be his problem. And if he could not build them for $45.00 a square foot, it was also be his • problem. He said that Mr. Campbell had developed in many other areas. He pointed out that all sites were on the .bus route, that they were not looking for seasonal occupancy and that they were trying to meet the needs of the community in ways they thought would work. Regarding building down valley. He stated that most people did not want to be shuttled down valley. Jill Brown asked if Mr. Campbell had purchased the sites and Bill Pierce said that he had an option of the two private sites and a lease agreement on the public site. Jill Srown pointed out that if Mr. Campbell would have to raise the rents, it would not be solving the housing problem. Bill Pierce said the praject would be funded through private bonds and that they would be happy to use conditional zoning. Kathy Warren explained that, during the Faessler proposal, the neighbors seemed to feel that 12-16 units per acre could be supported. Now she was hearing something different. Irwin Bachirach said that no one had been comfortable with the Faessler project . Kathy Warren said she felt that the neighborhood was not opposed to the 12 units per acre. Kay Cheney responded that this was a staff feeling not a neighborhoad feeling. a ,~ PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Lynn Fritzlen pointed out that originally this property was zoned for 12 to i4 units per acre with the county and was down zoned to Primary/Secondary upon annexation. Ji11 Brown said that many people had been down zoned and had learned to live with it. Lynn asked how the audience felt if a substantial part of the parcel were dedicated to open space. Kay said she would like to see more owner occupied units and Irwin agreed. Lynn asked the audience then if they would be satisfied if the Town made a strong enough agreement with the management. Most of the audience felt that any agreements could not be enforced. Peter Jamar, in the audience, felt that eventually, this property was going to be subdivided. Kristan said that the Land Use Plan called for Medium Density. S Diana asked the audience if they would be in favor of the project if the units were for sale rather than for rent. Some of the people said they felt that they would be and some of them felt that they would still be against the increased density. Diana then wanted to know if the audience was against the number of people or increased number of bedrooms. She wanted to know the concern of the audience. Ross Davis replied that they wanted a family neighborhood. He felt that a large single family house with four bedrooms would not have as many vehicles as four efficiency units. Kristan explained the upcoming meetings concerning affordable housing. She was also concerned as to whether there was proper notification and asked Lynn and Bill to check and see if they had the correct and complete addresses. The board took a brief intermission and the public hearing portion of the meeting was called to order at 2:25 p.m. A11 Board members were present. s PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting rtem No. 1: Approval of the minutes from the September 24, 1990 and October 8. 1990 meetings. Kathy Warren asked Penny to change the stateme:it on page 13 which stated "Kathy also felt that the guidelines regarding overhangs encroaching the envelope should be better defined" to state "Kathy felt that what could and could not encroach the building envelopes needed to be better defined." A mc~ti.on to abbrove the minutes form the September 24, 1990 meeting as corrected and to table the minutes from October R. 1990 was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer / VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR ,,,~/ Item Na. 2: A request for a conditional use permit in order to -t+`~ sell beer at wholesale and to sell beer for off- site consumption at 143 E. Meadow Drive, Lot P., Block ~D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: First Brewery of Vail/Dean Liotta Andy Knudtsen presented the background of the proposal and a • description of the proposed conditional use. Andy then reviewed the criteria and findings relating to a conditional use application. The staff recommendation was for approval with conditions as listed in the staff memo. Dean Liotta explained to the board that he did not feel there would be any type of impact upon the adjacent properties. Kathy Warren asked if he agreed with the conditions and Dean responded, "yes." Dalton emphasized to Dean that if a restaurant ran out of his beer early, they would have to wait. He asked Dean if he fully understood that condition and Dean responded, "yes." A motion to approve the conditional use permit per the staff mama with the following conditions was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight Conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a delivery service for any wholesale customers and shall not allow wholesale, customers to hick up the product at the site. • 10 •'- PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting 2. The aoulicant shall not make deliveries more than once a week to wholesale customers. 3. The applicant shall conduct all deliveries via the existing loading dock. 4. The applicant shall not use anv vehicle larger than a nick up truck to make the deliveries. VOTE: 7-A 1N FAVOR Ttem No. 3: A request for a height variance in order to construct an addition to Condominium Unit E-6, Lot P. Block 5D. Vail Village First Filing. 141 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: H. William Smith. Jr. Mike Mollica reviewed the proposal for staff. He gave a brief background on the project, reviewed the zoning analysis and the criteria and findings relating to a variance request. He stated that staff felt the addition was in compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan, that the addition would not block any adopted view corridors, and that the request would be consistent with recent decisions by the staff and the PEC in allowing some flexibility in the height requirements for pre-existing, nonconforming buildings. Staff felt the request was consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and was not a grant of special privilege, and has recommended approval. Diana asked to see the original drawings from the proposal earlier in the summer. Jim Shearer felt that the biggest difference was the balcony on the lower floor. Mike explained that another change was the planting along the north elevation which helped break up the blank wall. Sid Schultz, representing the applicant, read a letter from Bill Smith stating that he would agree to have approval of the project conditional upon the planters at Meadow Drive being renovated. Sid explained that Bob Smith, president of the association, and not related to Bill Smith, and Mr. Mathews, the landscape architect, were present to answer questions. 11 . PEC Minutes 1,0/22/90 Meeting Bob Smith explained to the Board that they had been trying to get the landscape improvements done for a long time. He felt that Mr. Bili Smith's addition was a good opportunity to accomplish this because Bill Smith was a key voting member of the Condominium Association. Mike Mollica asked Bob Smith if the association had approved a preliminary plan and Bob answered "no." Ludwig then clarified that if the project was approved, the board would then have Bill Smith's support of the planter renovation. Sid explained that Bill Smith would support the planter renovation and if the planter was turned down by the Condominium Association, the addition would not go forward. Ludwig asked if there would be access to the two balconies on the north side. Sid answered that the 5th floor had access but that the 4th floor was a false balcony. Jim Shearer wondered if the holding company was getting involved in the landscape improvement plan and Bob Smith explained that they were the ones that had the plans drawn. Dalton and Chuck felt they could support the project. Kathy Warren felt that a variance should be given only in the case of a hardship. She did not feel there was a hardship. Sid felt that the hardship was the existing height. He stated that a variance was given the year before on another side of the building. Mike Mollica explained that the planting along the north elevation was not necessarily a trade-off but rather mitigation of a plain wall. Diana asked Mike what the hardship was? Mike Mollica stated that staff felt the existing building height was the hardship. It would be impossible tv add, change, or improve the building without a variance. Diana asked if the Board usually tried not to increase a non- conformity and Mike Mollica stated that this variance would be an increase in a non-conformity. ,~ 12 [ 1 PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Jim Shearer stated that he was inclined to be in favor of the project. He suggested a possible window on the north elevation. Sid Schultz explained that the symetry would not be equal without a window on the 4th floor and the 4th floor condo was not the applicant's property, Jim felt that the 4th floor balcony should be completed and asked that windows be included. He liked the landscaping on the Frontage Road. Sid felt it would be hard to agree to put a window in someone else's unit. Connie Knight felt comfortable with the project. Diana Donavan explained that the original proposal read as a separate structure and she did not feel that it read that way as presently proposed. She liked the trees on the Frontage Road and felt they helped the plain wall. Kathy Warren stated that she was concerned with the open balcony before. The addition of balcony railings helped. She did now see the hardship of the non-conformance and felt that technically, the owner did have development rights. Dalton stated that he agreed with Jim Shearer. He would like to see the 4th floor balcony extended to match the upper balcony. A motion to approve a heiaht variance per the staff memo, with the followina conditions was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Jim Shearer Conditions: 1, 4th floor balcony extended to match the 5th floor, balcony above. 2. Approval conditional ubon the condominium association approvina the landscape improvements to the planters, aloha Meadow Drive. VOTE: 7-0 TN FAVOR 13 t rI PEC Minutes . 10/22/90 Meeting Item No. 4: A request for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I in, order to allow construction of an airlock entry at the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, 304 Bridge Street,, Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Aoolicant: John S. Ha/Szechwan Lion Restaurant. Kathy Warren removed herself from the board as she was representing the applicant. Jill Kammerer described the variance requested explaining that the applicant was proposing to construct an 8'-0" x 7'-6" airlock with a gross floor area of 60 sq. ft. for the Szechwan Lion Restaurant. Ji11 reviewed the zoning considerations, criteria and findings related to a variance, compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, Urban Design Considerations, and related policies in the Vail Village Master Plan. The staff recommendation was for approval of the exterior alteration request and the site coverage variance. The staff believed that the construction of the airlock would add visual interest to the recessed area off of Bridge Street and would improve the general appearance of the area. Staff recommended the applicant provide • additional softscape landscape in the project area to mitigate the removal of existing handscape landscape. Kristan Pritz showed a picture of the packet park adjacent to the restaurant entry and Jill pointed out the airlock would be located in approximately the same location and would project into the pocket park approximately the same amount as the existing awning. Kathy Warren, representing the applicant, poin~ed out the improvements that would be in the pocket park as a part of the Red Lian remodeling project. Jill explained that the staff had reviewed letters from the Tangs and the Browns, owners of the Red Lian Building, in support of the project. The Tang's only concern was that the airlock roof drain to the south. Kathy commented that the drainage concern had been discussed with the contractor and resolved. Kathy continued to comment that the applicant agreed with the staff memo except they did not feel they should be required to plant perennials in the packet park planters. Chuck Crist asked what valor the building would be and Kathy Warren answered "red." She explained that the project had . already received DRB conceptual approval as well as approval from the property owners, the Tangs, Browns, and Mr. Rasenquist. 14 v ,E . PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Connie Knight asked why the applicant did not feel it was necessary to install landscaping. Kathy answered that the applicant felt the planters would already be sufficiently landscaped due to the Red Lian addition landscaping requirements. Jim Shearer felt he would like to see some type of planting. Diana Donovan felt the front of the building would be more attractive than the hardscape that existed presently. She did not feel the applicant should be required to install additional landscaping because the Red Lion should be doing the planting. Chuck Crist and Dalton agreed with Diana. Dalton felt that the Red Lion should be responsible for the planters. A motion was made by Ludwig Kurz to approve the site, coverage variance per the staff memo except that additional softscape landscape by the applicant would not be reouired. The motion was seconded by Chuck Crist. Connie Knight asked why the motion was to exclude the landscaping and Diana responded that they felt the Red Lion was obligated to landscape the area. Connie Knight inquired as to whether or not landscaping the area in question was covered by the Red Lion's expansion and Kristan answered it was, however, the Red Lion would be planting trees and shrubs, but no flowers. VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVQR--KATHY WARREN ABSTAINED., Item No. 5: A .request for a mayor chance to existing development plan approval for the Valley. Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer_ Andy Knudtsen, in response to the board's request at the previous work session, pointed out the major differences between the Valley Phase VI and Elk Meadows. A section of the staff memo was devoted to this analysis. Andy also gave a brief background of the proposal and a description of the project. The staff recommendation was for approval with conditions since the development plan resulted in less density and a better site plan than the 1981 approval. 15 t Y • • PEC Minutes 14/22/90 Meeting Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, stated that the major change was the access to the southern units due to safety/sight concerns. Other changes included the clarification and preservation of the valley and meadow. He felt that Mr. Zneimer should be applauded for down zoning: The one issue they wished to discuss with the board was the hazard mitigation. Until such time as the architecture was chosen for the units, they asked that the mitigation method, whether it be a wall or internal, be left to the DRB. They could live with the condition but would prefer to have it left to the DRB. Jim Shearer asked why the north cul de sac ended up west of unit 1. Peter Jamar responded that they felt it might push the lot up the hill too far. Jim Shearer felt that, if it was possible, he would like to see the cul de sac moved east a little. He also wanted to see same trees in the area between the north and south streets. Andy explained that there was a question as to what would and would not grow. Jim stated he would be content to see pines and aspen. Kristan explained that staff's position was to avoid a manicured look. Jim Shearer stated that, in general, he was in favor of the proposal. He liked the revised entrance points for aesthetic and safety reasons. Jim asked if there was a letter from the Forestry Service regarding the relocation of the trail. Andy Knudtsen explained to Jim that the Forest Service had agreed through phone conversations but that he did not possess a letter. Jim stated that he would feel more comfortable if the Town had a letter in their possession. Kathy Warren felt that condition No. 7 found in the memo was confusing and needed to be reworded. Peter agreed with Kathy. He felt the wording was misleading but the intent was there. Kathy Warren agreed with Jim Shearer that a letter from the Forest Service was needed and Andy explained that they did try to get the letter, they just did not have enough }ime. Peter Jamar explained that the Forest Service had clearly indicated they understood they must move the trail. Actually they were looking forward to moving it. He stated that the applicant would furnish a letter from the Forest Service. 16 U zJ PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Jim Shearer asked if the applicant would have to build up the lower access and Kent Rose, engineer for the applicant, explained that they did a crass section which showed that 3 to 3-1/2 feet of fill would bring the slope to 4 to 5~. Chuck Crist felt that his concerns had been answered. Dalton commented that the project looked nice. He was afraid the walls might sear the land a little. He liked Jim's suggestion of planting between the north access road and Bueffer Creek Road. Ludwig Kurz also agreed with Jim regarding the plantings. Regarding phasing, Ludwig asked if Mr. Zneimer would do the whole project. Mr. Zneimer answered that his intent was to build the whole project. Ludwig asked Mr. Zneimer what would happen if someone wanted to purchase a lot in another phase. Mr. Zneimer explained that they were looking at different market alternatives such as right of first refusals. the bottom line was that a perspective purchaser would have to wait if the desired lot was in a later phase. Peter Jamar c~.~~~~~ented that the phasing was covered under the conditions of approval. At present, the property was not subdivided. The condition would be to finish the improvements before a C.O, or T.C.O. was issued or to escrow 125% of the cost of improvements. Connie Knight asked staff why the board was not asking for employee housing. Kristan explained that the development was within standards, was down zoning and was not an SDD. Connie stated that she liked the roads but was not sure of the difference between cut and fill walls and Kent explained the difference to her. Connie commented that she would rather see internal mitigation rather than rock fall fencing. Kathy felt that the caretaker units should be deed restricted and Kristan and Andy explained that the code section referred to in the memo referred to the deed restrictions. Mr. Zneimer stated that there may be new methods of hazard mitigation that would be sensitive to the land. He asked for the opportunity to come back. 17 L' '+~ - PEC Minutes 3.0/22/90 Meeting Diana also felt that native vegetation should be required on the upside of the Valley Road. A motion to approve the reauest for a ma-ior chance to the, existina development approval for the Vailev. Phase VT. with. the follawina conditions was made by Kathy Warren and, seconded by Chuck Crist. Conditions: (The items in bold were ahanaes or additions made by the board to the staff memo 1. Prior to the Town approving any buildina hermits for this development, the applicant shall provide to the, Fire Department: a-- engineering drawings showing adeauate turning distances for each of the cul-de-sacs. and b--- a mitigation plan for lot 4, which may include sprinkling, which meets the Fire Department reauirements. 2. Except for the area within buildina envelopes 5 and 6, the applicant shall restrict the alien spaces between the access roads and Buffehr Creek Road so that no, structures fincludina fences. sheds. or accessory buildinasl shall be built in this area. Zn addition. na landscaping shall be planted in the area that is inconsistent with the existina native landscaping. 3. The applicant shall design all driveways so that the simplest. most direct means of access to the site is provided. Driveways that wind up the hillside to gain elevation shall pat be approved; _ 4. Prior to the issuance of buildina permits. the applicant shall dedicate a drainage easement, final drainage report. and final road enai;ieerina to the Town of Vail which meets the standards of the Public Works department. 5. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies or temporary certificate of occupancies for building envelopes 1 through 6, the applicant shall install the, proposed landscaping to mitigate the appearance of the walls, In addition. the applicant must provide a financial guarantee to the Town for the period of two winters to be used for landscape replacement. 1S ~. PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting 6. Prior to issuance of building Hermits for buildina, enveloHes 3 or 4. the applicant shall submit Hlans, showing that the proposed buildina meets the internal, mitigation requirements of the Mears report dated, September. 1990. 7. The applicant has the option of including a caretaker, unit within each structure using an additional 800 sa., ft. of GRFA to the amount allocated to each building envelope for the caretaker unit. The units must compl~r with Section 18.13.080 lB~. UH to 400 square feet of unused GRFA from the primarv unit may be transferred to the caretaker unit, however no caretaker unit shall exceed 1200 sa. ft. 8. The applicant shall design all retaining walls located, in the front yard setback with terracing so that none exceed three feet in height., 9. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupanev or a temnorarv certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct all improvements from Buffer Creek Road, . to the unit under construction. If occupancy is requested prior to the installation of anv improvements. the applicant must escrow 125 of the, construction cost prier to the Town issuing a C.O. or T.C.D. Improvements in this case shall include, landscaping. wall construction. roads, drainage, and utilities. 10. Prior to the issuance of anv buildina Dermits for this development. the applicant shall vrovide a lettex from the Forest Service auaranteeina the reconstruction of the trail that crosses this property. 11. Prior to the issuance of C,O.~s or T.C.O.~s for buildina envelopes 5 and 5. the applicant shall plant a densely vegetated slope of landscaoina between those construction sites and Buffer Creek Road. This, landscaping shall extend from the construction area all the way east to the intersection of the upper service road and Bueffer Creek Road. Jim Shearer felt that there should be flexibility to shorten the cul de sac on the upper road, to show less asphalt. Kathy Warren amended her motion to include Jim's suggestion, as follows and Chuck Crist seconded the amended motion., • 19 ~~ r- PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Amended Condition: 12. The annlicant has the option to reduce the length of the unner road and locate the cul de sac further to the east. VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR Item No. 5: A request for setback variances in order ~;n rnn_struc_t additions to the Christiania Lodge located at 356 Hansen Ranch Road,, Lot D. Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. A~a~alicant: Paul R. Johnston Item No. 7: A request for off-street surface barking at the "Holy Cross barcel." Apblicant: Vail Associates Item No. 8: A request far a variance to allow a satellite, dish in the Gore Creek 50' setback and a request. for a floodolain modification on Lot 3, Block 1. Bighorn 1st addition, 3907 Luoine Drive. Ann7_.cant: Ron Oelbaum A motion to table items 6 and 7 to November 12. 1990 and, item 8 indefinitely was made by Chuck Crist and seconded bv. Jim Shearer VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR .7 20 • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 22, 2990 RE: A worksession on a request to rezone the Mountain Bell site, Lots 5-13 Vail Heights Subdivision and an unplatted parcel commonly referred to the Pedotto property in the Intermountain Subdivision to Medium Density Multi-Family zoning. Applicant: Professional Development Corporation I. INTRODUCTION Below is a summary of the type of unit, number of units, and square footage proposed far each of the three sites. The applicant has stated that they will meet all Town of Vail parking requirements, setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, height, and other zone district standards far another Medium Density Multi-Family zone districts standards. The primary reason that the applicant is rezoning the property is to allow for the number of units and GRFA for the affordable housing. • # of Units Sa. Ft. GRFA A. Mountain Bell Site: Unit Mix: Efficiency Units: 25 C 481 12,025 One Bedroom Units: 25 606 15,150 Two Bedroom Units: 14 760 10.640 Total: 64 37,815 B. Lots 5-13 Val]. Heights: Unit Mix: Efficiency Units: One Bedroom Units: Two Bedroom Units: _ Total; 45 C. Pedotto Site: Undecided at present. 36,680 Unit Mix: Efficiency Units: 8 @ 481 3 848 One Bedroom Units: 7 606 4,242 Two Bedroom Units: 30 760 22.800 Total: 45 30,890 • 1 Staff has summarized the comments into three sections_ mho first section outlines general comments and issues related to all three proposals. The second section addresses each of the sites and gives staff direction on the rezoning process. The last section lists the schedule for rezoning the properties up to actually receiving building permits for each of the three developments. The applicant has prepared an explanation on the rent structure for the development which is attached. There are also two charts and site location maps for the proposed sites enclosed. The first chart shows zoning statistics an parcels adjacent to the proposed rezonings. The second chart provides information on the existing employee housing development within the Town of Vail. IT. GENERAL ISSUES AND COMMENTS: A. Staff preference is to adopt the Housing Task Force recommendations and then proceed with the review of your rezoning request using a lower density zone district and the conditional use review for an affordable housing unit. However, if the Town Attorney finds that conditional zoning is acceptable, this option is also a possibility. Staff's main concern with this approach is that the proposals do not exceed the allowable number of standard dwelling units under the Land Use Plan Designation. We have addressed the • Land Use Plan number of allowable units versus the requested number of units with each site. The net result is a decrease of 18 units assuming you allow 45 units on the Mountain Be11 site. This approach results in a total unit count of 120 units. There may be some justification to increase the number of units allowed under the Land Use Plan because the development is far permanent affordable housing. B. The units for each development should have an architectural style that is unique. Staff has concerns about using the exact same unit type on all three sites. We would recommend that you look at modifying unit materials and design to give each property its own character. C. Each site should have at Least 20% of its units devoted to the CHAFA income standards. Staff does not support pooling low to moderate income units into one project. The staff and Council will also consider rental guidelines for the remaining units. All units would be required to be permanently restricted as employee housing units meeting Section 18.13.080 (B}a-d. The staff and Council may also require additional procedures to ensure that the units are rented to employees in the Vail Valley. i 2 D. Landscaping far all three sites should exceed what is • required if possible. Staff believes that this approach will make your project more acceptable to surrounding neighborhoods. All parking areas need to be bermed and screened by landscaping on all sides. E. Staff suggests that you try to arrive at a GRFA number that does not exceed the existing underlying zone district. Once again, this will make your project more acceptable to the surrounding neighborhood. It is my understanding that you are meeting all site standards for landscaping, site coverage, setbacks, height, and parking. F. A general traffic impact analysis should be submitted for each site. IiI. SITE ANALYSIS: A. MOUNTAIN BELL SITE: 1. Site Zonina Statistics: • Total site area : 23.37 acres. (excluding Mountain Bell tract) Minimum Buildable Site Area: 3.39 acres or 147x568 sq. ft. Land Use Plan: Desianation: Public/Semi-Public The Public/Semi-Public category includes schools, post office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal. facilities, and other public institutions, which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of the residents. Number of Units: The number of units is not referenced in this designation. n U Current Zoning: Agricultural Open Space Allowed Units: 1 dwelling unit Allowed GRFA: 2000 sq. ft Requested Units: 64 units Requested GRFA: 37,815 sq. ft. 3 r~ 2. Zanina Cemnarison: Affordable Unit Def. Applied to Units GRFA Density Cond. Use MDMF 61 51,683 sq. ft. 122 LDMF 30 44,300 5q. ft, 60 RC 20 36,917 sq. ft. 40 Prof Dev. Corp. 64 37,815 sq. ft. Not Applicable Request 3. Issues and Comments: • a. At this time it appears to staff that there are too many units proposed on this site. we are willing to look at the site planning in more detail and will keep an open mind to the number of units. However, it appears that reducing the units to a range of 34-54 units is more appropriate for the site. b. Please check the easements and the title work for this property. There may be a stock easement through the middle of the property. c. Staff is researching how this parcel of land was purchased. If real estate transfer tax funds were used, it may be difficult to use the site far housing. d. This proposal does not correlate directly with the Land Use Plan. Under the Public/Semi-public land use designation, there is no specific reference to residential units. e. There needs to be an adequate buffer of land around the ABC School and Learning Tree as well as the Mountain Bell building. f. Open Space should be maintained by the Main Vail entrance i.e. the east end of the site. g. As much landscaping as possible should be located in front of the units along the Frontage Road. Perhaps the Colorado Division of Highways will allow you to landscape on the right-of-way which is removed from the actual roadway. • 4 h. Hazards will need to be addressed. Staff needs to . understand the type of mitigation and its visual impacts. i. The units need to be designed specifically for the site. As stated in the general comments, the project should have its own character which is not repeated on the Pedotto and Vail Heights site. j, The site area in front of the Mountain Bell building and to the west of the Mountain Bell building should be looked at for buildings. The staff would want to see the large trees saved as they help to screen the Mountain bell building and your proposed buildings. k. Please contact the two schools and Mountain Bell as soon as possible to set up a meeting with them on the project. Staff would like to see these meetings occur before the actual work session an October 22nd. 1. In order to avoid the Timber Ridge appearance of buildings lined up along the Frontage Road, staff suggests that you try and break up the row of units along the North Frontage Road. m. A bus stop may be required for the project. This concept would need to be coordinated with the Public Works Department. n. Are the two schools included in your site coverage numbers and same of the other zoning standards? Please ask your architect to double check that you meet the minimum site standards for Medium Density Multi-Family especially the standards relating to the dimensions of the site. o. Specifics on the Mountain Bell lease and ownership need to be submitted. p. A Colorado Division of Highways access permit will probably be necessary. Please contact Rich Perske at CDOH in Grand Junction at 1-248-7212. Information on traffic for your project will need to be submitted. 4. Prel.iminarv Recommendation: There are two alternatives for rezoning this property. The means used to rezone will depend on comments from the public at the review of the affordable housing recommendations, as well as timing of adoption in . respect to your project, and Larry Eskwith's opinion as to whether or not the staff may apply conditions to a 5 rezoning approval. The preferred eption that staff would suggest is to rezone the property to Residential Cluster zoning and request approval for a conditional use to utilize the affordable housing unit definition. The second alternative would be to rezone the project to low density multi-family and limit the GRFA to 37,815 sq. ft. This approach would give you a total of 30 units. The staff is willing to keep an open mind on the number of units for this site. However, 64 units does not seem to fit on this site. Also ulease note that even if you rezone the parcel to MDMF zonina. vau would only be allowed a maximum of 61 units instead of 64. B. PEDOTTO SITE: 1. Site Zoning Statistics: Total Site Area: 2.5 acres Buildable Site Area: 2.5 acres or 108,900 sq. ft. Land Use Plan: Desianation: Medium Density Residential 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. Number of Units: 7 to 35 units. Current Zoning: Primary/Secondary Allowed Units: 2 dwelling units Allowed GRFA: 9,195 sq. ft Requested Units: 45 dwelling units Requested GRFA: 30,890 sq. ft. 6 • 2. Zenina Camnarison! Units GRFA MDMF 45 38,115 sq. ft. LDMF 22 32,670 sq. ft. RC 15 27,225 sq. ft. Prof Dev. Corp. 45 30,890 sq. ft. Request 3. Issues/Comments:, Affordable Unit Def, Applied to Density Cond. Use 90 44 30 Not Applicable a. Staff recommends that you continue to talk to as many neighbors as possible in the Intermountain area. U b. In order to come up with an existing allowed GRFA for the property, it is evident that you are assuming that the property is divided into several primary/secondary lots. Please show the staff the lot assumptions and general layout so that we are certain that the lots would meet Primary/Secondary zoning. This is important as the GRFA allowed under the estimated number of Primary/Secondary lots is what is being used as the allowed GRFA. Technically, the existing property at this time only has an allowed GRFA of 9,195 sq. ft. assuming one Primary/Secondary lot. c. The berming and landscaping on the south side of the project is needed in order to screen the development and parking areas from the Camelot Townhomes. The unit architecture needs to be physically designed for this site and a design character developed for the project. d. A shuttle bus will probably be required to minimize impacts on the existing bus system in the area. 4. Preliminary Recommendations: n U Staff preference would be to rezone the property to Low Density Multi-Family and to use the affordable housing unit definition. A second option would be to rezone your property as Medium Density Multi-Family. The number of units would need to be limited to 35 units per the Land use 7 Plan. It would alse be preferably if yeu ceuld limit your GRFA to 20,225 sq. ft. as allowed under RC zoning. Properties directly across the street are zoned Residential Cluster. Staff is concerned about a project that exceeds the number of units designated by the Land Use Plan. C. LOT 5-13, VATL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION: 1. Site Zonina Statistics: *Total Site Area: 4.8 acres or 212,092 sq. ft. *Buildable Site Area: 2.7 acres or 118,906 sq. ft. *Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 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. Number of Units: 8 to 37 units. Current Zoning: Primary/Secondary Allowed Units: 18 dwelling units Allowed GRFA: 41,463 sq. ft. (Under P/S individual lots} Requested Units: 45 Requested GRFA; 36,680 sq. ft. *Assumes all nine lots are combined into one parcel by the major subdivision process. • 8 • MDMF LDMF RC 2. Zoning Comnarisont Units GRFA 48 41,617 sq. ft. 24 35,672 sq. ft. 16 29,726 sq. ft. 45 36,68p sq. ft. Prof Dev. Corp. Request 3. Issues/Comments Affordable Unit Def. Applied to Density Cond. Use 96 48 32 Nat Applicable a. Hazards exist on the property and would need to be mitigated. Staff would like to understand what this mitigation will look like. b. All parking needs to be screened as much as passible from the street by berms and landscaping. c. A specific design character needs to be established for this development. d. Easements and ownership should be checked for all properties within your proposal. e. The open space area on the western portion of the site is very positive. Perhaps a small pocket park could be located at this location. f. This site is extremely positive for affordable housing because its proximity to commercial areas and public transportation. 9 • PAGE LETTER, TOM CAMPBELL ~. Preliminarv Recommendations: Staff recommends that you rezone the property to Low Density Multi-Family and use the affordable hauling definition which would require that you reduce the GRFA by 1,008 sq. ft. and receive a conditional use approval to use the affordable housing definition. The second approach, assuming conditional zoning is acceptable, is to zone the property Medium Density Multi-Family. Staff would require that you limit the units to 37 units so that the Land Use Plan maximum number of units is not exceeded. We would also want to limit the GRFA accordingly due to the unit reduction, • TV, PROJECT SCHEDULE ASSUMING NO DELAY: October 22 PEC Work session on all sites. October 29 PEC approves requested zoning enabling densities and GRFA for projects. October 31 DRB conceptual review of proposals. November 6 Town Council, First reading of ordinances rezoning properties. November 7 DRB reviews revisions to proposals from October 31st meeting. November 12 Developer submits for major subdivision to vacate lot lines for Vail Heights. November 20 Town Council, second reading of ordinances on rezoning properties. November 21 Final DRB approval once rezoning ordinances are in effect. • November 23 Complete set of building permit plans for Pedotto and Mountain Bell sites are submitted to the Community Development Department at 8:00 a.m, Friday morning. December 10 PEC preliminary plan review. 10 PAGE LETTER, TOM CAMPBELL December 12 Building permits ready for Pedotto and Mountain Bell property assuming plans do not require any revisions to meet building code requirements. December 17 Developer submits final plat submittal to Community Development Department for January 13th PEC meeting. January 14, 1991 PEC Final Plan review. January 16 Final DRB approval for Vail Heights project. January 17 Developer submits complete set of building permit plans for Vail Heights subdivision at 8:00 a.m., allowing 2 weeks for the plan review. February 4 Building permit ready for Vail Heights project assuming plans require no revisions to meet building code requirements. This schedule assumes that the developer would want to obtain Council approval at the first reading of the rezoning ordinance for the Vail Heights property before proceeding with the major subdivision to vacate the lot lines for the many lots involved with the Vail Heights property. This approach also assumes that conditional zoning is acceptable. if you are willing to risk not getting the zoning that you are requesting, the property owners could submit far a subdivision as early as October 29th for the November 26th PEC meeting. At this meeting, tine preliminary plan would be reviewed. The final plan could be reviewed an December 8th. U 11 . October 15, 1990 fritzlen, pierce, brine= architectures planning, interior-s p.o. box 57 . 1000'li:onsridge loop suite 1/d nail, Colorado 8.1.658 303=476-6342 i"ax 3U3-476-490 To: Town of Vail Planning Commission Members Council Members, Interested Residents and Business .. Owners We would like to address some of the concerns ~kpressed in regards to .the rent structure of the Professional De- ` velopment Proposal for housing Financed by Private Ac- tivity Bonds available through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. We'd like to ref~z you to the findings ;, of the Eagle County Housing Needs Asse~ment prepared by Rosall Remen and Cares, dated May o-f 1990., prepared.-for the The Eagle County Recreaton'and Af£ordabie' Housing- ... Task Force and The Northwest Council of Governments. That Housing study states, on page 13 that Va11ey wide the, for the current year, average cost per..... bedroom , is; . $523.00/month fora seasonal workers and $365.00/month for permanent residents. Average employees--per household is 2.32, and the average housing cost per household is $838.00. Housing costs are lowest on the western .end o-f the valley and increase as they r~ach,Vail'. The Employers were surveyed as-well. The reports states: "In rough terms the employers are willing: to pick up ap- ' proximately a 25 percent share of a $450/month per ems ployee cost., :. The same study states that the:median personal income valley wide is $20,000.00 :per year. The~study:recommends _ an housing affordable cost at 30$ o,t. personal. income, which translates to $90.00/month/per-son. The stud y is over 30 pages long.. and covers a nuznber_ of , topics, including the''needs o~ families versus singles, seasonal versus permanent, renters versus owners. The resident profile and level o~ dissatisfaction is varied.- The survey identifies an existing need for 800 units the next two years. We would suggest you review the eagle County Housing Needs Assessment in judging the merits of the Probes-- sional Development Housing Proposal. i Pg • 1 1$10901 5.DOC ~ pierce, fritzlen, architects, inc. d.b.a. fritzSen, pierce, brines j F #'ormerly intratect design group .. ~ o ~o r~ cs :°c7~ ~ o : r m J ~ Z W ' ¢ - Z cn -- °-' cn O ~ ~. Z ~ ~ co x1D ', ~ OD _; CJ9 C ': O'. r M oD U1 v U N _ !M ~ •V . ~_ ~J - .,. ., u. ~ ~ r c ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~? i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z :'~ z a z a z a z o ~ N • • O N 'c 0 N a (.-" (J•} W 4' J a Q z W ~_ a ~~ ~~ ..~ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\l\•\\ \\~\ !S \\\\\\•\.\\\\\\\•\ ~ 0000 O O o° ° O O •\\\\\\\r\\\\\\\\\ °000 O O 00 O O \\\\\\\\\\\•\\\\\\ O O O ~O O O ¢d0 \•\\\\\\• \\\\\\\• O'Q ° ° O° O O 000 O \\~\b\•\• •\\\\\•\ 000000 O O .\\\\\~ gap0 •\\• •\\• •\•\\\•\ '~ - - ox,ooo 00000 `~~ o;.0°G ago 004 Q~n~ . 0000' 000° O p~00 C O O~O., \~\\\~\ O 0 \\\• •\•• •\\\\\\\~ ~, O O O \~•• \\\\ •\\\\•\\ p ~; \\\\\• 00 \\\\\\\•\\\\\\\\\\~ z o \\\ \~ \ ~ 00 \ •\\\\\\ ~ o ~l\\\\\ o p \\•.•\\ ~ \\~\\\ p \ \\\\ „ 1rd .9 0 \\~ °~ i~~ ~p0 ` 00 • ...\\~ ..~ 0o pOp \ •\\•. ~\\\\\\\ O O • \\\\\• ~~\~••••••,• ~ q O 00 6b \ •\~\\\\~\\\\\\•\\\~~~ d,~ • •\~\\\\\•~\\\\\\\\\\~ 1 O \ •\\\\~•• \\\\\\\\\•\•\\\\\\ p •\\~? 1\ \\\\•\•\\\\\\~\\\ °O~+ O ~ ,\ • 00040 O \•\\\\\\\•\\\\• \ \ 000000 \~\\~\~• \ \ odop 04000 \\•\.\\ pckpo ~ -\ v 0000 0000 \\\•\\\ 6 `\ \ °0000 \\\•\\• O nvO ~~~ 0000 •\\\\~\ \\\\\•• p \\\ r 4b00 00000 \\\\\\• \`~\ 0000 0000 \\~\\\\\ ~\\\\\ °000.\\\• •, pmp Otl0 \\\\\\\\\• \\\\\\\• OQO°,\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ Q \\\\~+ \ 000°.~~~ ~ \ •' 00 0 ° ~~~~~~~~: ~ a0 °p ° \ Op0\\\\ • ~O \ \\\\ ~ Op ~O \\\\\\\\\\• • O 00 ~ \\\\•\\\N\ •• \ X00 O O \\\\\\~\\\ \• :t'~', p ,~ p \\\\\r\\\\ \\ a g a ~ -a- / f {{ a c' t, \F \~ .r • f •t\ ~ r • •` .... .... ~ • { a~~e ~ ~a • r ~~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ • ~ • • • ~ r • • • i~ ~- . ,. \. • ,;,: a;:;::: ,~~~ ,.. .• • \\, '•~ ~:\.. • \ \ \ V l •~~ ` ` \\\ 000 \ \ \ \ }},.,,1 \ \\(1 OOC \• \ lRoo `\ oooc ' \ \ OVVv • \ \' ooh o ' "" \• 00 ~ ~ooo \ o ~ r : ~•. 000 , .'~\ \~ OC •\\ \ . G ~~~~~ '~0. •'• \ \ \oooc 1 \ ~O O C \~ ~ ~~ r`x~ -- ., ' ~\\\ \y~ \ o~ao ••• •\Ri 00~1nr • \ •\\• °ciOOa '''>: • • •\•\\ 00000( ' ~~ ~.. `• oooc \\'\ •• •\\\• Ob0 00 \\ \\•\•\• 00 r\, „\.,•\, o0 000 .\, \\...\.• ~ o~ \\ \..\,.\~ p ..\..••. \\ \ ••.\•\• o v oc ~` ` ~~:~~` po qo \ \\\\\• OObB O C ~ ~~}~.~~~, 0000 \ ••~*r••\• 00 O \ •. \•.\\•\ ., .,o c `\`\\" oooc •• \\\\\\\•• do •• •\\\•••\\\\\•\• pi \ • •\\•\\\•\\\••• p • 1 \\ti••\\\•\• \\ \\\\\\\\\\ F\ \-\\\\~\• •\• •\\•. \• \\• \ \•.... \\ \• i\\ • \ \\ •• •\ • • .a\ \ \ • \ \\ • . • • \• \ • :: .\ ~' \ \\. \. \•• •\\. \.\• \• •~•\~ •\ • •••\• . ..,,,~ ...•.,\ \ \\\ • • •\\ • • \•\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\' t ~ \\\ \~ 5~~~~~~~~ ;~~ ~~, • \ / ~ •• \\ 1 •\ \ •\ \ •\ •\ \\\~ ~ •\ \\ ~ \\~ • ~ ~ • ~t~ • fJ n yi Q~ y ° .'' 4 o a •° ~ ~ A .a •+ + ~ • y ~ 4° a° °a°+++ °++••+ °a°a°a ~^~ s. ~,, '~ !, .~. °Op°°S7d~°b`b °° ~ a+•° a ++°a a •4°r a •a°a ~~ •i~ f ..~`~.~!„ :•,°pOp°Q°p~Og04. 4°a•++°~°a++a°4°o+a°^a°aa°•°• ~ ~~ .. ~`~~, 3,3!'x'. ~`...~,. '~ Q~O~04d O~aQQ Qd~~~d °.••+a°~+•+•+°q°•°°o°Q1°a°•ad a4 a°a° 1.11 ~• t ~, ~~, 3,~#. ;•••~pp°Q ap OOdagOgOqabO dCk °d ¢, 6a°~•°a a±°~•°a°~+qa°°aqd ~°+aa•i1a,•< ~ ~A .~`~~"# ~~ - ~••~~ d°6~QO~d4~~~gdQq~QOp4Qb a° a° • °a•a + °ar+ • °a r • ° ~•. ~. ~. :•'; .','.':•'. O 6J QO °O °p0 Od dd b0 t. ° e • • + + ° a • ° • ^ a ~, ~~, ° °bg4b0°dd °<?D°Q°b°dp°°q o as e • j°r°•~°q•*°a;°°°a°+~<°aa°a ~ ~' d~ °q°d0°°°d qf3° pq° Oddp°O° dd a •` ~a° a• +~°°•° at°`}4d0,<+a° ",~ ;.~,. :.•v•.'.; °~ ~dQOp°ddbd°d°bdbdbddd°q°°bd°O ' aa` ,aaa aa° '.°n°+ •°°a + °,° ~. '~, ;%.T,• .:J O dddOb°Od°4ggOd°dOpdO°O0p as°a4aaaa aaaaa as°°a aor+q°as++°°°a ~~,~~~.••'•• Gy ° p °°~Q~~DO ddOp4~p~Q 4° ba ~`° aaaa +aa +• " ° ° ~~~_ '••• O ~ °Q° °d°d0°qd°4dp • vaa` aaa` b°°aa i.fra .;~ 1~•,•;• ~ -°4 pdp~~O° °Op~OpO°°0<?4 a+aa~` aa•` aaa+ • .~.~,' °° ~ x ~° ° •°d40 `?db0°°dQgO ,aa ~~ar+`aa :aa ~, '~yi. 7p (J °O~ 4~p °°°O Q°badb°° y nsa° na `° ±`ar ~.• •'••••,•• Yvy d~ ~ ~p ~~•+°dQ bd p°O as eaa °°a• q° O..}JQe~j ~°p°dd° )gadpQ ° o° as ``aa a `•' ¢~ ° °° ° qOd°d a a: A a ±i; `•: ..~:~••+';.•~ 4~ u 'il` 4 °Ad d°q °4pd aaai ~ a M °°a a ~'`••,•Y .j,~•:` • °A Q ~j°q~b OQQ pb ~ d p~pj0 a°a •~• CS °bd O[[~~.yyop a ° • a `' as ~ fJ° p°~j °Q`°QO ± ~ as ~:;`•' ~~ Y5 qy,° ~ p a0 ~b p ° 6 ° ,•° ~••' b d° °°Op °d t~' a°a a '.~: .: d ° Odd Q°rq ad ~.~'+'. to OO S d Q 4 "'L7 ° Q ••;~' ••# O° ~ °dD o °dp ° ., -, ° °° O~ad ° °° ° .~• .Y. ° o°D°°° +r, a °~d°a ~; ~ ~ ~a o °ob ~ ~ ~o~ °° M •' d ~ ~ i ~~ y~+~6 ~~ ~~~~~ .~~" ,~~~~~~~ ;~~~~~~: ~~~~"~~ ~~~~~~~ .. ~~~~~' .. •~~' .•. ~ ~ i`.•g'. ~ °~iE:?I ---, ~.. N [l.~ a r- w r- z 7 a Q 0 „{, ~ N j e ~.avat r ~~~...~~~ . ~~ s ~~~~~~~'~~.~~. _~\ ~ ~~~ .. 1 d • • i i ~~~ C"' X _....~ ^ r1 LJ _,.,.s n LJ r i r r 1 j , r r~ l T0: Planning and Environmenta]. Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 22, 1990 RE: A request for a conditional use permit beer at wholesale and to sell beer for consumption at 143 E. Meadow Drive, Lot Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: First Brewery of Vail/Dean Z. BACKGROUND in order to sell off-site P, Black 5D, Liotta On August 21, 1990, the Town Council approved on second reading Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1990 allowing Brew Pubs as a use by right in the Commercial Service Center zone district. This ordinance, in addition to allowing a brew pub as a use by right, allows a brew pub operator to apply for a conditional use permit to sell beer wholesale and to sell beer for off-site consumption. • This application is for both of these uses. The ordinance, among other restrictions, limits annual brewing capacity to 1500 barrels per year. Of this annual production, the amount of beer sold far off-site consumption and sold wholesale may not exceed a total of 15 percent {225 barrels). A barrel is equivalent to 31 gallons. The Town Council made one change to the PEC recommendation by consolidating the conditional use requests, from two separate reviews into one. Though the PEC expressed an interest in reviewing each request individually, the Council thought the staff and applicant time would be better spent if both were consolidated. The Town has issued building permits for the conversion of the former Burger King space to the First Brewery of Vail, and construction work is currently under way. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE One of the two components of this application is beer sales for off-site consumption. This will involve selling cans or battles of beer at the restaurant for customers to take home with them. Beer could also be sold to individuals who walk in for the purpose of purchasing beer only. Of the total amount of product which may be sold under this conditional use approval (225 barrels), the applicant anticipates selling approximately 900 of it in this manner. • 1 • The second component of product wholesale. The to sell kegs of beer to has agreed to the follo~ delivery of the kegs to the request involves selling the applicant would like the opportunity local restaurants. The applicant wing stipulations regarding the the other restaurants: 1. All wholesale deliveries will be made via the Crossroads loading dock. No deliveries will occur on Meadow Drive. 2. The vehicles used for delivery will be pick-up trucks or jeeps. 3. Only employees of the brew pub will make deliveries. Employees from other restaurants may not come to the brew pub to pick up an order. 4. The owner will consolidate all wholesale product deliveries into a maximum of one delivery trip per week to accommodate local restaurants. III. C_RITERTA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.64, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: • A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relatianshit~ and impact of the use on development ab~ectives of the Town. The purpose of the Commercial Service Center zone district is as follows: "The commercial service center district is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities servicing the town, together with limited multiple- family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the district. The commercial service center district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses." . 2 • The purpose statement calls for mixed uses, provided that there is no interference with the basic commercial functions of the district. Staff believes that the two kinds of sales requested with this conditional use application fit with the shopping center environment which the code describes. Because the Crossroads management staff have said that the loading dock is used approximately twice a day for a total of 45-60 minutes, staff believes that adding another use of the dock each week is reasonable and would not overload the loading/delivery area. Therefore, the impacts of the weekly delivery for the wholesales will not interfere with the a~~~~~~~ercial functions of the district. 2. The effect of the use on light and air.. distribution of population. transuortation facilities, utilities,, schools, e~arks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. This project will have no affect on any of the above criteria. 3. effect uuon traffic with uarticular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control. access.. maneuverah_i_.7.ity, and removal of snow from the street and narking areas. The impact on traffic is the most important issue with this request. Because the applicant is willing to limit deliveries to once a week and will make those deliveries himself, the additional number of trips due to wholesales is minimal. Conditions of approval will restrict the applicant from allowing wholesale customers to pick up their orders. This will limit any additional vehicular trips in the Crossroads vicinity. There may also be trips generated to the site by individuals wanting to purchase beer and take it to their homes to drink. This kind of use is similar to a liquor store, which is an allowable use in the C~,~~,~~ercial Service Center zone district. . 3 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the brouosed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the t~rooosed use in relation to surrounding uses. The conditional use operation will not affect the character of the area or the mass and bulk of the building. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commissien shall make the, follow.i.na findings before arantincr a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this conditional use because we believe the proposal is in accordance with the purposes of the zone district and because the business will be operated in such a way that it would not be detrimental to properties in the vicinity or to the traffic in the area. Lastly, staff believes it meets the applicable provisions of the conditional use review. Therefore, we recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a delivery service for any wholesale customers and shall not allow wholesale customers to pick up the product at the site. 2. The applicant shall not make deliveries more than once a week to wholesale customers. 3. The applicant shall conduct all deliveries via the existing loading dock. 4. The applicant shall not use any vehicle larger than a pick up truck to make the deliveries. . 4 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 22, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance far an addition to Condominium Unit E-6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive, Crossroads Condominiums. Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr. I. BACKGROUND: A similiar height variance was requested earlier this summer and the following actions were taken: A) The Planning & Environmental Commission, at their June 11, 1990 public hearing, voted 6-0 to deny the request. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are attached to this memo. B) The applicant subsequently appealed the PEC desicion, and on July 17, 1990, the Town Council voted 6-0-1 to uphold the PEC decision and to deny the variance request. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The owner of Condominium Unit E-6 is requesting a height variance in order to expand the condominium by 343 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition will be on the east elevation of the building, at the 5th story. The addition will be built over the existing first, second and third floors below and a false facade would be constructed at the fourth floor level, both on the north and east elevations, (please see attached elevation drawings). A balcony is proposed for the 5th floor, along the north elevation, and a balcony rail would be constructed along the east elevation. The 4th Boor facade would include a balcony rail along both the north and east elevations. This 4th floor facade would architecturally tie the 5th floor addition to the existing floors below. It would be reasonable to believe that at some future date the fourth floor unit would expand and infill the area of the false facade. The proposed addition will match the appearance of the existing building with both colors and materials. U 1 The applicant has proposed landscaping improvements adjacent to the Crossroads project as a portion of this request. The proposed landscape improvements along the South Frontage Road consist of the addition of four, 18-22' tall spruce and seven, 3" caliper narrowleaf cottonwood trees, (see attached site plan). Since all of the landscaping improvements would be located within the Colorado Department of Highways right- of way, the CDOH has reviewed and approved of the planting design (approval letter dated October 15, 1990). Crossroads is zoned Commercial Service Center which has a maximum height limit of 38 feet. The existing building is in nonconformance with this 38 foot height requirement, as the existing eave line in the area of the proposed expansion is approximately 53 feet above finished grade. The existing ridge line of the roof above the proposed expansion is approximately 61 feet above finished grade. The proposed expansion will not alter the existing eave line and will not affect the ridge line of the building. The ridge line of the praposed addition would be approximately 58' above finished grade, with the eave line at 51' above finished grade. The requested height variance to 58' will exceed the maximum allowable height in this zone district by 20 feet. There would be no impact on the Town's parking requirements as a result of this expansion. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Area = 80,025 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA = Existing GRFA = Remaining GRFA = 32,01.0 sq. ft. {400} 22.817 sq. ft 9,193 sq. ft. Unit E-6 existing GRFA = 1352 sq. ft. Unit E-6 proposed GRFA = 343 sq. ft. 1.695 sq. ft. total TV, 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 reauested variance to, other existing or botential uses and structures in, the vicinity. The staff's opinion is that the proposed height variance request, if approved, would have no significant impact upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We recognize that much of the existing Crossroads Condominium Building is in nonconformance with the 38' height limit, although Crossroads is the only property in the Town currently zoned Commercial Service Center. Crossroads is adjacent to the Public Accommodation, Commercial Care TI and Commercial Core I zone districts. These zone districts allow maximum heights of 48', 48' and 43' respectively. There are no identified "view corridors" that would be affected as a result of this expansion. However, Vail Mountain can currently be viewed from T-70 and the North Frontage Road through this area. The proposed addition will eliminate this view. Staff believes that the proposed addition's 58' high ridge would help transition the highest ridge of this building, which is at 61' with the lower 44' ridge of the Cinema to the east. This transition will give a terraced effect to the roofscape, as viewed from I-7Q and the South Frontage Road. 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and, Literal interpretation and enforcement of a, specified regulation is necessarv to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives. of this title without grant of special privilege., The strict and literal interpretation of the height regulations for the Crossroads Condominium building would mean that no further changes would be allowable to the roof or eave lines, due to the existing nonconformance of the project. We feel that it is appropriate to support this . request because the proposed addition presents no adverse impacts upon the existing development or upon adjacent properties. This request is also • consistent with similar height variances that were approved in the spring of 1990 and in 1989. These variances, respectively, added 86 square feet of GRFA to an adjacent 5th floor residential condominium and added a dormer on the east side of Crossroads Commercial (above Burger King), for an office remodel. The Enzian or L'Ostello was also granted a height variance to allow for the expansion of several lodge units. Because this request does not alter the existing ridge line of the building or in any way effect the overall height of the structure, we feel that there is no grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of nonulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and t~ublic safety. There is no impact from this requested variance upon any of the above criteria. V. RELATED POLICIES TN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan provides general guidelines regarding building heights in the Core. The Plan states that "...it is the goal of this Plan to maintain the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road)." The area of this proposed height variance is categorized in the Vail Village Master Plan as having an acceptable building height range of 5-6 stories. A building story is defined as 9' of height and no roof is included. This addition is located on the fifth story of the building. The proposal does support the Vail Village Master Plan height plan. VI. 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. 4 r~ LJ 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 ar 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. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this project is for approval. We believe our recommendation to be consistent with recent decisions by the staff and the PEC, which have allowed same flexibility in the height requirements for pre-existing, nonconforming buildings, as long as the existing ridge line of the building is not modified and as long as the alteration does not negatively effiect any adjacent properties. We believe this request to be consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and not to be a grant of special privilege, and therefore recommend approval. We are supportive of the applicant's request to upgrade the landscaping along the north elevation of the Crossroads Condominium building. We are, however, concerned with the general appearance of the large rectangular planters located adjacent to the bus route on East Meadow Drive. These timber planters have been in a state of disrepair for some time now and the staff has recommended that the Crossroads Condominium Association continue to pursue the upgrading of these planters. Although legally the staff cannot condition the variance upon renovation of the planters, we feel strongly that the planters should be rebuilt and would encourage the applicant to proceed with the project. n U 5 •.i .7 r ' ~.E Y' 1 : , • ~,._ - .+ '1.. L~`~iX .~ ~~ ~ '' '{, Laa t ''• .~. a t '~ ~, ;r•, Nay •~ t -~i i, ~'~ ! 7 t'• ~ 1 . I, .'~ 1 ~ ..~:~ h r it r ~~ ~ ~ \,•, .. ~ { .~. a ' ~ r, a ,;~'i ~ ~•Y ~~, ` r.. ( rti~~?-`s' s+rr a £ 'r.~ {e- ~. ~~~~ ~; i''~ 'IYi j, ~ ~ ~ i,' il,'A w~ 7, °r ~~' ~ .., : l .. - r.. __ t 5, r~. ~> ~ c .~ ~' f I~y ,~'~ ~,~:; ~ ~ ~ ~,. r .' ~ ~ 11. ray' ~~..kk~i~''i~t~i Ff `11', a N r ..i... 1 _; 'k l~~• :1 V tl. ~. N' f~~ ''~. F'f N '.~` i S { rt3 N 1 I4 •4 ~~,~~ 5• 1 1 1 5 >• ! 1 ~ : ~ F iyn r ICY' `il ~ r'r, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r'~ pr's - - '~' • rv . ;;' ' • 1,!o- ~.. ~if. ''U'~: ~ .'1 !''r"~H. ~ R BROOM 2 "ems - ., ~ (.. '~ 1 ~':: E. _ i ll t. . , N NOOK • T` ~~ ~ < d' 'J i 'SY _ >s r 1 6, s S ~ _ .. e ~ iw, -r, ~ ' ' I.,MNG ROOM - '•.~. A. - ~ 1 . ~ . ~1 l~4 -~ . .~r_ ~,. .. . ,~ ~,.~ • • f I I i I I 'h • l i ~~ I f~ S~ ~I f 1CC. v 1 . . ~' ` ~ II Y ~' ~L I !~ I 1. ~ !I ,: -----~ i ~- --_ ~ a . • f'° j° • r~ • I i t ~ f ~ ~ ~~ 3~ ti I~ _.1 ,. ~~, .. v - u~ f r,., ,n /Z \) Sy ~1 `~ ~ V' 511 • • ~~ ~_J s~ ~s :: ,- ~~:- io f I m .~ :. } 4 i!') N Z ~~ O~ Qr w C7 Z_ D _J m • r f , ~~ ~~ ~f ', 1 J m" ~ i .~ : II ~~ ~~ ~ L . _,~.. a ~u - ' a ~ ~ I ~. ~~~ ` .~ ~~ I 1. E~ 11 r _: . • \~~ ~ . . ...,f:, ~ ~ .y.` Z .~ `~` I~ " Item No. 6: ~ reauest for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E_f .'.Lot P.-~~B~oc~'~SD;=~V~'~ ~ - Villaae First ~~na`"-Y41"`"East Meadow Drive,' ~~: Crossroads Condominiums. ~ AniUlicant: ""H.~' William Smith. Jr: ~--~.~: = Mike Mollica presented the proposal explaining that the owner of condominium unit E-6 was requesting a height variance in order~to expand the condominium by 343 sq. ft, of GRFA. The proposed addition would be on the east elevation of the building, at the 5th story. A false facade would be constructed at the fourth floor level. The proposed addition would match the appearance of the existing building with both colors and materials, Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis and the criteria used in evaluating the proposal. The staff rec~....,.endation was for approval. Staff believed the recommendation to be consistent with recent decisions by the staff and the PEC, which had allowed some flexibility in the height requirements for pre--existing, nonconforming buildings, as long as the existing ridge line of the building was not modified and as long as the alteration did not negatively effect any adjacent properties. Sid Schultz, representing the applicant, brought and displayed additional photographs to show the proposed addition and stated that as far as the views that Mike had shown, they were worst case. Regarding the upgrading of the planters out in front of the building along East Meadow Drive, the applicant and Robert Smith were in favor of renovating them. However, the bank awned more than 50~ of the property and had the deciding vote. . Mike Mollica gave some brief examples of other variances that had been granted under what he felt were similar circumstances, Dalton Williams felt the proposal would block views to the ski mountain. He was concerned about the void area not being completely closed off. If the project were to be approved, he would want to see the void area completely enclosed. Sid explained that the neighbors below, at the 4th floor Level, did not want them to enclose the area completely. It would block light and air from their unit. - Dalton explained that he was afraid the area would collect snow and trash. He felt the area needed to be enclosed completely or be left open all together and Mike suggested closing the area off with glass. - -, Kathy Warren stated that she was not comfortable with the architectural design. ~: Jim Shearer felt there was a problem with the blocked view from I-7o and Mike showed a Vaii Village Master Plan map that called out for a 5-6 story element in this area. View corridors were preserved directly to the west and east of the property. . Diana felt the proposal was similar to adding another building and she questioned where it would stop. 16 Jim Shearer agreea with Diana. He felt there ~-s not enough "' transparency in the existing building already. ° Chuck Crist was concerned, though he liked the balcony on the side facing the Frontage Road, about the small void space and did not wish to set a precedent. He felt that if they were to approve the proposal, the precedent might encourage someone to ask to add a penthouse on top of the cinema. Kristan agreed that, if approved, the project could be precedent setting. Sid stated that when using the Vail Village Master Flan as a guide, the plan showed the roof heights tapering down from the , Frontage Road to East Meadow Drive. Diana felt that the proposal looked like another building. She stated that the Master Flan showed a wall that V'd down in the middle. Dalton felt that the proposal gave a "great wall" look and feeling due to the lack of transparency. Connie Knight explained that when she first read over the proposal she didn't have a problem with the addition. She now felt uncomfortable due to the additional GRFA, height and the void space, A motion to deny the height variance request per findings C- 1. C-2, and C-3 was made by Dalton Williams and seconded by Jim Shearer. Discussion after the motion centered around the reasoning behind the denial. It was felt that the proposal read as a whole new element and not just a roof change. It was also decided that the intent of the Master Plan was to step down, not simply allow 5 stories. VOTE: 6-0 TN FAVOR OF DENTAL Item No. 7: A request for a height variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E-5. Lot P. Block 5D. Vail Village First Filing. 141 East Meadow Drive. Cr6ssroads Condominiums. Annlicant: Robert Smith Mike Mollica explained that the owner of Condominium Unit E-5 was requesting a height variance in order to expand the condominium by 86 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition would be vn the ,_. south elevation of the building, at the 5th story. The proposed addition would match the appearance of the adjacent balcony enclosure. • 17 ,~ p~PAR7M>~fVT OF HfGFtWAYS 714 Grand Ave., P.Q, eax 298 Eac31a, Colorado 81631-0298 (343)328-6385 October 15, 1990 Matthews & Associates Post Office Pax 3567 Vail, GO 8.658 ST~ITE C.~F ~C~LC~IZADC) ~,n o,. s~`9s~' ~~_ . M °~` o° ~~F n~ co~~r Attn: Mr. Richard Matthews Re: Landscaping at Crossroads Gent~,emen ; As discussed during our on site meeting, landscaping will bs permitted to comply with the fol~.awing provisions; ~~ ' 1. Na tree with a base diameter of ~" or larger wi.~:l be allowed. 2. No trees that can cast a shadow orita the roadway will be permitted. . 3. Trees will not be allowed on the slope from the highway nor will the slope be disturbed as to precipitate bank deterioration. • The Department of Highways reserves the right to revoke this permission at any time it deems necessary, Z`he Department of Highways can at any future date require modifications or deletions to any part of this landscaping. The Department of Highways wi11 not be responsible far any damages done to landscaping in the course of normal maintenance or snow removal operations, All flagga.ng and traffic control will be dons in accordance with the M.[I.T.C.D. Signing is required at all times work i~ being. .done. Faagging is required when any equipment will be on the paved roadway. Sincerely, J. Bryce 5anburg' Hwy. Mainz. Supt. TiT A. L. Pierce Sr. Hwy. Mainz Supv. E. E. Hill Hwy. Ma.int. Supv. xc: Sanburg/Driett~ . Pierce/Hill Patrol 19 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 22, 1990 RE: A request for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to allow construction of an airlock entry for the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, 304 Bridge Street, Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John S. Ho/Szechwan Lion Restaurant I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is proposing to construct an 8'-0" x 7'-6" airlock with a gross floor area of 60 sq. ft. for the Szechwan Lion Restaurant. The restaurant's entrance is on the east side of Bridge Street immediately north of the Red Lion Restaurant. Currently the entrance door opens from the exterior onto an upper level landing. From the landing, stairs lead down to the restaurant. The applicant has indicated his desire to construct the airlock because in the winter cold air flows down the stairs into the restaurant creating a situation where it is difficult to maintain a comfortable temperature. The applicant believes the construction of this airlock will alleviate this situation as well as define the restaurant's entrance. The proposed airlock entrance will provide shelter from the elements and thereby conserve energy. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Commercial Core I Lot Area: 13,957.9 sq. ft. The following development standards are impacted by the site coverage variance request: Coverage: Permitted site coverage in Commercial Core I is 80% of the lot area. Site coverage is defined as the "portion of a site covered by buildings, ground level patios and decks." Existing site coverage is 83.2. The following is a summary of existing and proposed conditions: • Site Area: 13,957.90 sq. ft. 1 Allowed Site • Existing Site Proposed Site Coverage (80~)s 11,1&&.32 sq. ft. Coverage (83,2%): 11,619.75 sq. ft. Coverage (83.6%): 11,679.75 sq. ft. The additional 60 sq. ft. of site coverage will increase the existing site coverage of the Red Lion by 0.4%. A variance is necessary for the .4% increase in site coverage. Landscanina: Existing Handscape area: 2,406 sq. ft. {75.5%) Existing Softscape area: 782 sq. ft. {24.5} Total Existing Landscape Area: 3,188 sq, ft. or 22.8% of site Proposed Hardscape area: 2,346 sq. ft. (75.0%} Proposed Softscape area: 782 sq. ft. (25.0%) Total Proposed Landscape Area: 3,128 sq. ft. or 22.4% of site III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose: The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are .intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The infill project is in compliance with the purpose of the CCI zone district. The addition will not negatively affect the scale of the building and will improve the overall quality of the space. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL 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, many of which identify potential areas fvr future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use 2 planning and design considerations, and finally architectural/landscape considerations which will be reviewed by the Design Review Berard, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan also addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition to the Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub-areas relevant to this proposal. VT. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE, The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to insure new development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: • The proposed addition will have limited impacts on the pedestrian traffic flow because of its location. The addition will add interest to this pedestrian area with increased visibility of the entry to the restaurant. Access will still be maintained for the Red Lion Restaurant emergency exit. The airlock does not affect the improvements proposed for the pocket plaza recently approved for the overall building exterior alteration. B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration or circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscane Framework: The airlock will create an inviting place of entry to the basement restaurant and will soften the adjacent plain high walls thereby enhancing the pedestrian scale of the space. • D. Street En~lasure~ . The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of streets and the height of buildings. The one story airlock addition in this recessed area will have no effect on the street enclosure of Bridge Street, It does not increase the overall height of the building and does not encroach into the pedestrian corridor, The addition will improve the existing condition by creating visual interest in this recessed area. E. Street Edae: There are no standard setback requirements in the Vail Village. Rather, proposals are looked at in relationship to the site and development surrounding the site to insure a strong street edge. The street edge of Bridge Street will not be impacted by this proposal. F. Building Heicrht: Building height will be increased by one story at the entry area. G. Views and Focal Points: • The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted view corridors. The airlock will have no impacts on the line of sight from either the top or bottom of Bridge Street. H. Service and Deliverv: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. I. Sun/Shade: There will be no increase in the shadow pattern as a result of this addition because it is within the existing shade pattern of the Red Lion building. J. A..rchitecture/Landscape Considerations: These design considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board. The staff believes the construction of the proposed airlock in this space will improve the appearance of this area by adding visual interest to the space. • The addition will necessitate the removal of &0 sq. ft. of brick pavers which are considered landscaping by definition. There is no landscape area requirement in CCI. In order to remove landscaping in the CCI zone district, sufficient cause must be shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. In this application the amount of hardscape is decreasing. Therefore, we are not requiring the approval of a landscape variance for this application. The removal of the pavers brings the softscape to hardscape percentages into greater conformance with the Town Code. The staff finds that the application is consistent with the Vail Village Design Considerations. In addition, the application is consistent with the goals and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. We also feel that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts of removing the paved area. VTI. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The following are goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan supported by this proposal: GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR- AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS--SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE 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 site coverage variance based upon the fallowing factors: • 5 A. Censideration of Faeters~ . 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed airlock will not impact access to or obstruct views from any adjacent properties. This small addition will not impact adjacent uses or activities in the area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a st~eCified rea'ulation 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 site coverage variance is a net increase of 60 sq. ft. Code requirements prohibit the construction of the airlock within the existing structure. Slight relief from the strict site coverage requirement is warranted to accommodate the airlock. The provision of airlocks is encouraged by the Town of Vail Zoning Code. 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. This proposal will not affect any of these criteria. IX. FINDINGS-- SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before crrantina 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. e. 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. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested exterior alteration and site coverage variance. The review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan Goals show that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. The staff believes that the construction of this airlock area will add visual interest to this recessed area off of Bridge Street and will improve the general appearance of the area. The proposed expansion will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area and the increase in site coverage is negligible. The site coverage variance is not a grant of special privilege and does not negatively impact adjacent properties ar uses. Strict interpretation of the site coverage requirement would create a physical hardship for the applicant as the airlock must be located on the exterior of the building to allow for safe access down the main staircase to the restaurant. Staff rec~..~..ends the applicant provide additional softscape landscape in the project area to mitigate the removal of existing hardscape landscape. • Balcony Orarhanq Eosemant For Rucksack Cond°miniuma IBaal4 2591 Pgye 447) RUCKSACK a (~iOfVDOMff~IfUMS 111.51' `q,,/ Bay wlnd°w S72°48'02"W ~ SIT°I I'3O"E 19.00' ^Nl7°I t'3O'W I.OD' E.OO' '~ / ,y66 ~ s~ ~~? N~2°q8E /`9a Zy2 ~. 1 ga.+$ \.Q 1 Stairs ~ Peck ~ D SET PINRCAP ~1 A C. L.5.235O6 9t ~~ ~~~1;~ ~Z~E~Wr~N .l.IoN fs.iW..o~ G.C.E. 2nd 3to a / Overhang _ 0 D3 `96 h• p6 P \ ~ a BRICK 8 CONCRETE ~ 0 A ~~ =191.07 -+. b o °' o.e' =10°3330" P0.TtO/STAIR/PLANTER b~ (10°23'!6" Colc.) d' = 35.21' ~' AEb LION INN CONEIOMINIEIM5 {34.64 Calc.} zyo wooB, srEEL, and CONCRETE BL4G. SET PIN & CAP L.S.235O6 r'~ A ~~ I oc .~ z ' ~~ a~ ~~ ~ ,-Outline °f bulldinq o! grade aL]L ' s• ~~ ~ t' d•. 'fs 'mss. _ ~~ ENTRY AREA L.C.E. UNITS C1, C2, C3 • lNTERgTATE 7 HlBf{WAY pa. 70 l Buildlnq con a ulaltle °t i SET PIN 8 6' OT ~ =y ;p Boy Wintlow overhang (Typ.) SET PIN !} CA ~ ~ L.S.239O6 O,C.E. rti ( 5 je,, 2. u` ~ ~ V;yj ~P.L_ ~~J ~ C '{ R^ i2.O0 t L= 14.60 " ~v $E7 PIN & CAP 0- ~~ L.S.235O6 1.2'tiadial ~~\ `~~ 2 J ~O g ~2. a X26 6 = 69°43'00 ~ R = 45.00' G. ?~ '! ~ °'' ' ~~ .:~ a~ Platted= L = 23.65` ti' ~ ~ = 30°0Tl8" ' ~ - SET PIN B CAP ' R = 45.00' L.s. z35ns , Calc= L = 35.72` ~ R = Iz.00' ' Calc= D = 45°28'35" L = 16.04 Q = 76°34'55' N r d l t nP5 •>:.. ';7 FXISTINC~ • ~D ~q h `. '\ I -- ~~\ 2 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~ • • 4:. i Z ~~ 4 -?~ ~ `~ , ~~ ~~ ~ `~~.. 1U. ~'~:-~ ~ ~ ~ y 1f '~- ~- :..-- ',,\ mac' Z CJ .- J W ~_ ~tf? ~~ • i• ,+ ~' ~ I ~I ~' k II ~I ~~ 1K ~~ IIII1~~1~ fr -i 0 Q W W z 0 _..:- ~dr r~ ~~ -- ~~ • ~. 1 ~ ~ ~~ 4 i \ ' / \ I Z ~ ~Z ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~- \ i. / \ ~\ i I. / ~ i ~' i / i / 1 {_ I i 4 .___.. ~~ zz z a a III ~' ~~ V Z 0 z 3 N ~ +, i i• I~ ~. yW ~1n1 fl 3~?-- ~~ ~- I I :~ ~. ~~ t ~~ f ~I 1 -~ Z 1 c-~ I ~~ - jj ~ ~~ 0 y ~~ 31 ~~ ~~ :, ~ r 1- c~! Q w >G m Z W .~ .: Z 0 0 m Z CW C: -.- TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 22, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for approval of a major change to the existing development approval for the Valley, Phase VT. Applicant: Edward Zneimer I. INTRODUCTION The Planning and Environmental C~,~u~~ission (PEC) reviewed the development proposal for The Valley, Phase VX in a work session on September 10, 1990. From that meeting, it was apparent that the reduction in dwelling units (from 42 to 26) and the reduction in GRFA (from 77,150 to 65,900 sq. ft.) made the project much better than the previous approval. The PEC did have significant concerns, including preservation of the meadow and the impact of the retaining walls. Those items, among others, are discussed below. Staff wanted to point out th most projects which the PEC of the annexation ordinance, criteria or standards which is not a Special Developmen criteria to be used is to co the proposed one. The ordi as Exhibit A. at this review process is unique from reviews, The review is a requirement which did not include any specific the project must meet. Because this t District (SDD}, the only evaluation mpare the existing, approved plan to Hance has been attached to this memo The two major changes since the work session are that the applicant reconfigured the road plan so that there is a single intersection on Buffehr Creek Road and the applicant proposed to delete all secondary units from the development. Staff encouraged the applicant to maintain the option for caretaker units in the development with the intent of creating some employee housing. At this time, the applicant will consider allowing the units as long as the GRFA for the caretaker is not deducted from the available GRFA for each envelope presented at the work session. By allowing 800 square feet of GRFA to be used strictly for a caretaker unit, the total GRFA for the project becomes 65,900 square feet, still 11,255 square feet less than the existing approval. Additional GRFA may be added to the caretaker from the amount allocated to the primary dwelling unit if it is not used far the primary unit; however, no caretaker unit shall exceed 1200 square feet. With this approval, no caretaker units will be 1 required and none may be built. The reason the Town is not • requiring the applicant to build a certain number of these units is because the applicant is not requesting an SDD, variance, or another review which the Town could condition the approval with a requirement to build units, II. BACRGROIIND This review is a request for approval of a modification to the existing development plan for Phase VI of The Valley. The original plan was approved as a PUD by Eagle County in the fall of 1980. That plan included 42 townhouses with a total GRFA of 77,150 sq. ft. The plan called for three clusters of units with a group of recreation amenities {tennis courts, swimming pool, trails, etc.}. When the property was annexed by the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. In that same ordinance, Residential Cluster (RC) zoning was applied to this property. Under the annexation ordinance, all standards not addressed by the Eagle County approved plan must meet RC zoning requirements. In 1981, a developer proposed a revised site plan which the PEC approved. The amended plan maintained all 42 dwelling units as well as the GRFA approved by the County and the scheme of attached, clustered townhouses. Though that plan was never built, it is still valid and could be built today after the applicant received updated Design Review Board (DRS) approvals. Bath the 1980 and 1981 plans are attached at the end of this mama as Exhibits B and C so the board can compare the 1981 plan, which is buildable, to the proposed one. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At this time, the applicant is proposing 13 detached single family homes, each which may have a secondary unit. This creates a total of 26 units. The caretaker units will be deed restricted so that they cannot be sold separately from the primary residences. In addition, they must meet all the requirements for an employee unit listed in the Primary/Secondary section of the Zoning Code (Section 18.1.3.080 (B)). Of the 13 buildings, six will be located north of Buffehr Creek Road on the south facing slope; and seven will be located across Buffehr Creek Road in the meadow at the base of the forested slope (see attached site plan). The development has been divided into three phases. The first two phases are the east and west clusters (respectively) on the south side of Buffehr Creek Road. The third and last will be the six homes on the north side of the road. The structures in phase • ore {Lets ll-l3) will each have approximately 3500 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA}. Each house in phase two (Lots 7-10) and phase three (Lots 1-6) will have approximately 4500 square feet of GRFA. This results in a total GRFA of 55,500 square feet. zn addition to this amount, 10,400 square feet of GRFA (800 x 13) may be used for caretaker units. Combining the GRFA from the primary units with any caretaker units results in a possible total of 65,900 square feet. The developer is proposing a Tyrolean style of architecture, but has the option to vary that in the future. No subdivision plat is proposed at this time as the PEC approval is only for the revisions in the development plan--a requirement of annexation. The owner would most likely proceed with a single family subdivision following development plan approval. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS The analysis compares the proposal to the most approval and the RC Zone District. The RC sta: other development standards per the annexation 1981 PEC Ar~t~roval Current Proposal to Area: 21.45 acres 21.45 acres ' m height: typical unit 32 ft. 33 ft. maximu GRFA: 77,150 sq. ft. 55,500 sq. ft. 65,900 sq. ft,* DUs: 42 Density: 2 DUs/acre *Includes 13 caretaker units 26* 1.2 DUs/acre* V. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS A. Site Plan: recent PEC ndards apply for ordinance. RC Zoning 21.45 acres 33 ft. maximum 59,895 sq. ft. 29.9 6 DUs/acre maximum The proposed site plan is a major improvement to the previously approved plan as the impacts have been significantly reduced. The biggest difference is the change in the number of dwelling units and decrease of GRFA. This plan has 16 fewer units than the previous plan. The development will appear less dense and will • have fewer impacts since the design has been changed • from attached dwelling units to single family homes. The land previously devoted for guest parking, tennis courts, and a swimming pool for the condominium complex will now be left in its natural state. Lastly, the current proposal has 21650 sq. ft. less GRFA than the previous plan. 1. Building envelopes: The proposal uses building envelopes to identify the location of each house. The envelopes are not proposed to be platted. There will be approximately 40 to 8Q feet between each building envelope. Since the PEC work session, the applicant has enlarged the envelopes to approximately 50 by 90 and has decided that each envelope will be adequate for all of the future construction without developing standards for encroachments into the open space. All roof eaves, porches, decks, etc. will be contained within the building envelope. Though the envelopes have been designed to accommodate all of the future construction, the applicant would like to set up a process which will allow changes, if needed. The applicant has proposed the following language which will allow some flexibility for the siting of the houses. The criteria listed below will be used by the DRB to approve any modifications to the envelopes. "Building envelopes indicated upon the approved site plan may be modified with approval of the DRB based upon detailed review of an individual architectural and site plan for an individual dwelling unit. The DRB shall find that the modification to any building envelope does not substantially result in any negative impacts upon the site, adjoining property, or have any adverse impact upon required geologic hazard considerations. Yf an association of home owners within the project is formed, any modification of a building envelope shall also conform to the rules and regulations adopted by t he association. Any modification shall not exceed 15 feet and in no case shall any structure be built in the 20 foot setbacks shown on the approved development plan." • • 2. Open space: The applicant has committed to preserving all the areas outside the building envelopes as open space. The area between the private roads and Buffehr Creek Road wiii be further restricted with this approval so that no fences or domestic-style landscaping will be allowed. The areas will be preserved in the natural state that exists today. The developer will be responsible for maintaining this area until the development is subdivided and, through that process, a home owners association or other body is created to take aver the responsibility. The spaces immediately around the building envelopes may be "improved" with sod lawns and fences, but no structures. 3. Trails: The hiking/mountain bike trail, located on the northwest portion of the site, runs through building envelopes 1 and 5. Tt goes from Buffehr Creek Road north to Red and White Mountain. The Forest Service agrees that the current alignment has not been established long enough to be . recognized legally and will take responsibility to relocate it along the creek. The new alignment will be on public land. The Forest Service plans to do the construction in the summer of 1991, which is prior to the time which the applicant plans to construct this phase of the development. B. Comparison to Elk Meadows The PEC commented that this project should be designed more along the lines of Elk Meadows, the SDD adjacent to the site to the east. Staff believes there are several reasons why the two sites are different and deserve different solutions. 1--There is a dedicated utility easement that runs through the valley, located approximately parallel to Buffehr Creek Road. The area between the road and this utility easement varies. In Phase VT, Buffehr Creek Road winds in and out, leaving only one building envelope between the road and the easement. In Elk Meadows, the road cuts to the north, leaving adequate room for four of the five buildings. • 2--The s3.ape from the road to the meadow is much . steeper in Elk Meadows. The approved design works much better on a steep slope because the houses can be tucked into the slope. Even if the Elk Meadows style of site planning could be done for Phase V1, the end result may not be an improvement because the houses would stick up higher and be more visible. 3--The rock fall hazard is more severe on the Elk Meadows site requiring more mitigation. By placing the houses in the slope, internal mitigation was all that was needed. 4--Through the SDD process, the Elk Meadows site plan was approved with a three foot setback from Buffehr Creek Road right-of-way. By allowing the setback encroachment, enough room for the construction was created. S--By placing the homes on the far side of the meadow, the meadow that is preserved will be visible to the public. The conditions of approval for this request require that it be preserved in a natural state. C. Roads. Walls and Drainacte The road configuration has been revised since the work session so that bath access roads intersect Buffehr Creek Road at the same location. The roads will be private roads. The slopes range from 7.0 percent to 8.6 percent, with the driveway to lot 4 at 10 percent. The Town's subdivision regulations allow private roads to reach 9.0 percent slope without requiring a variance. The driveway to lot four will require an approval from the Town Engineer (with a possible heating requirement), but does not require a variance. The walls needed far the upper road do not exceed 6 feet in height. A five foot high cut wail is proposed from the intersection approximately half the distance up the access road. From that point, a five foot high fill wall will be installed for the rest of the distance. Near the end of the road, in addition to the fill wall, another six foot high cut wall will be needed. See plans and sections attached to this memo. The walls will be constructed with interlocking precast concrete blocks, similar to those approved for Spraddle Creek. Texture, shape, and color will be determined by the DRB. Landscaping will be required to soften the appearance of the walls. The planting plan should • 6 include frequent groupings above and below the walls . that breakup the mass. DRB will give final approval to the planting plan. On the lower portion of the development, no walls will be needed. Fill will be added to the meadow, ranging from two feet at the east end to eight feet at the west end. The applicants originally proposed a typical road section of 18 feet with two 2 foot wide shoulders or gutters. In order to proceed with this development approval, the applicants have expanded the section to 22 feet with 2 foot gutters or shoulders. Planning staff generally supports less asphalt. If Fire Department and Public Works concerns can be addressed, the applicant may apply for a variance to the subdivision standards for a reduced road width. In that case, staff will bring the variance request to the PEC for their review at a later date. Drainage will be accommodated with curb and gutter for the upper road. Swales will handle the drainage an the lower road. One drainage easement will be required to convey the drainage off site to Buffehr Creek. No detention pond will be built, since i.t was not recommended in the drainage study. Staff believes that the proposed infrastructure is reasonable. The walls do not require variances since no portion of the walls will exceed six feat in height. Staff supports the road grades and widths, since they meet the code requirements. D. Hazards The only hazard shown on the Town maps is high severity rock fall. A final report by Arthur Mears states that the houses below Buffehr Creek Road will be adequately protected with the new road and drainage swales which will be constructed far phase one. The preliminary rock fall study used for the work session indicated that a berm would be required in the meadow to protect the lower houses. This is no longer the case. Mears recommended an optional berm, but also said the swale for the road would be adequate protection. There are only two houses above Buffehr Creek Road which need mitigation (building envelopes 3 and 4). The Mears report states that these structures can be protected with a six foot high rock fall fence or by internal mitigation Staff believes that preserve the natural better than a fence homes. within the north facing walls. the internal mitigation will character of The Valley much located on the slope above the The applicant has pointed out that the drawing from the Mears report showing the internal mitigation precludes north facing windows for the first two and possibly the third floors (See exhibit D). One passible solution is to zig zag the floor plans, installing east and west facing windows which will allow light into the rooms on the north side of the two houses. Staff believes that this architectural constraint is reasonable, given the alternative of an unsightly, 330 foot long fence. E. Density The proposed density, assuming every secondary unit would be built, is approximately two thirds of the previous approval and less than what RC zoning would allow. The GRFA will be approximately two thirds of the previous approval (a change from 77,150 sq. ft. to 55,900 sq. ft.) and is also under the RC maximum. Staff's opinion is that the proposal is clearly a reduction in impacts from the previous approval and is a much better solution for the development of the site. F. Architectural auidelines The applicant plans to build Tyrolean style homes, but would like to leave the architectural decisions to the DRB and does not intend to draw up any guidelines at this time. The Town typically requires specific plans, like architectural guidelines, in SDD reviews. But since this review is a fulfillment of an annexation requirement and is not an SDD, staff can support the position of the applicant. G. Phasing olans Staff believes that the longer portions of this site remain as meadow, the better. To achieve that goal, staff recommends that one phase be completed before another is begun. The improvements that will be constructed in each phase include the houses, drainage facilities, roads, utilities, and landscaping. These improvements must be completed in each phase prior to construction starting in another phase. The improvements must be built from Buffehr Creek Road to any unit under construction prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy ar Temporary Certificate • a of occupancy. If occupancy is requested prior to the installation of any improvements, the applicant must escrow 125 of the construction costs prior to the Town issuing a T.C.O. The applicant may adhere to the plan described above for phasing and financial guarantees or may, through a subdivision process, choose to comply with the stricter regulations on financial guarantees. At a minimum, the requirements of this approval must be followed. H. Fire Department concerns Fire department concerns include the turn around area in the cul-de-sacs and the access to lat 4. The turn around areas appear to be adequate, but as a condition of approval, the Fire Department will need to see engineering drawings of the cul-de-sacs showing that each meet the minimum turning distances, The concerns regarding lot 4 are that the driveway is too steep for a fire truck to climb, resulting in excessive distance from the fire truck location to all points on the perimeter of the building. The applicant has options, including sprinkling the building, to meet the fire code. Ensuring adequate fire protection for lot four will be another condition of approval. VI. CONCLUSION Staff supports the development plan because it results in less density and a better site plan than the 1981 approval. Though there will be a significant loss of meadow from what exists today, staff believes that there will be more meadow when this development is built out than what would have been left with the previous approval. Therefore, planning staff recommends approval of this development plan with the following conditions: {Bold type is changes made by PBC at meeting} 1) Prior to the Town approving any building permits for this development, the applicant shall provide to the Fire Department: a-- engineering drawings showing adequate turning distances far each of the cul-de-sacs, and b-- a mitigation plan for lot 4, which may include sprinkling, which meets the Fire Department requirements. • s 2) Except for the area within building envelopes 5 and 6, the applicant shall restrict the open spaces between the access roads and Buffehr Creek Road so that no structures {including fences, sheds, or accessory buildings) shall be built in this area. In addition, no landscaping shall be planted in the area that is inconsistent with the existing native landscaping. 3) The applicant shall design all driveways so that the simplest, most direct means of access to the site is provided. Driveways that wind up the hillside to gain elevation shall nat be approved. 4) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate a drainage easement, final drainage report, and final road engineering to the Town of Vail which meets the standards of the Public Warks department. 5) Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies or temporary certificate of occupancies for building envelopes 1 through 6, the applicant shall install the proposed landscaping to mitigate the appearance of the walls. In addition, the applicant must provide a financial guarantee to the Town for the period of two winters to be used for landscape replacement. 6) Prior to issuance of building permits for building envelopes . 3 or 4, the applicant shall submit plans showing that the proposed building meets the internal mitigation requirements of the Mear's report dated September, 1990. 7) The applicant has the option of including a caretaker unit within each structure using an additional 800 sq. ft. of GRFA to the amount allocated to each building envelope for the caretaker unit. The units must comply with Section 18.13.080 {B). Up to 404 square feet of unused GRFA from the primary unit may be transferred to the caretaker unit, however, no caretaker unit shall exceed 1200 sq. ft. 8) The applicant shall design all retaining walls located in the front yard setback with terracing sa that none exceed three feet in height. 9) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct all improvements from Buffer Creek Road to the unit under construction. Tf occupancy is requested prior to the installation of any improvements, the applicant must escrow 125 of the construction cost prior to the Town issuing a C.O. or T.C.O. Improvements in this case shall include landscaping, wall Construction, roads, drainage, and utilities. . 10 10} Prior to the issuance o£ any building permits for this development, the applicant shall provide a letter from the Forest service guaranteeing the reconstruction of the trail that crosses this property. 11} Prior to the issuance of C.O.~s or T.C.O.+s for building envelopes 5 and b, the applicant shall plant a densely vegetated slope of landscaping between those construction sites and Suffer Creek Road. This landscaping shall extend from the construotion area all the way east to the intersection. 12} The applicant has the option to reduce the length of the upper road and locate the cul de sac further to the east. • ll • • f I i~ I +, ~ l .; .._~ .. , ~ ~ I ~_ 1 Qgrn ' N O W ~ ~~~ { ~~ ../ 0 0 ~, § ., ~ ~ ~ • ~ - `r ~ ~a ~ •~ ..... ~ i ~ it ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~- \ ~ . a. a ~ ~+ ~ ~° =- '~ m ;• `` i ~0 ~ ~ . 1 `fir '1 '~.~ ~ .. ,O ~ ?~ ` {~ ~ , T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. lti~~P ,I~:BL ~ !. .•_ r.• 1f1 _~ ~ T`('1 ~ .y f! ,,ww . ~ " `' . ~ . { W \ \ 0 ~ YI ' ~ ~ r~, r cq ' ~ t ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~a ~ '~~ C~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'y. •~` . }` W ,-.-~ - "i. - t ~. rd... ~--r_}~T.I!-k•+:,-.+ r...~---•-+~=a-'~itF•`I"`Gi~t_Yt~ -7~rF '-` 1}F~ _ _ ~_~ T~i~r '~"~"~.. ~.S" n~Y~{~e~+-~~"={I ~"'~. r~'"_' !^.t i~ .T-r~H+~ t~~`~ ~ t1 1 "J r r tt ==-'~ • ~ iy a + i-l,• + I t ,. ~-~ - r ~~. ,f. „.tl ~r~:r. ~k~~t `i~ ra..,.r. ~ -ri 'i~' ~ ~;i~ i' ~~ cl• .- =r=~:-:: z '" ~" . ~aI~, ?I;.J:. ~3.i1: "~~ k ~ };":r~a;~ -~a; a:~ ~,'`~ ~~ 7~ ~:' 'L""r3 r ~'x" ~ ~ 3 ~ r~}.~~~3~i~~~;~~ 'r`' r:;t ~'t t ~~ ~ wi ~` x-41 #:. ~~ ~,-' ~.++-~t' ..='t* '_.~-r_ r~ -~F `~' ~ „-{'~jI4 ? - ,I~~. ;{t,~_. r~ ~rt ~r~ -lT 4 ~~ [.`-C r rF J ~r+l ~ ~ r~~i ~-+- SS+. Y r~«~, ~-., ~r~~ 'Y+~, t r tt 7~LiT~!-ri -,~7~~-'h ~ ..'~'~ #r~. r ai:~ r ,*r` .~rJ 7 rF[ '~tH t1~ '"f i'Z;'~ 7.. ~. C t ` ay +. r 1 -r~--i 33-!:1' ~ r u t It~'i'''". t ~ ± ~ .r~.~ _-ta t+.x k d-, .. - _ ~;~;_- _;'-' I~r Y i.~A..itr -!`~=-'~ -~• ;~ --4 = :~.. ., I~ ~' .-ice i~'~ K~ __ ~ i- 1 -^-~ ..i>_~ S~i r •-I+iJ, t' ._ I.' .C'FI *r -r1. T ': .+' ~ "'T, ,+~ _. _ ~~{i 1~ -{=i'.Y`..~i..~ i 7~_ t~i.fTi~-~-~` T ~Flj-l: ~~?~ r'~ ' u;.._~ ~~~rr_ .+i+i}}+r• ~]~-•4~*r ~~-~ tT 1!. _ M- -I ~y' 'k',..=i+-I~^-Y.-.Nt -r~ rF-"i~~E:-,=;:~-~-:x~F3 iT_ ; M~~~~-.."=. µ ~ '.,.,..;_ 1^*""• 1 _ _~ ~~~ .~ ~ _is.+1S,.. `{~ ~''_ *t`Ht ~~, r..~-~'+-~-rC .i'».i..r 1. '1; ~'+,. ~r~tl~,~•a~'-.•-~4~rh~~-11+-11~'i"Y`i ~~zr ~$!~,: ~ I.~. w~. '~' f l~l:'+yiirI, ~-~'.~+~ ~F- .~ k„"."J ,~r %- 1~I _ _ I ~ ~''i~.--i ~~ -;ii.++~,~ S '~ ~ - T-fi--m rr ; ~ ,~«ilH,-3•'-tr-'rw,µf~~J- +ir ~r~ ~~ a ~.., ~~. r ~~'.-. rs-~r,:~ ` ~' ~.,.r~ ~ r~ '~~ttr '~ i+t-. 1 ., . ~~.. ,~~ _I~" ~t+~---M'+,---t- ~'~.-... ~~ - ;~' iT ~ ~ .. . 'r-. 1 - .~,~~~Yr i r i+!a~ r#r ,:+.?._ 'r .7: i. t ~V-i I~ ~. ~ =~:';-~~ .1. -r- ~" -.,i-~ lt•k;Trl+#fr'1.~rrrt++r~++r~, r ,-;+T r~,i.-.-~i~•i}w+l,.+ . ~::: .~,.. -- x+:ii++- "*h?i~r -+-'*r3./.. .T ~T, ,.~?*_. ---~`w~;+-rii~~~~ ,..1i~1:,!17~; .,, `~ Szr- ~ '.a=~T=~r:-3 ,~ ~~'y'~ ~ 1~ '-t, L.. ~~ x?,Y'~ ~--+-'"~--4' rl ~ ~ - ..f''. i~j:',J,#'tJi i# i :4;'.{_ .''_f:'~'Ul::~~v~ tr ~# ~ Ott 3':':=r' ~~r~'~i{ i1' 4'~ '.s I ~`--~ [ a '1 lsar~,? = Y+E~1:!+ 'l.lf ~I~i',~. ??~- :ifi 1 ;r {~f~ .:~~ ~'}.?;~'-js... I,,iir._ I''.~;~ t z .L~~ .ir`~r - ii T(+' -c.: ~k ~i-r ..I##~i'x,l~ r~c~l 11E~~*#,~~ --T''~'~~,~.:.Y~-.N-.-1~._rrt -r._ ~.~ r t}T[.'i C.:1:_:_~ ~~'~'{J/~µ1[yy!} L' fi:-3-: -._ _ _ ...,.. -t++1.~r-FF`-T-r'-+~ ,~~ -'r ~'-~"_.F~_' !~'~ ~ .a.+._"F ~G r~-1-~Y h{:-..~ Y-...f4 _~1 r~t 7k-`'?, 1?-+-~~~ 11}~. .:.~I ~~ H9+r~_ ~-i l~,++-_ TJ~T1•' 1-~-*• 1_^~ li' -~-I+•'L[..~ JY i_+ +-sHer~.~' yy+ ~ T~ _ 4'i Fr..i F+ f't~~~Lr'T~KH~FFr ~.._v.~ 1 ~ +++i err-~.' r ~ I ~ -f.~-~ f.eEX~ ... .fir. .. .-rrrr.rr.rrr ' ~ 1 .,wrY~-', Y+,y.~~} -~+" ~ifT.f ~~ F _ 't+.«_y. ~'!GI ~~.+. H'~ ~y ~ - +L4LL~^~ '*HH'7~". . ~ rrF ~ 1 • ~ -~ ~~• H I r f~r~; ~ .i ~+ t' 7.: --+ ~f. ~'A-`"!' k«`.-`-4.. 'r -ir'.` -~iL-.~~,.+v~..l-Nhr ItL~ iii.rc ~+~t ~ ~~ Hwy r,~~ ~± "-ma• ~ -~'-~_,~µ ]il'`.* - ~-`1~1-~f ~--~,~,~, [ i ~ r _ : J,+- ;-~'.'-~?~...,,..~ ~ ~~~ .° ~'. r _~ .. ~r+... 7 rr~++-i rt._rt"f.~.'F~ }~ .. ' ~3+;+.«+.i--u,~l'.-~,~$i-'CTh"h'' ~ ~ T ~., [ ~~T-'~7'~,+~I'Ti'~rrn~. ..r ~ .:+ Vii' - ~. rt'.J-s - rrl-r 7~7-'`i~`rrtrr. ~ ~+: `~' ~...~ t~.t ~,-• d. .~' ~ _.~ l Li Vii-' rl #h '~~ r F `~ ~ t .r k ~ ~~' ~ ~ r ~~r'"~~.;s ~ '~~~~~~F'~ F, ~Ex.~i<~~ ~! ~r~''. `~ •.i-~~ .~rt ' ~ ? ~~;.I ;1 y *'` ~ _ rrr-:i=.'.'_'. ` . H~~,~ ~, '"-r-"' -,1? . i 7 ~ y r-7y - `Z'f- -r- - .--~~Y r$~+~F~-+ I r+tht~t+!' t ..~i{ + .+.+, 7 -i"""ce-' •.'._ .....rf-:r-.i---4^-+-r-.+r -r ^-1 - -•`= "-- ~7''~`{~^~''+ "~'it:lis-~t• ~-*-t~'t~,--«.r«~-}.+"~,~~.~i-*"' ««--,-'«"':'r.'"-~ ~".~"#"~h~r, ~, t.~ _ r~---~tF r"'~'11'.#~::. r~-'~~?=_ .~. a~+ .~, .:1~' r~ j _ r ~ -3 tr1 t~` : ;f-~=-E`~sr ~w F. { -,~ '.J„ m.:(;i' ''-:~}fic ~,~ _ _ F^~-'.-~ .r .~'t ~'i-'3 , 'r t.. rr ~S t ~irr.:~r ~-~, ; ~ it>: ~ ..l,~ti~~~i~-~t~.~~~~ ~1~~{ %F. ~-".l _ ' It.' 1 ~,. rl'frtt.. '~• T~ _ '3"` ~ ~J~:t~ . ~i+iim .rFr ~ .x: ::t~ 'r.i~~ ~„i -"~ _ `r~ _ ~.{=.~~?i7 T~ ~~ Lt ~ ~'1 .., .. rf--+ '1T~'r~~. ~ .i~!-. .~'`'~ ~~~T~•-~,.-. - - .:,"-~ .:7.-F~w ~-~ _. 1 1 a. ~.rk~, ~"~~-'. 1~ t-I.aw•.r~.'» ~ ~ ~~ -~~~-r-r.T-rrr. ,,.>*;~" ~, tir...,.h~ a ~ rte, J-r Nfir ~I 7'~ ~ ~. Tr ••' 3'!1- "''I+---• ~iF~ti'r= ' ~~>ti+!..t++:-l,i-~7~ ~ ~F~: 1{~L ~i~~-'-"--r-r ; trT' rr~'.r .+ i~J'*a'"L'c^~"-.{7-'~.s-H~~ ~';:fi~ rI- '~'.'$-ifi'.`i~ . 1~ri5 +r r-~;}~,-t~$1r+`-'"'..-. ~,+arw+ I r r t 31 ` ' r i t >:7 rr. ~• ~ t;; ~ ~ ~. ~ 3 4 .~ +r F ~i a •~i-1- ~~` 1f1i1 *1 _ .i' 7 r r'•I--"~-rr - ~~ _ .. ~, mii.h~` ~~t'r ~~1 ~iH ~j~'!-'t t r} 7~~~~~}~ t#fit3~'`a..a'tr+"I_ - + t ~ - . r ~ : C r 'l l ~' _ .tLa.'.1-rFl ~ .- -It.$N F. T .~t- +T~- 4 k fir' ~' t . ~. ! ~ riT 1 ~~r~ ~ 7 l~ -'rt t : r~ -' rr-~, .r~~'Zr ; ! 's t "7i ~ rr kr -i $ .~,. r ~~;-,~{' a + 1: T ~ ~ -11i Art . At. E _.. _u 1 t~ s, i. ra . ~ _ --' .... ~.~ - J Li, :µ.. _ ~ #r t'~ #rF" ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ r ~ i r "'~ ~:~:. + ~~ir + ~~.. u 't'il.. z -*'; r- qtr[ - rl - ..-~«i t ... 'L'' 3 ,'"1 'L4j1 A-:,--.. -- ,1'~'r~,fl''* ~"~' 'a ~'7. t ~~ ^-[. ~- p-. `~-- + i-.1 ,i. I ~ ~ 'F„I"""-r k `try.#_i r _ _ _ "-,:"*'i' - ~t~ .r,~.. . 11 '~ll `Er-~ *J 11~.r ., -' , r1r'~-~ t',~r _ '+-Gr'-.t•i::~' ~ ' , .. r..u ~F1t ~-»~rs tt~}r.rr -- - r!-.~il~ : r .; '{ '~..-..-.r•.._•-:~3 +_~ ±~..~• - ! t -r:F~ "~ T [~i k4 11~1..~~ '1:.. ! :T r • ~ EXHIBIT A _ ..... ~ - ti ~~; ~ i `,~''., ~~ ORDINANCE NO. 13 i.~:.~: ~: :,,d ,:i~~., ~••~' (Series of 1.981 } 75 s. fior~iaF;e r^ad veil, crfc;~a.,a 5i~57 office e; iC'::n c:~.;r;c - ~ AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMEidTS AND PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY ANNEXED WEST VAIL AREA; ACCEPTING PRIOR APPROVALS OF THE EAGLE C~ui~1Y COMb1ISSI0NER5 RELATING THERETO; SPECIFYING AIIENDA4ENT PROCEDURES; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS RELATING THERETO; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL: AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. WHEREAS, the town of Vail, Colorado, recently annexed the West ~ Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on December I 31, 1980; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the tviunicipal Code of the Town of Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts on recently annexed areas; and I ~ WHEREAS, Section 31-12--115 (s) C.R.S, 1973, as amended, requires the Town to bring the newly annexed ZYest Vail area under its zoning ordinance within ninoty (90) days after the effective . date of said annexation; and WHEREAS, because of certain actions taken by and approvals of the Eagle County Commissioners relating to the within spocified properties the Town Council is of the opinion that the zoning designation for these areas should recognize said approvals and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Tawn of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the newly annexed ~.~,.~ West Vail area at a public hearing and has made a recommendation relating thereto, to the Town Council; and ,`~,~ WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property; ~• ~^ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF TI-Il; TO~YN ~',3",; -°~=~F"~' OF VAIL, THAT ...~f :. ~;.~~~~`~€} Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled. .~ The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be -, impaled on the newly annexed West Vail area as set forth in Chapter ,i 1.8.68 of the Vail liunicipal Code have been fulfilled. YUi'L1V11J Ul L11C 11 f-111'1\ »L'ilC 1BL1 ii t'SL 4L111 i.Li'Ci4. Pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code, tiZe properties described in subsections e, f, g, h & i below are a portion of the West Vail area annexed to the Town through the enac'~ment of Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, effective on the thirty-fixst day of December, 1980, and hereby zoned as follows: a. The developments and parcels of property specified below in Subsections e, f, g, h & i shall he developed in accordance with the prior agreement appro~-als and actions of the Eagle County Commissioners as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or parcel of property. ' b. The documents and instruments relating to the prior county approvals, actions and agreements are presently on file in the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and said approvals, actions and agreements are hereby accepted and approved by the Town of Vaal. c. All buildings for which a building permit has not been issued, . on the effective date of the annexation of jvest Vail shall comply with Design iteview Criteria of the Vail ll9unicipal Cade prior to the issuance of a building permit. ' d. The Community Development Department may issue staff approvals for minor changes in site design or other minor aspects of the plan for any of the specified developments or parcels. These proposed changes ' may be approved as presented, approved with conditions or denied by the Staff with an appeal within 10 days of the Staff decision to the Planning and Environmental Commission. For major changes, such as a re-design of a major part of the site, changes as use, density control, height or other development standards, a Planning and Environmental Commission review should be required. The procedure for changes shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code. e. The following developments and parcels of property shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance: (1} The Valley, Phases 1 through G. (2) Spruce Creek Townhouses. (3) D4eadow Creek Condominiums. i (~) Vail Intermountain Swim and 'Dennis Club. (5) Briar Patch, Lots G-2, G-5 and G-6 . Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2. {6) Casa Del Sol Condominiums. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements or actions, the developments and parcels of property specified in this subsection (e) shall be zoned Residential. Clustex {RC). f. Lionsxidge Subdivision, Filing No. 4, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. Fox any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County _~ Commissioners' approval, agxeement or action, this parcel of property a shall be zoned Single Family Zone District (SFR) with a special pro- I vision that an employee unit {as defined and restricted in Section 18.13.080 royals as per Section of the Vail Municipal Code} will be subject to app 18.].3.080. The secondaxy unit may not exceed one third of the total ik Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allowed on the lot as per the Single Family Zone District Density Control (Section 18.10.090 of the Vail Municipal Code) and Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS). g. Lot G--4, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, has been the • subject of litigation in the District Court of Eagle County, and a Court order has been issued regarding the development of this property. The Town has further approved Resolution ~5 of 1981. in regard to a subse- quent agreement with the owner. The Residential Cluster (RC) Zone District will be the applicable zone an this property to guide the future development of the parcel, working within the bounds set by the Court Order and Resolution No. 5, Series of 1981.. h. Block 10, Vail Intermountain Subdivision and the Elliott Ranch Subdivision, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agree- went ox action, Block 10 and the E13iott Ranch, shall be zoned Primary/ Secondary District. Lots 8, 15 & 16 of Block 10, Vail lntermauntain, shall be zoned Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS}. i. Vail Commons, Vail Das Shone Filing No. 4, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' agreement, approval or action, Vail Commons shall be zoned Commercial Core III (CCIII). Section 3. As provided in Section 18.08.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to promptly modify and amend the Official ~ Zoning Map to indicate the zoning specified herein. ,` Section 4. If any part, section subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, , and each part, section, sub--section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,. regardless of the fact that any one or mare parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Council hereby states that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 3rd day of A~arch, 1981, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 17th day of March, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. h'!d'~Or ~ _ 1 ATTEST; ~ Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED ON SECOND READING Ai~T;} DRDERED pUBLISRED BY T1TLE ONLY March 17, 19$1. fr~ `~ ~ ~1 ,,, ~:~~-. ~~ ?Iayor ~ -" ~ ~ • ATTEST/j / ~'~~ ``~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~9~ ~` ~ ~ ~, w '! ~ 1~ t 1111 ? ~ , ~'~ 1 "~ ,~ ii ~f i ! X i f ~ ~` ~ U , ? t 1~ ~ ,,, ~,; i ?' j 'f r~ 1~ ~~ ,y' ~ fir. ]...} S + jj I. 1 r 'Z,. ~ ~ ~ .! t h ~ ~ ,~ tit. .' ~~~; ;\ ~ ` ~h ~ '~ '~J `. C3 :~,.. '~ ~t~ y,., . ~~; ~ ~ ~. do ~ , .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~~~~~ -~ ~1~ ; ~,, I ~ '~ "~~.~~` , , . ''} ~ h r J ~,toi, ~.~ .___. ,61'6. 1 ;t~G LO/ -J M„ t~'~'.~' " e• 44. 'y:'- + I '~~ t 'ill.. h\M1' ~!. ~ "-~ i. . I . ~,. ,, 1 ~, ' ~!s` ~ 1 ,~ ~t , "~ ~ I ..~ I '•, . ~ ~~ + f, ~, ~ r _ ~f,'r ~ t_ ~ ~~Gj ~ s~ i x ~~-1`~~ r ~ ~ t^ ~ I~ 1 t f ~~~ ~ .L t r ,~ 1 '~ 3 g ~r. ,il ~s :. ,. :•- ~ + ~, ~r,,,~, _~ I ~ltl ~ 1 I. I . r,-...I_ 4,'1`i~ If1 fil~ rrr=~.: ~_. -~`~-fd . ~. ti4 „I;.: , 'l I1~1lr.r ,.. ~'"'~.=--: -++-,~` 114 Sr 1`~ ~~ _- Y.. ,. ,y,li 4 g - .~ G 1. ~. 1 ,~*~,, - '.` ~i fit/4'i~ + 'r,,-,.,,~, _ I~•g i~ :~+. a`-.~~:F' f!'';:.i~li 1 ~ it ~i •~ ~,A1.i. ~ 1~C~1Sl (~;`' ~'. '~'11 x.\`_11 ~y~R,`;rr ~c 1 ~ p;'r7 I r F1' , + `~ x ~~. / /_I }I t tiles k} E ~~/f '~~ l; 1 dA'T,~l= ~•i`~'` +-'~~/-.-/~1'., " '~ r+ '~ V '~'. ~ r} p,U. ~i~jn Y # ~,Y.Y:• ail ~{ l J... 1F~ ! 5 ' i~ Ft: t'.. kr ~`<+ .. r.+ {~ Y, +7'.,o- ~~ '~~ "~ it ~ ~1. ,~~3 . „~ ~ ~x' 3 ~ +~ R ~~~S~.~ h k. , w r E H H W ~~~ zzz N{flN 1[i O O w. (y ~ a ~ ^; NCFN h ~`! f'1 ~i~ ~ .. ~ Rack .',~ ~ ~ trajectory `. ' ~' .~`--- •- a.w .~ yti Energy absorbing . '"• ; ,.. Barrier M 5, ter. ` ..~• •~' ~ .. , .s..y, ~ ~~ ~ - House' Requiring ~~ Protection pC~O~IY~a+~ ~ If 1 Flexible a -0 p'~9 ~ Qs O~L'Qi' < Frame ox' . ~ : •~ ••: ,a~p_~ " ° Wire Mesh pO Q • O~ o °aa ~ o oq ; ~ AY °$ ° ~ Gravel ~ , i ~ n~ a •~ Small rocks {well drains o .. a 'p°~1~4~`~0 r, ., n_ c;;1~o voaoo- a•poo~a' ~ ~ :. Qo~ °. 00,0 0~ .o ' 0~ 6.,~ ft :.~, ' •`~; r"." o ~ ~~ r° ~ ° 2.Oft . ~ 1 }: i i ~. FIGURE 7. Rookfall protection at uphill wraps of houses an sots. 3 and 4. Rockfall protection barrier should consist of unconsoJ.idated, coarse- grained, well-drained gravel and small rocks that wil3. absorb rock . momentum. Design height {6.j ft) is based on 10J exceedence probabil3.ty at location plus design rock radius. ,~,~ \`~.~ ~• ~---~' ~..= PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CDMMISSION October 29, 1990 1:30 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 3 ~. A request for a work session to rezone the property commonly known as the Mountain Bell Site located to the north of the main Vail I- 70 Interchange from Agricultural Open Space to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Town of Vail and Professional Development Corp. 1 2. A request for a work session to rezone the property commonly known as the Pedotto property located to the south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain Subdivision from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family.Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto, and Professional Development Corp. 2 3. A request for a work session to rezone the property located to the north of Safeway and Chamonix Lane in the Vail Heights Subdivision, Lots 5-13 from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John W. and Patricia A. Rickman for John Witt, Reuben B. Knight, and Professional Development Corp. • • r (~ /~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 29, 1990 • Present staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donavan Jill Kammerer Connie Knight Penny Perry Kathy warren Jim Shearer Absent Dalton Williams Ludwig Kurz The public hearing was called to order at 3;30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: A request for a work session to rezone brot~erty commonly known as the Mountain Bell Site located north of the main Vail I-70 Interchange from Agricultural 4nen Space to Medium Density Multiple Familv. Applicant: Town of Vail and Professional Development Corp. Item No. 2: A request for a work session to rezone property commonly known as the Pedotto property located south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain Subdivision from Primarv/Secondarv to Medium Density Multiple Familv. Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto, and Professional Development Corn. Item No. 3: A request for a work session to rezone property located to the north of Safeway and Chamonix Lane in the Vail Heights Subdivision. Lots 5-I3 from Primarv/Secondarv to Medium Density Multiole Familv. Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr. John W. and Patricia A. Rickman for John Witt. Reuben B. Knight. and Professional Develorment Corn. Due to the overlapping issues and the fact that the same developer was pursuing all three rezoning requests, the three items ware discussed at the same time. f 1 v PEC MINUTES 1.0/29/90 MEETING . Kristan explained she wanted to focus on the issues related to rezoning the three sites. She felt that many of the questions that had been raised in the past regarding the development of these three sites, such as rental rates and design, were very important issues but the issue at hand was whether the properties were compatible with the proposed zone districts. Kristan explained that there were certain criteria that must be met in order for a property to be rezoned. These criteria included: 1. No Conditional Zoning 2. Zone Designation on the Land Use Plan 3. Surrounding Zoning 4. Site Characteristics 5. Rezoning Criteria: •Suitability of existing zoning •Convenient/workable relationship with Land Uses--canstraints with objectives •Rezoning must provide for growth of an orderly, viable community. Kristan then gave a summary of the proposals. Reviewing the proposed number of units and site plan for each site. Kristan also reviewed a comparative zoning analysis for each site. Kristan explained that the staff was concerned with the debris flow hazards on the Mountain Bell site. Staff also wanted open space maintained at the east end of the site and the proposed density reduced to a range of 30 to 40 units. Regarding the Pedatto site, Kristan explained that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF which would allow 7 to 35 units. Under the existing Primary/Secondary zoning, the Pedotto site could be subdivided into 7 duplex lots allowing 14 units. The density of adjacent properties ranged from 5 units per acre up to 30.5 units per acre and some Primary/secondary development. Kristan explained that staff felt Residential Cluster zoning for this site might be more suitable. Kristan reviewed the Vail Heights parcel explaining that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF. Adjacent properties in the area included 31, 33, and 46 unit complexes with densities ranging from 9.5 to 20.8 units per acre. The steep stapes and rockfall and debris flow hazards were of concern. Kristan stated that staff was mast comfortable with the Vail Heights site rezoning proposal due to the proximity of bus stops, parks and shopping. • fi . PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING The proposal did have to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Plan. Kristan reemphasized that this meeting would focus on rezoning issues, not rental. rates. Kay Cheney asked Kristan if the staff had recommended MDMF for the Pedotto site and Kristan responded that staff felt Residential. Cluster or Low Density Multi.-family would be mare appropriate. Those zone districts would allow 15 to 20 units on the site. Bill Pierce, architect for the project representing Professional Development Corporation (PDC), the applicant, explained that he and the applicant had not realized that conditional zoning would not be allowed until 1:30 that afternoon. He explained that the applicant was not asking for MDMF zoning without controls. The plan was to build 300 units to meet employee housing demands. Bill Pierce commented that the employee housing study showed there was a need far 450-500 additional beds in the Town of Vail at the present time. Though the Affordable Housing Task Farce plan had not been formally adopted, it established a concept that would allow density increases aver those densities allowed under straight zoning far providing employee/affordable housing. Bill explained that PDC considered a series of sites for affordable housing development, including the Holy Cross site, the old Town shop site, New Town Shop site, Stevens park, Donovan Park, and other private sites. The applicant has proposed 149 units on the 3 sites. The applicant did not want to construct another Timber Ridge (Valli-Hi), but rather proposed to distribute the housing over several sites within the Town. Bill commented that the proposed site plans have been designed to respond to the topography of the sites. On the Mountain Bell site, the Day Care and the Mountain Bell building would not be disturbed. The applicant proposed to use the existing road to access the site. The trees at the east end of the site were not only to be preserved but the applicant proposed to plant additional trees to screen the housing. The school access would be improved. Regarding the Vail Heights site, Bill explained that there were Mud and Rock fall problems with the site that dictated parking far the site must be provided on the eastern portion of the site. The parcel is screened by Safeway and the Vail Das 5chone shopping center which wi11 provide tenant shopping services in close proximity to the development. U PEC MINUTES 30/29/90 MEETING Bill explained that the applicant has proposed to develop 39 units on the Pedotto site. Since the surrounding area was predominantly a Single-family/Primary/Secondary area, the applicant was proposing mostly 2 bedroom units to encourage families in the development. The site plan proposed clustering buildings to allow for more private outdoor space. Bi11 explained that all of the sites used small, scattered site parking lots in order to break up the expanse of asphalt. To insure good management, the applicant will require residents to enter into strict rental agreements which include provisions for: No Dogs, Not more than 4 people in a 2 bedroom unit and no more than 2 people in a one bedroom unit. The proposed developments would be close to bus routes and parks. Bill asked the public to look at the proposals as an opportunity to salve Vail's long time shortage of affordable housing problem. He explained that the applicant still wished to pursue the MDMF zone district with conditional zoning. He explained that though a property could not be rezoned with conditions, he felt the applicant could provide deed restrictions prior to approval of any rezoning. Bill added that all the proposals met all other zoning/building . development criteria such as height, landscaping etc. Louis Lucas, attorney for PDC, explained that he had spoken with Larry Eskwith, Tawn Attorney, regarding the conditional zoning issue. He felt that the deed restriction referred to earlier by Bill Pierce, would be acceptable to Larry. He explained that PDC would be prepared to file deed restrictions in advance if needed. Louis commented that PDC would enter into an agreement with the Town restricting the units to meet the Town's definition of "employee" housing and that the minimum lease period would be 1 year. Further, he felt the goals of conditional zoning could be accomplished by advance deed restrictions. Diana Donovan asked how many bedrooms compared to units were proposed for each site. Bill Pierce answered that the Pedotto site would have 65 bedrooms, Vail Heights 50 bedrooms, and the Mountain Bell site 78 bedrooms. Jim Shearer asked staff how close the Town was to adapting the Affordable Housing Study. Kristan explained that the study would be reviewed by the PEC at the next meeting, on November 12, 1.990. Fallowing PEC approval the Study would have to go before the Tawn 4 • f . PEC MINUTES 10/29/94 MEETING Council. She explained that even under the study recommendations, a density bonus for affordable housing would not be automatic, it would be a conditional use. Jim asked why Larry felt conditional zoning would not be acceptable and Kristan explained that Larry's decision was based on case law. Jim Shearer remembered the ABC school was required to mitigate for mudflow hazards on the Mountain Bell site as a condition of a previous approval. He asked if this mitigation had been done and Bill Pierce explained that construction had not yet been started on that project. Bill explained that PDC proposed to build a ditch to mitigate the mudflow hazard and would avoid scarring of the hillside. The proposed mitigation had been discussed with the Mountain Bell Building owners and the Day Gare owners and what was proposed seemed to be acceptable to them. Jim asked if one site received rezoning approval and another did not could the project proceed? Bill Pierce answered that basically the proposal was "all or nothing" due to the economics of purchasing the land and the bulk purchase of construction. materials. Mr. Lucas, representing PDC, explained that if the number of units developed were cut back, the viability of the project would be cut back in the areas of rental rates, construction cost, and the issuance of bands. Jim Shearer asked the applicant to explain the restrictions on the number of occupants. Bill Pierce stated the project managers would not allow more than 2 unrelated people in an efficiency or 1 bedraam unit or more than 4 unrelated people in a 2 bedraam unit. Because the project would have a single owner rather than being owned by a condominium association, the applicant felt enforcement of these occupancy limits would be mare effective. Each site would have an on-site manager which the applicant felt would help with the enforcement issue. Mr. Lucas explained that the Professional Development Corporation ~ managed over 1740 low to moderate income properties. In the process of having developed so many properties, they had formulated some very strict rules regarding the number of guests etc. With the Professional Development Corporation as developer, contractor, and manager, the Professional Development Corporation had more at stake. • _ PEC MINUTES 3.D/29/9D MEETING . Jim Shearer asked how a guest who came to visit for Christmas could be kept from staying until February. Mr. Lucas quoted a rule contained in one of their leases which stated, "guests staying more than 2 nights must be cleared with the management." Kathy Warren stated that~she was concerned about health hazards that the microwave system might have on Mountain Bell site residents. She wanted to see research/statistics on the passible health affects of living near a microwave tower before formulating an opinion on the suitability of the site for residential development. She felt that 64 units were too much for the site, especially an the eastern portion of the site. Kathy stated she could not support MDMF zoning on the Pedotto site. She felt RC zoning would be more appropriate. She commented that the timing was difficult due to the fact that the Affordable Housing Study had not yet been adopted. Kathy felt that RC zoning on the Pedotto site would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Kathy felt that the Vail Heights development proposal was best, However, she was net comfortable with the configuration on the western portion of the site. She felt that consolidating the parking in that area would be more acceptable. Bill Pierce explained to Kathy that the applicant had configured the parking in this manner so as to leave room for Fire Department vehicles to turn-around. Kathy commented that she could not support MDMF zoning when in fact the level of density proposed was between RC and LDMF density levels. Bill Pierce explained that the applicant was not asking for unrestricted MDMF zoning. The applicant would be willing to deed restrict the properties. Diana felt the rezoning request was being complicated. She explained that the applicant was not rezoning to "employee housing". The applicant was asking to rezone the properties to MDMF in conformance with the criteria reviewed by Kristen at the beginning of the meeting. Diana stated that in order for her to approve the rezoning request, the project would have to "fit" into the area, i.e. not look more dense than adjacent development. She felt that the Vail Heights site had the greatest possibility of meeting the rezoning criteria. For the record, Diana stated that she and other members of the Board had received letters from Victoria Gurney, Erwin Bacharach, 6 ~ J • PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING and Jo Brown. These letters stated concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. Chuck Crist commented that of the three sites, he felt that the Vail Heights site rezoning request was the most appropriate. He felt that the Mountain Bell site rezoning request was inappropriate and he would prefer to see the Pedotto site subdivided into several P/S sites. Chuck felt that the Vail Heights proposal was best suited for MDMF development. He felt the site was the most workable with the surrounding area, and therefore he could possibly support an increase in density above what was presently allowed under the current zone district. Dick Peter, owner of 1969 Chamonix Lane, was very disappointed to hear the board supporting the Vail Heights rezoning request. He stated that the area had been annexed, deannexed and reannexed. His property had been zoned Duplex and was downzoned to P/S. He liked the affects lower density zoning had an values and an surrounding development. Dick felt that the traffic generated by the PDC Vail Heights development would negatively affect the area since there already seemed to be a problem. . Victor Hoyes, owner of 2801 Basingdale, felt the density increase proposed would be in excess of 3000 on the Pedotto site. He had calculated, based on the people per unit proposed, that in excess of 134 cars would be generated by the proposed development. He felt that the project would not be "affordable ar employee" housing but rather "Low Income" housing. Regarding the cars, Victor felt the roads were to small to handle such an increase in traffic. There was one way in and one way out of the Intermountain area. The access roads had no guard rails and 60 ft. cliffs dropped off to the side. Regarding the assumptions made in the "Affordable Housing Study" Victor felt there were many inaccurate statements. For example he did not believe the study statement that the population within Eagle County was 53% women. Other areas of the study made statements which the proposal would not meet. The study stated "no dormitory style" units and he felt that was exactly what the developer was proposing. Victor pointed out that the study stated that the employee focus group interviewed was not the "stereotypical ski bums" which he felt is the group for which the housing would be provided. The study had also referenced rental guidelines as ` "consistent with HUD (Housing and Urban Development}". Victor felt HUD was low income housing. In summary, Victor said the Town of Vail should not be held solely responsible for solving the Valley's housing problem. The PDC projects should not be considered for rezoning until the unresolved issues of adoption of the "Study" and conditional zoning had been resolved. Victor • b PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING felt there were more appropriate alternative sites for affordable housing such as down valley, Connie Knight felt the public was losing site of community needs. The Town needed to look at the broader picture. Victor Hoyes stated that he was not against affordable housing, he simply felt affordable housing could be developed down valley. Jack Campbell, owner of 2128 Chamonix Lane, Gore Range II Condos, stated that he did not support subsidizing housing. He felt such a subsidy would effect his property values. He questioned why the Gore Range Condos were not on the adjacent praperty development comparison chart. Jo Brown was concerned with the quality of life for someone in such small units. Erwin Bacharach, an Intermountain resident, felt the staff report did not address neighborhood concerns. He felt neighborhood concerns were very important and the memo only addressed mortar and stone. He stated that he could support 7 P/S units on the Pedotto site. Diana Donovan commented that if the developer built there would be more bedrooms than if the site was d~ proposed. Regarding having employees drive in from areas, it made for tough choices. If the employees Vail, where wauld they park? Diana stated that the request had to be evaluated on its own merits. The not a Town project. 7 P/S units, . ~veloped as outlying drive to rezoning proposal was Lynn Fritzlen, architect far PDC, commented that the developer was willing to make concessions to restrict the units to long term rental for employees. At the end of a specified period of time, agreed to by the Town and the Developer, ownership of the improvements and the underlying property would revert to the Town. No other developer was willing to make those kind of commitments. Mrs. Ella Knox felt that mother mature was tipping her balance. She felt the Town was over building and that the water supplies would not be adequate to meet the population demands. The above three rezoning requests were work session items so, no action was necessary. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. a ~ ~~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • October 29, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Ji11 Kammerer Connie Knight Fenny Perry Kathy Warren Jim shearer Absent Dalton Williams Ludwig Kurz The public hearing was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. ~.: A request for a w~ commonly known as north of the main Aaricultural Open Family. Appl ir'anT irk ezone nronerty th ocated Va -70 In e om, Space to Medium Density Multiple °' Item No. 2: A; recsu.PSt for a work session to rezone property. commonly known as the Pedotto probert~~ located south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain. Subdivision from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto, and Professional, nQVelopment Cora. item No. 3: A request for a work session to rezone propert~~ located to the north of Safeway and Chamonix Lane in the Vail Heights Subdivision. Lots 5-13 from, Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John W. and Patricia A. Rickman for John Witt, Reuben B. Kniaht. and Professional Development Coro. Due to the overlapping issues and the fact that the same developer was pursuing all three rezoning requests, the three items were discussed at the same time. ~~ 1 '- PEC MINUTES ' 10/29/90 MEETING Kristan explained she wanted to focus on the issues related to rezoning the three sites. She felt that many of the questions that had been raised in the past regarding the development of these three sites, such as rental rates and design, were very important issues but the issue at hand was whether the properties were compatible with the proposed zone districts. Kristan explained that there were certain criteria that must be met in order for a property to be rezoned. These criteria included; 1. No Conditional Zoning 2. Zone Designation on the Land Use Plan 3. Surrounding Zoning 4. Site Characteristics 5. Rezoning Criteria: •Suitability of existing zoning •Convenient/workable relationship with Land Uses--constraints with objectives •Rezoning must provide for growth of an orderly, viable community. Kristan then gave a summary of the proposals. Reviewing the proposed number of units and site plan for each site. Kristan also reviewed a comparative zoning analysis for each site. Kristan explained that the staff was concerned with the debris flow hazards on the Mountain Bell site. Staff also wanted open space maintained at the east end of the site and the proposed density reduced to a range of 30 to 40 units. Regarding the Pedotto site, Kristan explained that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF which would allow 7 to 35 units. Under the existing Primary/Secondary zoning, the Pedotto site could be subdivided into 7 duplex lots allowing 14 units. The density of adjacent properties ranged from 5 units per acre up to 30.5 units per acre and some Primary/secondary development, Kristan explained that staff felt Residential Cluster zoning for this site might be more suitable. Kristan reviewed the Vail Heights parcel explaining that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF. Adjacent properties in the area included 31, 33, and 46 unit complexes with densities ranging from 9.5 to 20.8 units per acre. The steep slopes and rock£a11 and debris flow hazards were of concern. Kristan stated that staff was most comfortable with the Vail Heights site rezoning proposal due to the proximity of bus stops, parks and shopping. 2 . ` PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING The proposal did have to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Plan. Kristan reemphasized that this meeting would focus on rezoning issues, not rental rates. Kay Cheney asked Kristan if the staff had recommended MDMF for the Pedotto site and Kristan responded that staff felt Residential Cluster or Low Density Multi-family would be more appropriate. Those zone districts would allow 15 to 20 units on the site. Bill Pierce, architect for the project representing Professional Development Corporation (PDC), the applicant, explained that he and the applicant had not realized that conditional zoning would not be allowed until 1:30 that afternoon. He explained that the applicant was not asking for MDMF zoning without controls. The plan was to build 300 units to meet employee housing demands. Bill Pierce commented that the employee housing study showed there was a need for 450-500 additional beds in the Tawn of Vail at the present time. Though the Affordable Housing Task Farce plan had not been formally adopted, it established a concept that would allow density increases over those densities allowed under straight zoning for providing employee/affordable housing. Bill explained that PDC considered a series of sites for affordable housing development, including the Holy Cross site, the old Town shop site, New Town Shop site, Stevens park, Donovan Park, and other private sites. The applicant has proposed 149 units on the 3 sites. The applicant did not want to construct another Timber Ridge {Valli-Hi), but rather proposed to distribute the housing aver several sites within the Town. Bill commented that the proposed site plans have been designed to respond to the topography of the sites. On the Mountain Bell site, the Day Care and the Mountain Bell building would not be disturbed. The applicant proposed to use the existing road to access the site. The trees at the east end of the site were not only to be preserved but the applicant proposed to plant additional trees to screen the housing. The school access would be improved. Regarding the Vail Heights site, Bill explained that there were Mud and Rock fall problems with the site that dictated parking for the site must be provided on the eastern portion of the site. The parcel is screened by Safeway and the Vail Das Schone shopping center which will provide tenant shopping services in close proximity to the development. • 3 r PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING Bill explained that the applicant has proposed to develop 39 units on the Pedotto site. Since the surrounding area was predominantly a Single-family/Primary/Secondary area, the applicant was proposing mostly 2 bedroom units to.encourage families in the development. The site plan proposed clustering buildings to allow for more private outdoor space. Bi11 explained that all of the sites used small, scattered site parking lots in order to break up the expanse of asphalt. To insure good management, the applicant will require residents to enter into strict rental agreements which include provisions far: No Dogs, Not more than 4 people in a 2 bedroom unit and no more than 2 people in a one bedroom unit. The proposed developments would be close to bus routes and parks. Bill asked the public to look at the proposals as an opportunity to solve Vail's long time shortage of affordable housing problem. He explained that the applicant still wished to pursue the MDMF zone district with conditional zoning. He explained that though a property could not be rezoned with conditions, he felt the applicant could provide deed restrictions prior to approval of any rezoning. Bill added that all the proposals met all other zoning/building development criteria such as height, landscaping etc. Louis Lucas, attorney for PDC, explained that he had spoken with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, regarding the conditional zoning issue. He felt that the deed restriction referred to earlier by Bill Pierce, would be acceptable to Larry. He explained that PDC would be prepared to file deed restrictions in advance if needed. Louis commented that PDC would enter into an agreement with the Town restricting the units to meet the Town's definition of "employee" housing and that the minimum lease period would be 1 year. Further, he felt the goals of conditional zoning could be accomplished by advance deed restrictions. Diana Donovan asked how many bedrooms compared to units were proposed for each site. Bill Pierce answered that the Pedotto site would have 66 bedrooms, Vail Heights 50 bedrooms, and the Mountain Bell site 78 bedrooms. Jim Shearer asked staff how close the Town was to adopting the Affordable Housing Study. Kristan explained that the study would be reviewed by the PEC at the next meeting, on November 7.2, 1.990. Following PEC approval the Study would have to go before the Town PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING Council. She explained that even under the study recommendations, a density bonus far affordable housing would not be automatic, it would be a conditional use. Jim asked why Larry felt conditional zoning would not be acceptable and Kristan explained that Larry's decision was based on case law. Jim Shearer remembered the ABC school was required to mitigate far mudflow hazards on the Mountain Bell site as a condition of a previous approval. He asked if this mitigation had been done and Bill Pierce explained that construction had not yet been started on that project. Bill explained that PDC proposed to build a ditch to mitigate the mudflow hazard and would avoid scarring of the hillside. The proposed mitigation had been discussed with the Mountain Bell Building owners and the Day Care owners and what was proposed seemed to be acceptable to them. Jim asked if one site received rezoning approval and another did not could the project proceed? Bill Pierce answered that basically the proposal was "all or nothing" due to the economics of purchasing the land and the bulk purchase of construction. materials. Mr. Lucas, representing PDC, explained that if the number of units developed were cut back, the viability of the project would be cut back in the areas of rental rates, construction cost, and the issuance of bonds. Jim Shearer asked the applicant to explain the restrictions on the number of occupants. Bill Pierce stated the project managers would not allow more than 2 unrelated people in an efficiency or 1 bedroom unit or more than 4 unrelated people in a 2 bedroom unit. Because the project would have a single owner rather than being awned by a condominium association, the applicant felt enforcement of these occupancy limits would be more effective. Each site would have an on-site manager which the applicant felt would help with the enforcement issue. Mr. Lucas explained that the Professional Development Corporation managed over 1700 low to moderate income properties. In the process of having developed so many properties, they had formulated some very strict rules regarding the number of guests etc. With the Professional Development Corporation as developer, contractor, and manager, the Professional Development Corporation had more at stake. f~ • s PEC MINUTES ~.D/29/90 MEETING Jim Shearer asked how a guest who came to visit for Christmas could be kept from staying until February. Mr. Lucas quoted a rule contained in one of their leases which stated, "guests staying more than 2 nights must be cleared with, the management." Kathy Warren stated that she was concerned about health hazards that the microwave system might have on Mountain Bell site residents. She wanted to see research/statistics on the passible health affects of living near a microwave tower before formulating an opinion on the suitability of the site for residential development. She felt that 64 units were too much for the site, especially on the eastern portion of the site. Kathy stated she could not support MDMF zoning on the Pedotto site. She felt RC zoning would be more appropriate, She commented that the timing was difficult due to the fact that the Affordable Housing Study had not yet been adopted. Kathy felt that RC zoning on the Pedotto site would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Kathy felt that the Vail Heights development proposal was best. However, she was not comfortable with the configuration on the western portion of the site. She felt that consolidating the parking in that area would be more acceptable. Bill Pierce explained to Kathy that the applicant had configured the parking in this manner so as to leave room for Fire Department vehicles to turn-around. Kathy commented that she could not support MDMF zoning when in fact the level of density proposed was between RC and LDMF density levels. Bill Pierce explained that the applicant was not asking for unrestricted MDMF zoning. The applicant would be willing to deed restrict the properties. Diana felt the rezoning request was being complicated. She explained that the applicant was not rezoning to "employee housing". The applicant was asking to rezone the properties to MDMF in conformance with the criteria reviewed by Kristan at the beginning of the meeting. Diana stated that in order far her to approve the rezoning request, the project would have to "fit" into the area, i.e. not look more dense than adjacent development. She felt that the Vail Heights site had the greatest possibility of meeting the rezoning criteria. For the record, Diana stated that she and other members of the Board had received letters from Victoria Gorney, Erwin Bacharach, s ~ y • PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING and Jo Brown. These letters stated concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. Chuck Crist commented that of the three sites, he felt that the Vail Heights site rezoning request was the most appropriate. He felt that the Mountain Bell site rezoning request was inappropriate and he would prefer to see the Pedotto site subdivided into several P/S sites. Chuck felt that the Vail Heights proposal was best suited for MDMF development. He felt the site was the most workable with the surrounding area, and therefore he could possibly support an increase in density above what was presently allowed under the current zone district. Dick Peter, owner of 1969 Chamonix Lane, was very disappointed to hear the board supporting the Vail Heights rezoning request. He stated that the area had been annexed, deannexed and reannexed. His property had been zoned Duplex and was downzoned to P/S. He liked the affects lower density zoning had on values and on surrounding development. Dick felt that the traffic generated by the PDC Vail Heights development would negatively affect the area since there already seemed to be a problem. Victor Hoyes, owner of 2$Ol Basingdale, felt the density increase proposed would be in excess of 300% on the Pedotto site. He had calculated, based an the people per unit proposed, that in excess of 134 cars would be generated by the proposed development. He felt that the project would not be "affordable or employee" housing but rather "Low Income" housing. Regarding the cars, Victor felt the roads were to small to handle such an increase in traffic. There was one way in and one way out of the Intermountain area. The access roads had no guard rails and 60 ft. cliffs dropped off to the side. Regarding the assumptions made in the "Affordable Housing Study" Victor felt there were many inaccurate statements. For example he did oat believe the study statement that the population within Eagle County was 53% women. Other areas of the study made statements which the proposal would not meet. The study stated "no dormitory style" units and he felt that was exactly what the developer was proposing. Victor pointed out that the study stated that the employee focus group interviewed was not the "stereotypical ski bums" which he felt is the group for which the housing would be provided. The study had also referenced rental guidelines as ` "consistent with HUD (Housing and Urban Development)". Victor felt HUD was low income housing. In summary, Victor said the Town of Vail should not be held solely responsible for solving the Valley's housing problem. The PDC projects should not be considered for rezoning until the unresolved issues of adoption of the "Study" and conditional zoning had been resolved. Victor • PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING felt there were more appropriate alternative sites for affordable housing such as down valley. Connie Knight felt the public was losing site of community needs. The Town needed to look at the broader picture. Victor Hoyes stated that he was not against affordable housing, he simply felt affordable housing could be developed down valley. Jack Campbell, owner of 2128 Chamonix Lane, Gore Range IT Condos, stated that he did not support subsidizing housing. He felt such a subsidy would effect his property values. He questioned why the Gore Range Condos were not on the adjacent property development comparison chart. Jo Brown was concerned with the quality of life for someone in such small units. Erwin Bacharach, an Intermountain resident, felt the staff report did not address neighborhood concerns. He felt neighborhood concerns were very important and the memo only addressed mortar and stone. He stated that he could support 7 P/S units on the Pedotta site. Diana Donovan commented that if the developer built 7 P/S units, . there would be more bedrooms than if the site was developed as proposed. Regarding having employees drive in from outlying areas, it made for tough choices. If the employees drive to Vail, where would they park? Diana stated that the rezoning request had to be evaluated on its own merits. The proposal was not a Town project. Lynn Fritzlen, architect for PDC, commented that the developer was willing to make concessions to restrict the units to long term rental for employees. At the end of a specified period of time, agreed to by the Town and the Developer, ownership of the improvements and the underlying property would revert to the Town. No other developer was willing to make those kind of commitments. Mrs. E11a Knox felt that mother mature was tipping her balance. She felt the Town was over building and that the water supplies would not be adequate to meet the population demands. The above three rezoning requests were work session items so, no action was necessary. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6;00 p.m. 8 ~/~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 29, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Jill Kammerer Connie Knight Penny Perry Kathy Warren Jim Shearer Absent Dalton Williams Ludwig Kurz The public hearing was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: A request for a work session to rezone t~roperty. commonly known as the Mountain Bell Site located. north of the main Vail I-70 Interchange from. Agricultural Owen Space to Medium Density Multiple, Family. At~talicant: Town of Vail and Professional. Development Gort~. . Item No. 2: A request for,, a work sPSS'on to rezone property commonly known as the ro~erty located south of Kinnickinnick Roa in the Intermountain Subdivision from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Mule- ~~... ----- „~ ,~,.~„c,~,.,x~€ _.- • Item No. 3: A .r_eauest for a work session to rezone property ]ocated to the north of Safeway and Chamonix Lane, in the Vail Heights Subdivision, Lots 5-13 from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John w. and Patricia A. Rickman for John Witt, Reuben B. Knight. and Professional Development Corp. Due to the overlapping issues and the fact that the same developer was pursuing all three rezoning requests, the three items were discussed at the same time. 1 PEC MINUTES 7.0/29/90 MEETING • Kristan explained she wanted to focus on the issues related to rezoning the three sites. She felt that many of the questions that had been raised in the past regarding the development of these three sites, such as rental rates and design, were very important issues but the issue at hand was whether the properties were compatible with the proposed zone districts. Kristan explained that there were certain criteria that must be met in order for a property to be rezoned. These criteria included; 1. No Conditional Zoning 2. Zone Designation on the Land Use Plan 3. Surrounding Zoning 4. Site Characteristics 5. Rezoning Criteria: •Suitability of existing zoning •Convenient/workable relationship with Land Uses---constraints with objectives •Rezoning must provide for growth of an orderly, viable community. Kristan then gave a summary of the proposals. Reviewing the proposed number of units and site plan for each site. Kristan also reviewed a comparative zoning analysis for each site. Kristan explained that the staff was concerned with the debris flow hazards on the Mountain Bell site. Staff also wanted open space maintained at the east end of the site and the proposed density reduced to a range of 30 to 40 units. Regarding the Pedotto site, Kristan explained that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF which would allow 7 to 35 units. Under the existing Primary/Secondary zoning, the Pedotto site could be subdivided into 7 duplex lots allowing 14 units. The density of adjacent properties ranged from 5 units per acre up to 30.5 units per acre and some Primary/secondary development. Kristan explained that staff felt Residential Cluster zoning for this site might be mare suitable. Kristan reviewed the Vail Heights parcel explaining that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF. Adjacent properties in the area included 31, 33, and 46 unit complexes with densities ranging from 9.5 to 20.8 units per acre. The steep slopes and rockfall and debris flow hazards were of concern. Kristan stated that staff was most comfortable with the Vail Heights site rezoning proposal due to the proximity of bus stops, parks and shopping. PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING The proposal did have to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Plan. Kristan reemphasized that this meeting would focus on rezoning issues, not rental rates. Kay Cheney asked Kristan if the staff had recommended MDMF far the Pedotto site and Kristan responded that staff felt Residential Cluster or Low Density Multi-family would be more appropriate. Those zone districts would a11ow 15 to 20 units on the site. Bill Pierce, architect for the project representing Professional Development Corporation (PDC), the applicant, explained that he and the applicant had not realized that conditional zoning would not be allowed until 1:30 that afternoon. He explained that the applicant was not asking for MDMF zoning without controls. The plan was to build 300 units to meet employee housing demands. Bill Pierce commented that the employee housing study showed there was a need far 450-500 additional beds in the Town of Vail at the present time. Though the~Affardable Housing Task Force • plan had not been formally adopted, it established a concept that would allow density increases over those densities allowed under straight zoning for providing employee/affordable housing. Bill explained that PDC considered a series of sites for affordable housing development, including the Holy Cross site, the old Town shop site, New Town Shop site, Stevens park, Donovan Park, and other private sites. The applicant has proposed 149 units on the 3 sites. The applicant did not want to construct another Timber Ridge (Valli-Hi}, but rather proposed to distribute the housing over several sites within the Town. Bill commented that the proposed site plans have been designed to respond to the topography of the sites. On the Mountain Bell site, the Day Care and the Mountain Bell building would not be disturbed. The applicant proposed to use the existing road to access the site. The trees at the east end of the site were not only to be preserved but the applicant proposed to plant additional trees to screen the housing. The school access would be improved. Regarding the Vail Heights site, Bill explained that there were Mud and Rock fall problems with the site that dictated parking for the site must be provided on the eastern portion of the site. The parcel is screened by Safeway and the Vail Das Schone shopping center which will provide tenant shopping services in close proximity to the development. • 3 PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING Bill explained that the applicant has proposed to develop 39 units on the Pedotto site. Since the surrounding, area was predominantly a Single-family/Primary/Secondary area, the applicant was proposing mostly 2 bedroom units to encourage families in the development. The site plan proposed clustering buildings to allow for mare private outdoor space. Bill explained that all of the sites used small, scattered site parking lots in order to break up the expanse of asphalt. To insure goad management, the applicant will require residents to enter into strict rental agreements which include provisions far: No Dogs, Not more than 4 people in a 2 bedroom unit and no more than 2 people in a one bedroom unit. The proposed developments would be close to bus routes and parks. Bill asked the public to look at the proposals as an opportunity to salve Veil's long time shortage of affordable housing problem. He explained that the applicant still wished to pursue the MDMF zone district with conditional zoning. He explained that though a property could not~be rezoned with conditions, he felt the applicant could provide deed restrictions prior to approval of any rezoning. Bill added that all the proposals met all other zoning/building . development criteria such as height, landscaping etc. Louis Lucas, attorney for PDC, explained that he had spoken with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, regarding the conditional zoning issue. He felt that the deed restriction referred to earlier by Bill Pierce, would be acceptable to Larry. He explained that PDC would be prepared to file deed restrictions in advance if needed. Louis commented that PDC would enter into an agreement with the Tawn restricting the units to meet the Town's definition of "employee" housing and that the minimum lease period would be 1 year. Further, he felt the goals of conditional zoning could be accomplished by advance deed restrictions. Diana Donovan asked haw many bedrooms compared to units were proposed far each site. Bill Pierce answered that the Pedotto site would have 66 bedrooms, Vail Heights 50 bedrooms, and the Mountain Bell site 78 bedrooms. Jim Shearer asked staff how close the Town was to adopting the Affordable Housing Study. Kristen explained that the study would be reviewed by the PEC at the next meeting, on November 12, 1990. Following PEC approval the Study would have to go before the Tawn 4 • PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING Council. She explained that even under the study recommendations, a density bonus for affordable housing would not be automatic, it would be a conditional use. Jim asked why Larry felt conditional zoning would not be acceptable and Kristen explained that Larry's decision was based on case law. Jim Shearer remembered the ABC school was required to mitigate for mudflow hazards on the Mountain Bell site as a condition of a previous approval. He asked if this mitigation had been done and Bill Pierce explained that construction had not yet been started on that project. Bill explained that PDC proposed to build a ditch to mitigate the mudflow hazard and would avoid scarring of the hillside. The proposed mitigation had been discussed with the Mountain Bell Building owners and the Day Care owners and what was proposed seemed to be acceptable to them. Jim asked if one site received rezoning approval and another did not could the project proceed? Bill Pierce answered that basically the proposal was "all or nothing" due to the economics of purchasing the land and the bulk purchase of construction. materials. Mr. Lucas, representing PDC, explained that if the number of units developed were cut back, the viability of the project would be cut back in the areas of rental rates, construction cast, and the issuance of bonds. Jim Shearer asked the applicant to explain the restrictions on the number of occupants. Bill Pierce stated the project managers would not allow more than 2 unrelated people in an efficiency or 1 bedroom unit or more than 4 unrelated people in a 2 bedroom unit. Because the project would have a single owner rather than being owned by a condominium association, the applicant felt enforcement of these occupancy limits would be more effective. Each site would have an on-site manager which the applicant felt would help with the enforcement issue. Mr. Lucas explained that the Professional Development Corporation ' managed over 1700 low to moderate income properties. In the process of having developed so many properties, they had formulated some very strict rules regarding the number of guests etc. With the Professional Development Corporation as developer, contractor, and manager, the Professional Development Corporation had more at stake. 5 PEC MINUTES 1D/29/90 MEETING Jim Shearer asked how a guest who came to visit for Christmas could be kept from staying until February. Mr. Lucas quoted a rule contained in one of their leases which stated, "guests staying more than 2 nights must be cleared with, the management." Kathy Warren stated that she was concerned about health hazards that the microwave system might have an Mountain Be11 site residents. She wanted to see research/statistics on the passible health affects of living near a microwave tower before formulating an opinion on the suitability of the site for residential development. She felt that 64 units were too much for the site, especially on the eastern portion of the site. Kathy stated she could not support MDMF zoning on the Pedatto site. She felt RC zoning would be mare appropriate. She commented that the timing was difficult due to the fact that the Affordable Housing Study had not yet been adopted. Kathy felt that RC zoning on the Pedotto site would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Kathy felt that the Vail Heights development proposal was best. However, she was not comfortable with the configuration on the western portion of the site, She felt that consolidating the parking in that area would be more acceptable. Bill Pierce explained to Kathy that the applicant had configured • the parking in this manner so as to leave roam for Fire Department vehicles to turn-around. Kathy commented that she could not support MDMF zoning when in fact the level of density proposed was between RC and LDMF density levels, Bill Pierce explained that the applicant was not asking for unrestricted MDMF zoning. The applicant would be willing to deed restrict the properties. Diana felt the rezoning request was being complicated. She explained that the applicant was not rezoning to "employee housing". The applicant was asking to rezone the properties to MDMF in conformance with the criteria reviewed by Kristan at the beginning of the meeting. Diana stated that in order for her to approve the rezoning request, the project would have to "fit" into the area, i.e. not look more dense than adjacent development. She felt that the Vail Heights site had the greatest possibility of meeting the rezoning criteria. Far the record, Diana stated that she and other members of the Board had received letters from Victoria Gurney, Erwin Bacharach, 5 . PEC MINUTES 30/29,/90 MEETING and Jo Brown. These letters stated concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. Chuck Crist commented that of the three sites, he felt that the Vail Heights site rezoning request was the most appropriate. He felt that the Mountain Bell site rezoning request was inappropriate and he would prefer to see the Pedotto site subdivided into several PJS sites. Chuck felt that the Vail Heights proposal was best suited for MDMF development. He felt the site was the most workable with the surrounding area, and therefore he could possibly support an increase in density above what was presently allowed under the current zone district. Dick Peter, owner of 1969 Chamonix Lane, was very disappointed to hear the board supporting the Vail Heights rezoning request. He stated that the area had been annexed, deannexed and reannexed. His property had been zoned Duplex and was dawnzoned to P/S. He liked the affects lower density zoning had on values and on surrounding development. Dick felt that the traffic generated by the PDC Vail Heights development would negatively affect the area since there already seemed to be a problem. S Victor Hoyes, owner of 2801 Basingdale, felt the density increase proposed would be in excess of 3000 on the Pedotto site. He had calculated, based on the people per unit proposed, that in excess of ].34 cars would be generated by the proposed development. He felt that the project would not be "affordable or employee" housing but rather "Low Income" housing. Regarding the cars, Victor felt the raads were to small to handle such an increase in traffic. There was one way in and one way out of the Intermountain area. The access roads had no guard rails and 60 ft. cliffs dropped off to the side. Regarding the assumptions made in the "Affordable Housing Study" Victor felt there were many inaccurate statements. For example he did not believe the study statement that the population within Eagle County was 53% women. Other areas of the study made statements which the proposal would not meet. The study stated "no dormitory style" units and he felt that was exactly what the developer was proposing. Victor pointed out that the study stated that the employee focus group interviewed was not the "stereotypical ski bums" which he felt is the group for which the housing would be provided. The study had also referenced rental guidelines as ' "consistent with HUD {Housing and Urban Development)". Victor felt HUD was law income housing. In summary, Victor said the Town of Vail shauld nat be held solely responsible for solving the Valley's housing problem. The PDC projects should not be considered for rezoning until the unresolved issues of adoption of the "Study" and conditional zoning had been resolved. Victor 7 PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING felt there were more appropriate alternative sites for affordable housing such as down valley. Connie Knight felt the public was losing site of community needs. The Town needed to look at the broader picture. Victor Hoyes stated that he was not against affordable housing, he simply felt affordable housing could be developed down valley. Jack Campbell, owner of 2128 Chamonix Lane, Gore Range II Condos, stated that he did not support subsidizing housing. He felt such a subsidy would effect his property values. He questioned why the Gore Range Condos were not on the adjacent property development comparison chart. Jo Brown was concerned with the quality of life for someone in such small units. Erwin Bacharach, an Intermountain resident, felt the staff report did not address neighborhood concerns. He felt neighborhood concerns were very important and the memo only addressed mortar and stone. He stated that he could support 7 P/S units on the Pedotto site. Diana Donovan commented that if the developer built there would be more bedrooms than if the site was d~ proposed. Regarding having employees drive in from areas, it made for tough choices. If the employees Vail, where would they park? Diana stated that the request had to be evaluated on its own merits. The not a Town project. 7 P/S units, . aveloped as outlying drive to rezoning proposal was Lynn ~'ritzlen, architect for PDC, commented that the developer was willing to make concessions to restrict the units to long term rental for employees. At the end of a specified period of time, agreed to by the Town and the Developer, ownership of the improvements and the underlying property would revert to the Town. No other developer was willing to make those kind of commitments. Mrs. E11a Knox felt that mother mature was tipping her balance. She felt the Town was over building and that the water supplies would not be adequate to meet the population demands. The above three rezoning requests were work session items so, no action was necessary. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. a ~ /~ C C] PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 29, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Jill Kammerer Connie Knight Penny Perry Kathy Warren Jim Shearer Absent Dalton Williams Ludwig Kurz The public hearing was called to order at 3x30 p.m, by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. Item No. 1: A request for a work session to rezone property commonly known, as the i!~cs»,ntain Bell Site located north of the main Vail I~-70 Interchancxe from Agricultural Open Space to Medium Density Multiple Family, Applicant: Town of Vail and Professional Development Corp. Item No. 2:, A request for a work session to rezone property commonly known as the Pedotto property located south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain Subdivision from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto. and Professional Development Corn. Item No. 3: Due to the overlapping 155ue5 and the fact that the same developer was pursuing all three rezoning requests, the three items were discussed at the same time. 1 f A recruest for a work session to rezone property located to. h.. of Safeway and Chamonix Lane in th bdivision. Lots 5°13 from Primar econdary to edium Density Multiple Family. PEC MINUTES 10/29/50 MEETING Kristan explained she wanted to focus on the issues related to rezoning the three sites. She felt that many of the questions that had been raised in the past regarding the development of these three sites, such as rental rates and design, were very important issues but the issue at hand was whether the properties were compatible with the proposed zone districts. Kristan explained that there were certain criteria that must be met in order far a property to be rezoned. Thane criteria included: 1. No Conditional Zoning 2. Zane Designation on the Land Use Plan 3. Surrounding Zoning 4. Site Characteristics 5. Rezoning Criteria: •Suitability of existing zoning •Convenient/workable relationship with Land Uses--constraints with objectives •Rezoning must provide for growth of an orderly, viable community. Kristan then gave a summary of the proposals. Reviewing the . proposed number of units and site plan for each site. Kristan also reviewed a comparative zoning analysis for each site. Kristan explained that the staff was concerned with the debris flow hazards on the Mountain Bell site. Staff also wanted open space maintained at the east end of the site and the proposed density reduced to a range of 34 to 40 units. Regarding the Pedatto site, Kristan explained that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF which would allow 7 to 35 units. Under the existing Primary/Secondary zoning, the Pedotto site could be subdivided into 7 duplex lots allowing 14 units. The density of adjacent properties ranged from 5 units per acre up to 30.5 units per acre and some Primary/secondary development. Kristan explained that staff felt Residential Cluster zoning for this site might be mare suitable. Kristan reviewed the Vail Heights parcel explaining that the Land Use Plan designation was MDMF. Adjacent properties in the area included 31, 33, and 46 unit complexes with densities ranging from 9.5 to 20.8 units per acre. The steep slopes and rockfall and debris flow hazards were of concern. Kristan stated that staff was most comfortable with the Vail Heights site rezoning proposal due to the proximity of bus stops, parks and shopping. • PEG MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING The proposal did have to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Plan. Kristan reemphasized that this meeting would focus an rezoning issues, not rental rates. Kay Cheney asked Kristan if the staff had recommended MDMF for the Pedotto site and Kristan responded that staff felt Residential Cluster or Law Density Multi-family would be more appropriate, Those zone districts would allow 15 to 20 units on the site. Bill Pierce, architect for the project representing Professional Development Corporation {PDC), the applicant, explained that he and the applicant had not realized that conditional zoning would not be allowed until 1:34 that afternoon, He explained that the applicant was not asking for MDMF zoning without controls. The plan was to build 300 units to meet employee housing demands. Bill Pierce commented that the employee housing study showed there was a need for 450-5(30 additional beds in the Town of Vail at the present time. Though the Affordable Housing Task Farce plan had not been formally adopted, it established a concept that would allow density increases over those densities allowed under straight zoning for providing employee/affordable housing. Bill explained that PDC considered a series of sites for affordable housing development, including the Holy Cross site, the old Tawn shop site, New Town Shop site, Stevens park, Donovan Park, and other private sites. The applicant has proposed 149 units an the 3 sites. The applicant did not want to construct another Timber Ridge {Valli-Hi), but rather proposed to distribute the housing over several sites within the Town. Bi11 commented that the proposed site plans have been designed to respond to the topography of the sites. On the Mountain Bell site, the Day Care and the Mountain Bell building would not be disturbed. The applicant proposed to use the existing road to access the site. The trees at the east end of the site were not only to be preserved but the applicant proposed to plant additional trees to screen the housing. The school access would be improved. Regarding the Vail Heights site, Bill explained that there were Mud and Rock fall problems with the site that dictated parking for the site must be provided on the eastern portion of the site. The parcel is screened by Safeway and the Vail Dos Schone shopping center which will provide tenant shopping services in close proximity to the development. • PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING Bi11 explained that the applicant has proposed to develop 39 units on the Pedotto site. Since the surrounding area was predominantly a Single-family/Primary/Secondary area, the applicant was proposing mostly 2 bedroom units to encourage families in the development. The site plan proposed clustering buildings to allow for mare private outdoor space. Bill explained that all of the sites used small, scattered site parking lots in order to break up the expanse of asphalt. To insure goad management, the applicant will require residents to enter into strict rental agreements which include provisions for: No Dogs, Not more than 4 people in a 2 bedroom unit and no more than 2 people in a one bedroom unit. The proposed developments would be close to bus routes and parks. Bill asked the public to look at the proposals as an opportunity to solve Veil's long time shortage of affordable housing problem. He explained that the applicant still wished to pursue the MDMF zone district with conditional zoning. He explained that though a property could not be rezoned with conditions, he felt the applicant could provide deed restrictions prior to approval of any rezoning. Bill added that all the proposals met all other zoning/building . development criteria such as height, landscaping etc. Louis Lucas, attorney for PDC, explained that he had spoken with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, regarding the conditional zoning issue. He felt that the deed restriction referred to earlier by Bill Pierce, would be acceptable to Larry. He explained that PDC would be prepared to file deed restrictions in advance if needed. Louis commented that PDC would enter into an agreement with the Town restricting the units to meet the Town's definition of "employee" housing and that the minimum lease period would be 1 year. Further, he felt the goals of conditional zoning could be accomplished by advance deed restrictions. Diana Donovan asked how many bedrooms compared to units were proposed for each site. Bill Pierce answered that the Pedotto site would have 66 bedrooms, Vail Heights 50 bedrooms, and the Mountain Bell site 78 bedrooms. Jim Shearer asked staff how close the Tawn was to adopting the Affordable Housing Study. Kristen explained that the study would be reviewed by the PEC at the next meeting, on November 12, 1990. Following PEC approval the Study would have to go before the Town PEC MINUTES 10/29f 90 MEETING Council. She explained that even under the study recommendations, a density bonus for affordable housing would not be automatic, it would be a conditional use. Jim asked why Larry felt conditional zoning would not be acceptable and Kristan explained that Larry's decision was based on ease law. Jim Shearer remembered the ABC school was required to mitigate far mudflow hazards on the Mountain Bell site as a condition of a previous approval. He asked if this mitigation had been done and Bill Pierce explained that construction had not yet been started on that project. Bi11 explained that PDC proposed to build a ditch to mitigate the mudflow hazard and would avoid scarring of the hillside, The proposed mitigation had been discussed with the Mountain Be11 Building owners and the Day Care owners and what was proposed seemed to be acceptable to them. Jim asked if one site received rezoning approval and another did not could the project proceed? Bi11 Pierce answered that basically the proposal was "all or nothing" due to the economics of purchasing the land and the bulk purchase of construction. materials. Mr. Lucas, representing PDC, explained that if the number of units developed were cut back, the viability of the project would be cut back in the areas of rental rates, construction cost, and the issuance of bonds. Jim Shearer asked the applicant to explain the restrictions on the number of occupants. Bi11 Pierce stated the project managers would not allow more than 2 unrelated people in an efficiency or 1 bedroom unit or more than 4 unrelated people in a 2 bedroom unit. Because the project would have a single owner rather than being owned by a condominium association, the applicant felt enforcement of these occupancy limits would be more effective. Each site would have an on-site manager which the applicant felt would help with the enforcement issue. Mr. Lucas explained that the Professional Development Corporation managed over 1.700 low to moderate income properties. Zn the process of having developed so many properties, they had formulated some very strict rules regarding the number of guests etc. With the Professional Development Corporation as developer, contractor, and manager, the Professional Development Corporation had more at stake. • ~ PEG MINUTES 10/29/90 MEETING Jim Shearer asked how a guest who came to visit for Christmas could be kept from staying until February. Mr. Lucas quoted a rule contained in one of their leases which stated, "guests staying more than 2 nights must be cleared with the management." Kathy Warren stated that she was concerned about health hazards that the microwave system might have on Mountain Bell site residents. She wanted to see research/statistics on the possible health affects of living near a microwave tower before formulating an opinion on the suitability of the site for residential development. She felt that 64 units were too much for the site, especially on the eastern portion of the site, Kathy stated she could not support MDMF zoning on the Pedotto site. She felt RC zoning would be more appropriate. She commented that the timing was difficult due to the fact that the Affordable Housing Study had not yet been adopted. Kathy felt that RC zoning on the Pedotto site would be more an keeping with the neighborhood. Kathy felt that the Vail Heights development proposal was best. However, she was not comfortable with the configuration on the western portion of the site, She felt that consolidating the parking in that area would be more acceptable. Bill Pierce explained to Kathy that the applicant had configured the parking in this manner so as to leave room far Fire Department vehicles to turn-around. Kathy commented that she could not support MDMF zoning when in fact the level of density proposed was between RC and LDMF density levels. Bi11 Pierce explained that the applicant was not asking for unrestricted MDMF zoning. The applicant would be walling to deed restrict the properties. Diana felt the rezoning request was being complicated. she explained that the applicant was not rezoning to "employee housing". The applicant was asking to rezone the properties to MDMF an conformance with the criteria reviewed by Kristen at the beginning of the meeting. Diana stated that in order for her to approve the rezoning request, the project would have to "fit" ~.nto the area, i.e. not look more dense than adjacent development. She felt that the Vail Heights site had the greatest possibility of meeting the rezoning criteria. For the record, Diana stated that she and other members of the Board had received letters from Victoria Gorney, Erwin Bacharach, 6 • PEC MINUT~s 10/29/90 MEETING and Jo Brown. These letters stated concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. Chuck Crist commented that of the three sites, he felt that the Vail Heights site rezoning request was the most appropriate. He felt that the Mountain Bell site rezoning request was inappropriate and he would prefer to see the Pedotto site subdivided into several P/S sites. Chuck felt that the Vail Heights proposal was best suited for MDMF development. He felt the site was the most workable with the surrounding area, and therefore he could possibly support an increase in density above what was presently allowed under the current zone district. Dick Peter, owner of 1969 Chamonix Lane, was very disappointed to hear the board supporting the Vail Heights rezoning request. He stated that the area had been annexed, deannexed and reannexed. His property had been zoned Duplex and was dawnzoned to P/S. He liked the affects lower density zoning had on values and on surrounding development. Dick felt that the traffic generated by the PDC Vail Heights development would negatively affect the area since there already seamed to be a problem. Victor Hoyes, owner of 2801 Basingdale, felt the density increase proposed would be in excess of 300% on the Pedotto site. He had calculated, based on the people per unit proposed, that in excess of 134 cars would be generated by the proposed development. He felt that the project would not be "affordable or employee" housing but rather "Low Income" housing. Regarding the cars, Victor felt the roads were to small to handle such an increase in traffic. There was one way in and one way out of the Intermountain area. The access roads had no guard rails and 60 ft. cliffs dropped off to the side. Regarding the assumptions made in the "Affordable Housing Study" Victor felt there were many inaccurate statements. For example he did not believe the study statement that the population within Eagle County was 53% women. Other areas of the study made statements which the proposal would not meet. The study stated "no dormitory style" units and he felt that was exactly what the developer was proposing. Victor pointed out that the study stated that the employee focus group interviewed was not the "stereotypical ski bums" which he felt is the group for which the housing would be provided. The study had also referenced rental guidelines as ` "consistent with HUD (Housing and Urban Development)". Victor felt HUD was low income housing. In summary, Victor said the Town of Vail should not be held solely responsible for solving the Valley's housing problem. The PDC projects should not be considered for rezoning until the unresolved issues of adoption of the "Study" and conditional zoning had been resolved. Victor PEC MINUTES 10/29/90 NlEETTNG felt there were mare appropriate alternative sites for affordable housing such as down valley. Connie Knight felt the public was losing site of community needs. The Town needed to look at the broader picture. Victor Hayes stated that he was not against affordable housing, he simply felt affordable housing could be developed down valley. Jack Campbell, owner of 2128 Chamonix Lane, Gore Range TI Condos, stated that he did not support subsidizing housing. He felt such a subsidy would effect his property values. He questioned why the Gore Range Condos were not on the adjacent property development comparison chart. Ja Brown was concerned with the quality of life for someone in such small units. Erwin Bacharach, an Intermountain resident, felt the staff report did not address neighborhood concerns. He felt neighborhood concerns were very important and the memo only addressed mortar and stone. He stated that he could support 7 P/S units on the Pedotto site. Diana Donovan commented that if the developer built there would be more bedrooms than if the site was d~ proposed. Regarding having employees drive in from areas, it made for tough choices. zf the employees Vail, where would they park? Diana stated that the request had to be evaluated on its own merits. The not a Town project. • 7 P/S units, ~veloped as outlying drive to rezoning proposal was Lynn ~'ritzlen, architect for PDC, commented that the developer was willing to make concessions to restrict the units to long term rental far employees. At the end of a specified period of time, agreed to by the Town and the Developer, ownership of the improvements and the underlying property would revert to the Town. No other developer was willing to make Chase kind of commitments. Mrs. Ella Knox felt that mother mature was tipping her balance. She felt the Town was over building and that the water supplies would not be adequate to meet the population demands. The above three rezoning requests were work session items so, no action was necessary. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. a ~ ~ , TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 29, 1990 RE: A worksession on a request to rezone the Mountain Bell site, Lots 5-13 Vail Heights Subdivision and an unplatted parcel commonly referred to the Pedotto property in the Intermountain Subdivision to Medium Density Multi-Family zoning. Applicant: Professional Development Corporation I. ZNTRODUCTTON Below is a summary of the type of unit, number of units, and square footage proposed for each of the three sites. The applicant has stated that they will meet all Town of Vail parking requirements, setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, height, and other zone district standards for another Medium Density Multi-Family zone districts standards. The primary reason that the applicant is rezoning the property is to allow for the number of units and GRFA for the affordable housing. # of Units Sa. Ft. GRFA A. Mountain Bell Site: Unit Mix: Efficiency Units: 25 @ 495 10,875 One Bedroom Units: 25 482 12,050 Two Bedroom Units: 14 609 8.526 Total: 64 31,451 B. Lots 5-13 Vail Heights: Unit Mix: Efficiency Units: 24 @ 435 10,440 One Bedroom Units: 18 482 8,676 Two Bedroom Units: 4 609 2.436 Total: 45 21,552 C. Pedotto Site: Unit Mix: Efficiency Units: 6 @ 435 2,610 One Bedroom Units: 6 482 2,892 Two Bedroom Units: 27 609 16.443 Total: 39 21,945 1 Staff has summarized the comments into three sections. The first section outlines general comments and issues related to all three proposals. The second section addresses each of the sites and gives staff direction on the rezoning process. The last section lists the schedule for rezoning the properties up to actually receiving building permits for each of the three developments. The applicant has prepared an explanation on the rent structure for the development which is attached. There are also two charts and site location maps for the proposed sites enclosed. The first chart shows zoning statistics on parcels adjacent to the proposed rezonings. The second chart provides information on the existing employee housing development within the Town of Vail. II, GENERAL ISSUES AND COMMENTS :_ A. Staff preference is to adopt the Housing Task Force recommendations and then proceed with the review of your rezoning request using a lower density zone district and the conditional use review for an affordable housing unit, However, if the Town Attorney finds that conditional zoning is acceptable, this option is also a possibility. Staff's main concern with this approach is that the proposals do not exceed the allowable number of standard dwelling units under the Land Use Plan Designation. We have addressed the Land Use Plan number of allowable units versus the requested number of units with each site. The net result is a decrease of 18 units assuming you allow 45 units on the Mountain Bell site. This approach results in a total unit count of 120 units. There may be some justification to increase the number of units allowed under the Land Use Plan because the development is for permanent affordable housing. B. The units for each development should have an architectural style that is unique. Staff has concerns about using the exact same unit type on all three sites. We would recommend that you look at modifying unit materials and design to give each property its own character. C. Each site should have at least 20~ of its units devoted to the CHAFA income standards. Staff does not support pooling low to moderate income units into one project. The staff and Council will also consider rental guidelines for the remaining units. All units would be required to be permanently restricted as employee housing units meeting Section 18.13.080 (B)a--d. The staff and Council may also require additional procedures to ensure that the units are rented to employees in the Vail Valley. • 2 3 1 D. Landscaping far all three sites should exceed what is . required if possible. Staff believes that this approach will make your project more acceptable to surrounding neighborhoods. All parking areas need to be bermed and screened by landscaping on all sides. E. Staff suggests that you try to arrive at a GRFA number that does not exceed the existing underlying zone district. once again, this will make your project more acceptable to the surrounding neighborhood. It is my understanding that you are meeting all site standards for landscaping, 51tE coverage, setbacks, height, and parking. F. A general traffic impact analysis should be submitted for each site. III. SITE ANALYSTS: A. MOUNTAIN BELL SITE: 1. Site Zoning Statistics: • Total site area 23.37 acres. (excluding Mountain Bell tract) Minimum Buildable Site Area: 3.39 acres or 147,668 sq. ft. Land Use Pian: Designation: Public/Semi-Public The Public/Semi-Public category includes schools, post office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other public institutions, which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of the residents. Number of Units: The number of units is not referenced in this designation. • Current Zoning: Agricultural Open Space Allowed Units: 1 dwelling unit Allowed GRFA: 2000 sq. ft Requested Units: 64 units Requested GRFA: 31,415 sq. ft. 3 n • 2. Zonincr Comparison: Affordable Unit Units/ Def. Applied to Units GRFA Acre Density Cond. Us MDMF 61 51,683 sq. ft. 18 122 LDMF 30 44,300 sq. ft. 9 50 RC 20 36,917 sq. ft. 6 4Q Prof Dev. Corp. 64 31,415 sq. ft. 18.8 N/A Request 3. Issue s and C~~.....ents: a. At this time it appears to staff that there are too many units proposed on this site. We are willing t look at the site planning in mare detail and will keep an open mind to the number of units. However, it appears that reducing the units to a range of 30 50 units is mare appropriate for the site. b. Please check the easements and the title work for this property. There may be a stock easement through the middle of the property. c. Staff is researching how this parcel of land was purchased. If real estate transfer tax funds were used, it may be difficult to use the site for housing. d. This proposal does not correlate directly with the Land Use Pian. Under the Public/Semi-public land use designation, there is no specific reference to residential units. e. There needs to be an adequate buffer of land around the ABC School and Learning Tree as well as the Mountain Bell building. f. Open Space should be maintained by the Main Vail entrance i.e. the east end of the site. g. As much landscaping as possible should be located i front of the units along the Frontage Road. Perhap the Colorado Division of Highways wi11 allow you to landscape on the right-of-way which is removed from the actual roadway. • 4 h. Hazards will need to be addressed. Staff needs to understand the type of mitigation and its visual acts im . p i. The units need to be designed specifically for the site. As stated in the general comments, the project should have its own character which is not repeated on the Pedotto and Vail Heights site. j. The site area in front of the Mountain Bell buildin and to the west of the Mountain Bell building shaul be looked at for buildings. The staff would want t see the large trees saved as they help to screen th Mountain bell building and your proposed buildings. k. Please contact the two schools and Mountain Bell as soon as possible to set up a meeting with them an the project. Staff would like to see these meeting occur before the actual work session on October 22nd. 1. In order to avoid the Timber Ridge appearance of buildings lined up along the Frontage Road, staff suggests that you try and break up the row of units along the North Frontage Road. m. A bus stop may be required for the project. This concept would need to be coordinated with the Publi Works Department. n. Are the two schools included in your site coverage numbers and some of the other zoning standards? Please ask your architect to double check that you meet the minimum site standards for Medium Density Multi-Family especially the standards relating to the dimensions of the site. o. Specifics on the Mountain Be11 lease and ownership need to be submitted. p. A Colorado Division of Highways access permit will probably be necessary. Please contact Rich Perske at CDOH in Grand Junction at 1-248-721.2. Information on traffic for your project will need t be submitted. 4. Preliminarv Recommendation: There are two alternatives for rezoning this property. The means used to rezone will depend on cU~~~~~~ents from th public at the review of the affordable housing recommendations, as well as timing of adoption in respec to your project, and Larry Eskwith's opinion as to whether or not the staff may apply conditions to a rezoning approval. The preferred option that staff woul 5 suggest is to rezone the property to Residential Cluster zoning and request approval for a conditional use to utilize the affordable housing unit definition. The second alternative would be to rezone the project to low density multi-family and limit the GRFA to 37,815 sq ft. This approach would give you a total of 30 units. The staff is willing to keep an open mind on the number of units for this site. However, 64 units does not seem to fit on this site. Also please note that even if you rezane the parcel to MDMF zanina, you would only be allowed a maximum of 61 units instead of 64 ., B. PEDOTTO SITE: 1. Site Zonina Statistics: Total Site Area: 2.5 acres Buildable Site Area: 2.5 acres or 108,900 sq. ft. Land Use Plan: Designation: Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in thi category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units pe 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. Number of Units: 7 to 35 units. Current Zoning: Primary/Secondary Allowed Units: 2 dwelling units Allowed GRFA: 9,195 sq. ft Requested Units: 39 dwelling units Requested GRFA: 21,945 sq. ft. • 6 r 1 • r~ L.J 2. Zoning Comparison: Affordable Unit Units/ Def. Applied to Units GRFA Acre Density Cond. Us MDMF 45 3$,115 sq. ft. 18 90 LDMF 22 32,670 sq. ft. 9 44 RC 15 27,225 5q. ft. 6 30 Prof Dev. Corp. 39 21,945 sq. ft. 15.6 N/A Request 3. Issues/Comments: a. Staff rec~.~u«ends that you continue to talk to as many neighbors as possible in the Intermountain area. b. In order to come up with an existing allowed GRFA for the property, it is evident that you are assuming that the property is divided into several primary/secondary lots. Please show the staff the lot assumptions and general layout so that we are certain that the lots would meet Primary/Secondary zoning. This is important as the GRFA allowed under the estimated number of Primary/Secondary lots is what is being used as the allowed GRFA. Technically, the existing property at this time only has an allowed GRFA of 9,195 sq. ft. assuming one Primary/Secondary lot. c. The berming and landscaping on the south side of the project is needed in order to screen the development and parking areas from the Camelot Townhomes. The unit architecture needs to be physically designed for this site and a design character developed for the project. d. A shuttle bus will probably be required to minimize impacts on the existing bus system in the area. 4. Preliminarv Recommendations:. Staff preference would be to rezone the property to Law Density Multi-Family and to use the affordable housing unit definition. A second option would be to rezone your property as Medium Density Multi-Family. The number of units would 7 need to be limited to 35 units per the Land use Plan. It would also be preferable if you could limit your GRFA to 20,225 sq. ft, as allowed under RC zoning. Properties directly across the street are zoned Residential Cluster. Staff is concerned about a project that exceeds the number of units designated by the Land Use Plan. C. LOT 5-13, VATL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION: 1. Site Zonina Statistics: *Total Site Area: 4.8 acres or 212,092 sq. ft. *Buildable Site Area: 2.7 acres or 118,906 sq. ft. *Land Use Plan Desianation; Medium Density Residential 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. Number of Units: 8 to 37 units. Current Zoning: Primary/Secondary Allowed Units: 18 dwelling units Allowed GRFA: 41,463 sq. ft. {Under P/S individual lots} Requested Units: 46 Requested GRFA: 21,552 sq. ft. *Assumes all nine lots are combined into one parcel by the major subdivision process. 8 ~ 4 2. Zonina Comparison: Affordable Unit Units/ Def. Applied to Units GRFA Acre Density Cond. Us MDMF 48 41,517 sq. ft. 18 96 LDMF 24 35,672 sq. ft. 9 48 RC 16 29,726 sq. ft. 6 32 Prof Dev. Corp. 46 21,552 sq. ft. g.5 N/A Request 3. Issues/Comments a. Hazards exist on the property and would need to be mitigated. Staff would like to understand what this mitigation will look like. b. All parking needs to be screened as much as possible from the street by berms and landscaping. c. A specific design character needs to be established for this development. d. Easements and ownership should be checked for all properties within your proposal, e. The open space area on the western portion of the site is very positive. Perhaps a small pocket park could be located at this location. f. This site is extremely positive for affordable housing because its proximity to commercial areas and public transportation. 9 ~ i~~ ... 4. Preli,mi.,n~rv Recommendations: Staff recommends that you rezone the property to Low Density Multi-Family and use the affordable housing definition which would require that you reduce the GRFA by 1,048 sq. ft. and receive a conditional use approval to use the affordable housing definition. The second approach, assuming conditional zoning is acceptable, is to zone the property Medium Density Multi-Family. Staff would require that you limit the units to 37 units so that the Land Use Plan maximum number of units is not exceeded. We would also want to limit the GRFA accordingly due to the unit reduction. L' ]. Y N ~ Q I"' W ~"' }'~ 0. - Z ~ ~ N M Z O 1~ O ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ W V~ J W o 0 . ~ O a ~ a F- ~ ~ • ~ ~ c~ _ •- ~ can ~I~ IM °fm Icm*~ ~ N Z Z Z II `d:'t> NII I~ I U N Q Q Z ~ N o a~ H G C ~ o '~ ~ c CG U a O ~' ~ o ~ U ~ o a~ ~ 2 ,~-? r a o CJ .C ~ /~ ~// (~! ~ w ~ r v~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ d II Q C ~ ~ (~ C O ~ LL ~ J ~ r° ¢ `z i~ • • 0 0 C .~ N d ...\.\\\.. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1\ \\\\\\\\\\1\t\ii\i\\\\\\• \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \•\\\\\\\\\\\\\r\\\\1\\\ Iii\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 111111\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \1\\\\1\\\\\1\\\l\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 'M V\\\+1\\\1\11i\\\R. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\•\\\11 .\\\\\\\\\\\\t\\\\\i .1+\\\\\\\\\\•\\\\• .\\\\ii\\\\111\\\\\ .\\\\\\\\t\\\\\\11,1 \••\\\\\\\\\\\\\1( \\\\\111\\\\\i\\\ \•1•••\\\\\\\\\\\ .\\\1\\\\1\\\1\\\\ ~ - •\\\\\\1\\\\\\1\1 1.\11.\\\\\\\\\1 1\\\\\••\\\\\\\\- 1\.1.\\.11\\1\„ •\\111\\\1\\11\\ .\\\11\\\\\\\\\l\ \\•\\\\i•\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\1\\\\\ \\1 \\\\1•\\\\ ~ \\\ \\\\1\\\\ O a\\ \a11\\•\• •\\\\11\\11\1\ „~ \\\\\\\\\\1\\ \\`\\\\\\\\\• J •11'C1\.\\1\1 .~.. .\1\11\\111\ .7 •\\\\\\\11\1 ~- ,\11\1\\11\ 1111111\11 .\\\\\\111\ .\•\\1i\1i .11111 \ \ 11 \~\1111\ ~ . y \\\1111\.. `~~ \1\1\\11\ \ \\111\\1\ 11111111\ \\\111111 \\\\\\\\~ y~~i_ \\\\\\\\'J L - \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\\\~ ~- tj. \\l\\\\ \\\\1\\` \\\\\\\: \ 1\~\\` -0a. .o° °Q° °xio o~o~0°,,~0°q _ CQ ~° `r 00 ~~°vf•• 1 • o o° •f•• 0 0° ° ~o° o00 ~ ~o o .'.'••.•. ~ ..... o,o 0 1 ° ° p~ r••••••f•••rf•• O p° • r r•••• f O p rf•••fr•sra•r••srr oo~ .......... o° °p •• i r r r r• r a• • r • • . r f • • • • ~O O Op0 •.• a r• f a f• ~ ~ • f • • • • • a • • • • ° °p • • . • • a r . • • • . . . . • O • f • • • r • • • • • f f r •\ { • • • • f • . • . • 4 • 1 • • • . 1 • • a r • • • { • • • f r . 1 • f • • • • { f • • . • { r • • • f . • f ~.,. , ........ a ..... . a ~ • .. • . . a • • r r f • . . • • • • . a r • a • • r • • • r • a a • • • { ~ • • • • f • V • f . • r f 1 a a • r r• r• f• f f r•• ••ar••:a • • • r • • • f f • . • • • 1 f 1 . ~ • • . • f . a ~ • • . • r a ~ a . • • • • • • • f • 4 • a • 1 • . A .. : • • • • f • • . • f ` • • . • a • • • 1 • • • • ~•..•f •r••af f•r• •:• 4 ..:.......... . . . . . • a a••• 1 4. 4 • i 4• A A` •r •••ff• a • • .. • • 4 4 • • f . ` + r • • . •• fa.......• •.Cfa•••••••••i . a•••• a a 4 4 A• • a a • • • a • • w • • . • a~ f 1• a 4 ,~,... ..• ;;~.. ~ ~ • ~•. C7 ~• ~ ~' ;~::~ y: :•d; ~~ v. ', . ~. t ~• i ~{ ~ ,i~ ~~ ~L~ # l ~,`~~ ' ' 1 /' ~ o °O°p ~ } • ° ° ~ { ~ ~ ~ .i..~ ' p°ppp° ° ~ ~ i •• ° ° ° ° .~~ ~ QO°~ ~ ~ ° °O p 0 ~ p p ° p pOOpQO~O ~ pp 1~t#s{ p p ~- ~ o o p o o°°°n~c. cc { ~~ ~ . L ~~ b J { ~~ ~;~ ~# t d' ao ~~~t~~~~ ' 0~ .~~; .. ~ .{~ t~l ~ ~~~~~~{ ~ y ~{ ~ , ~~: IQ1f ~~ Y.'. ~~o`0 0 ~~~III~""""~ O O°°° p°O o„ ~° D •,0O ~:, p° ° O~ Op "~ O~ ppp ~ W o ~O iJ °~a°~o 0 ao '~ ~ O a r G'O ~° -o 0 o ~ 0 ~ ~ p R ~ ~ N 1 a o 0 0 0 0°° ~;::y~'~'.:::' 0-0 0°0 0°00000000ooooopoo i••;'~•;:;' ° no o0o00°oo0opo0o0o°0` o p o p o J °°o0O°o°DOOpb°°°°°o°°°°°° O°O°O°O°0°O v °o°o°o°o°o°0°0°0000°0 •;~.Oflb~ ~ pO°oo0 °°oOQOOOOOOOpooopo °° °°°r4o°0 °° o o0a0oooo0 ° ~ ° ~ ° pp00°°°°p°p°a pb°ay ,47° pp°pop° oQO~QpOp~ppO o °e° ~° ~ o 0 0 0 ooopo°o°o ~ ° o°b o°oooo °~°~° .. V o°~o°a ~o°~~O°°° o ~ o a o``°~•``oCOO °°o~,p°ao G O° n_O_O..O a o„ °-o [~ ° o ci p°p0° °°°° b k '- o° $p ~o p°O °a~ oo0a°o 00 00 0° ° 0 0°0 o ffo°o 0 0 00°00 ao ° ° ° ° o ° oo a a o Q°oo 000000 ~ ~ i w,no Q oso 000 .. On .,a't a ooa O ° O°o° oao o a° °o° p~app° °p°° °O O J O IJJ Z 133HS 335 __ 3NE~ H~1b'W L ~ '_! i ~ r • . ~ i• -~' ~~ V. ~Q 4 N i• •., .r~r ~w i +- ~~• O p~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ •. `~ ~ ~~. ~0 •~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~.~ ~~~~ ~~~ t ~~ ~`// O°~ 0~ ~O°~~~~ o °~° ,.::~~", .~~... i ;h;~ 1.'a _ ~!- ':~ d ~..•~':'•''• :'. ,'.. .. o z ~ ° b d ° o odd ~ •:~•:• :::: .~'~~. O~ p D OO~OQ ~ .'eR.:. ~ •~.~.; a o ~°~ a W4n$a •N •'~'~ ~; i ~ ~~'. ,•~ ~ • n. Oa ':I~ib' ff :.' J O '•d'~ • a3z :•~'• Joao ~ a z ~°ooQOOO° .'^. ::;;;;ti.. :. •.Y;.•..: a' •••• •'~•••••• '•':.:'•' Q a ~ N ~ g l~nd~~ i w ~ f, r~ r • x e~.~ • l t 1 _„ I~ • r v e ~~ ~' ~~ ~ ,~ ~,~.. `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ll-~ ~~. ~~~~ ~ t ~. G-t-- '~- ~ ~`~' 1.5 ~ l~~ ~` U ~~ ~~U~~ w:~~Ci ry ~~ ~ ~ ~~~f t ~ ~ ~ ~... ~~ ~~ G ~~ ~~ ~~ ~,~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ C~- ~~ L ~~ " `~" ~- ~,,,t~ ~ ~ ~ (3 ~ ~``' s u w~- ~ v w~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ '~' ~~ ~~ ~~~ • ~ 0 ~e 0"- P;~ ~~ 't` ~~ ~~ ~r~~w . October 26, 1990 Agar Vail Daily= Editor: i feel I must respond to your cor.?ments in the gaily an ~Jctober ?5th concerr.i~?g the 'T'uesday evening meeting at the -Vail Toz•rn Counvil Chambers regarding the re-zoninn of the Mountain Rell, Vail Heig}?ts and PedottD parcels. If I offended A[~Y Vail resident, T do apologize. Everyone is an impDrtant part of the Vail picture. Nat once during the meet inn did I suggest *hat l in any wa}=L13S representing a Realtor pasitian; I spoke as a concerned private citizen and a 19 year resident of Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Although mans= of Our friends, neighbors ar,d co-Lti=arkerS ?:a~=e moved out Df the Tetrn of Vail, L•!e spade a decision to stay in West Vail as T:=e li!:e livinb in the tD'::n; ':!e like the convenience and w.e like beir.b able to help make decisions about the town through the election process. !~y comments concerninn the numbers of local business owners li!=ing d^L:=n L=alley lea:=ing the VbtB t0 "renter5" t•!a5 printed totally out of cD:?te;:t. !~f}= point was, that as Mr. Phillips reiterated, there are cr•} man}= SeCCnd hOlne O'.di?erS, a::d there are SO man}= buS1ne53 CSd:?erS, pYOfeSSiOn31S, and property es:mers L:=3?o 1zVe dD:.=n valley, that L•~e can hardly told a meaningful election s?DLe If L,=e gee=clop ':!hat remaininb pracels L:~e haVe ~::tD heusin; far s°asonal emplo}=ees b:h0 neither register nor vote - L.~he, then, :rill make the decisions? b. very small nur.:ber L~=ill :~:ake decisions for many! We reed to encauraAe permanes?t residency L:rithin the 's'own of Vail. Your article did not mention my Concern about t~=hat inC~'eaSe.d d'~nSit}= ',:ail l do t0 the ingreSS t0 and egress frOIR IntermCUntain - one dangerous road carrj=i:?g SC}TOUT ~)'SSSES, fire tTUCkS, 3i:1}`l11a:?Cos, `1'Ct•?:: Of Vail }'l1SS'.?S, bi- c~~cles, jobbers, pedestrians, etc. And it did'r.t inertiDn cDncerns about re-coning Te::~r. aL•!ned open spave at the Vern entry to Vail. 'Fhe article played up the emotional, causinn a smoke screen behind ~!hich the real, larger issues get lost. Sincerely, JO BroL•:n Concerned Resident since 1969 1 ~~ r C7 r ~ek,~ e c~1~ / ~ / /. Q.,c.c~ Q. ~. p vrt~ ~'1~t-t e (~}~` +~n.11v !D 1(.t du ~s~ /~~ ~?`~v ~~ ~ ~ ~~~-~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ :~ ~~ ~ ~ Cpo~~'r's~r~o~l~ .~t.,il f 5 I S 1~ /~ ~ ~c~~ ~D ~~ ~ ~~ ~. h ~v~-ti ~w Qr~ec ~ ~~ ~ `~:" , ,: ~ , ,~ ~' ~i t ~ ~ fi ~~ 3~ ij~ !~ II ~; ~~ ;~ ~~ ,~ ~,~, ~ ~¢-~ r~ +1 ;~ ~~ ~(/l, ~tn.~(.Lp'U ln.~c.<.• 1 ` ~ ~- LLB ~ Q- ~ r ~-•~Li..~- ~ i ~/~ S 1'', r ~ ~h~ ~. L.c~+- Q tit ~ ! ~ ~ ~ e. G'CQu S,r ~ ~' -t $a- ~ $ Q.t ~ '~- ~` 1~t~ ~~ V / ~' 'tG ~ 1/C~'„ f ~ 5 (~ ~ k ~,~ ect f~ ~L ~ ~t ~j ~C~ Gam. ~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~ 4 /~ ~,~.. G9.{.,.f/1.eti ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~+ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~.[~ ~~ i~ C k ~ }~,• v wt ~~~~~ G~e.~J ~'D DDT 2 91990 / p . ... ~~L ~1~-~.f i ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tJ~'o~J 11/1 ~,~.~ ~~~r~ ~ ~/141Z ' j o ~a ~ ~Q ~~,r e ~~~ , f. ~ ~, ~ r , P~u~N.car ~ ~.u °~~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ l' l ~ ~ Stun c.~ , ~~~~ `. ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~~ i~, t`t ~ .. r h,a`f `'` ~ ~~ r~~,S ~~ ~-e ~, ~ ~; ,~~~- ~ ~~ ~~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~,~ rte, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ aP.t. 'fig ~ ~ f 4~ ltc~ `~ ~ r ~ ft + ~ ' ~, . ~ - ~~ s a~ fE ~ K ~~A ,~ ,.~,, ~,~ ~ cam"'. ,~-~ ~ ~. ,~ ~~ ~~~~ ~,t '~ ~,,,4. ~ 1 ~~~ ~ 1!. `t /~`~"~ ~ ~~ / ~ ~~ ~ ~`~~ ~ .` ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~, ~.~ - ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~ ,, ~. ~ ~ ~ t,~ ~ ~" ~ ;; . ~ ~, ~~ ~. Q~ ~. , ~~ ~ ;~,, h ~ I~ ~-~ ~ ~t ~' ~~~ ~'~ ~~- ~' i :ff ';1 I` ~i 1 11~ :1 ~' i _ J .1 1 t~ 5 ~r 1~1 i 1 ~ r h PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 12, 1990 11:30 A work session to review the Town of Vail "Affordable Housing Study." 12:30 Site Visits -»...----------------------------w-_..------------------------------ 2:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS - 1. Approval of minutes from the October 8, 1990 meeting, - 2. Review of staff decision concerning the parking requirement for the Learning Center Lab to be located in the lower level of the Vail Valley Medical Center Parking. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 4 3. A request far setback and density variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston 1 4. A request for a front setback variance to allow for a garage on Lot 1D, Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4; 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison 3 5. A request for setback variances, a landscape variance, and an exterior alteration for the Village Center Condominiums, located at 124 Willow Bridge Road, A part of Tract C and Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Village Center Condominium Association 2 6. A request for a bed & breakfast conditional use permit at 2754 S. Frontage Road; Lot B, Stephen's Subdivision Applicant: Darlene Schweinsberg i ~, - 7. A request to amend section 18.04.130-- .• definition of Floor area, gross residential (GRFA}; 18.09.080 Hillside Residential District density control; 18.10.090 Single Family District density control; 18,12.090 Two Family Residential District density control and; 18.13.080 Primary/Secondary District density control, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail - 8. A request to amend sections 18.04.360-- definition of site coverage; 18.09.090-- Hillside Residential District site coverage; 18.10.110---Single Family District site coverage; 18.12.110--Two Family District site coverage; 18.13.090--Primary Secondary District site coverage; 18.14.110-- Residential Cluster District site coverage; 18.16.110--Low Density Residential District site coverage; 18.18.110---Medium Density Residential site coverage; 18.20.110--High Density Residential District site coverage; 18.22.110--Public Accommodation District site coverage; 18.24.150--Commercial Core I District site coverage; 18.26.120--Commercial Core II District site coverage; 18.27.090-- C~~t„~~ercial Core III site coverage; 18.28.120--Commercial Service Center District site coverage; 18.29.090--Arterial Business District site coverage; 18.30.110--Heavy Service District site coverage; 18.32.110-- Agricultural and Open Space District site coverage and; 18.39.190--Ski Base/Recreation District site coverage, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail FINAL HEARING 9. A request for a work session to review a TABLED UNTIL proposed amendment to Chapter 18.71 of the NOV. 26TH Vail Municipal Code--Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance). Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 10. A request for a work session to rezone the NOV. 26TH following property commonly known as the Mountain Bell Site located to the north of the main Vail I-70 Interchange from Agricultural Open Space to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Town of Vail and Professional Development Corp. f ~ 1~, • TABLED UNTIL 11. A request for a work session to rezone the NOV. 26TH following property commonly known as the Pedottn property located to the south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain Subdivision from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto, and Professional Development Corp. TABLED UNTIL 12. A request for a work session to rezone the NOV. 26TH following property located to the north of Safeway and Chamonix Lane in the Vail Heights Subdivision, Lots 5-13 from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John W. and Patricia A. Rickman for John Witt, Reuben B. Knight, and Professional Development Corp. TABLED UNTIL 13. A request for off-street surface parking on a NOV. 26TH parcel commonly know as the "Holy Cross parcel" . Applicant: Vail Associates TABLED UNTIL 14. A request for a height variance to allow for NOV. 26TH the installation of two satellite dish antennas on the roof of the Marriott Mark Resort, Lots 4 and 7, Block 1, Vail./Lionshead Third Filing, Lots C and D Morcus Subdivision, located at 715 W. Lionshead Circle Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort/Tri-County Cablevision TABLED UNTIL 15. A request for a front setback variance in DEC. 10TH order to construct a garage and a wall height variance in order to construct retaining walls in the front setback at 1448 Vail Valley Drive; Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: John and Barbara Schofield 16. Selection of representative for Transportation Task Force--Next Meeting: November 29, 1990 **Reminder: Eldon Beck/Sherry Durward Workshop on Streetscape November 27th, 12:00-5:00 with Council and DRB. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 12, 1990 Present Dalton Williams Kathy Warren Diana Donovan Chuck Crist Jim Shearer Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Staff Kristan Pritz Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 2:00 PM by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. 1. Approval of minutes from the October 8, 1990 meeting. Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Christ seconded approval of the minutes as written. The vote was 7-0 in favor of the motion. 2. Review of staff decision concerning the parking requirement for the Learning Center Lab to be located in the lower level of the Vail Valley Medical Center Parking. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Shelly Mello gave the staff presentation and showed the plans with the approved reconfiguration. Diana then asked for any comments from the Board or the public, Kathy Warren indicated that it looked to her that the Medical Center was out of parking again. Jay said that they were out of room for an expansion, and that they were completely maxxed. Shelly explained that if another conference roam was added in the future, it would create the need far more parking spaces. Diana Donovan wanted to add to what Kathy said by stating that it was questionable not to count the proposed conference room when calculating needed parking. Jay mentioned that every doctor and office in the building has a parking requirement. When they combined offices, there was no longer the same requirement. Kathy moved that the requirement be approved with the condition that any future conference rooms built have a parking requirement as part of the development. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor. . 3. A request £or setback, common, and density variances in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston. This was changed to a work session. Diana Donovan started by stating that since the board was familiar with this proposal, she asked that only new issues be reviewed. Jill Kammerer reviewed the setback, common area, and density variances. She explained that the northwest overhang would extend into the setback. Jill reviewed the zoning considerations, the criteria and findings, the related policies in the Vail Village Master Plan, and the Urban Design Guide Plan. Jill explained that the parking variances required to allow the project to be constructed could not be formally voted on at this time, but the parking was discussed. Chuck asked about the number of parking spaces planned to be under the Porte cochere and was told there would be two. Jay Peterson added that many buildings in the area did not provide the technically required covered parking amount. The memo stated that 17 of the 37 spaces in the Christiania parking lot would be valet parking. Jack Curtin questioned the parking numbers and also felt that the spaces at the entrance should not be included. Jay responded that from a practical point of view, some of the spaces would be for long term and some for short term. Dalton asked if someone would be on duty 24 hrs a day for the valet parking, and Paul Johnston replied that employees would be on duty as needed. Bill Reslock showed an updated landscape plan. Diana wished to see the status of the Villa Valhalla snow dump. She also wanted to see the VA part of the parking lot also "spruced up". Jay replied that he had asked this of VA, but that it was not a priority to VA. Connie was concerned about the guarantee of the agreement to use VA property, and Paul responded that this was a right to perpetuity. Kathy asked Jay for an explanation of the common area. Jay answered that 20o was permitted for common area, but he felt that with only 20~ given to common area, new lodges were not able to provide necessary and wanted amenities without using same of the allowed GRFA. Jay felt it was not valid to penalize a lodge owner for providing first class facilities including ski storage, etc. He explained that mechanical, elevator, stairways, lobby, storage, etc. were part of common area. Kathy asked if 2 mechanical was common area, and Jill repZi2d that it was not. Ludi was concerned about the trash area. He felt that this was a bad spot in a nice part of town and adjacent to Hanson Ranch Road. Ludi stated that the area contained a "skinny" portion to be used as a buffer and wanted to see more mitigation in that location. Ludi also was not comfortable with the parking solution. Dalton agreed with Ludi concerning the trash mitigation. He had some concerns regarding the feasibility of the possible agreement with Vail Associates. Chuck Crist had no problem with the landscaping or the requested setback variances. He did not feel the applicant should be required to landscape the VA portion of the lot. Chuck was concerned about the proposed view corridor. Jay stated that there was no designated view corridor in the area to date. Jack Curtin felt that the view corridor should be from the street level, and not from a balcony. Jay stated that he would have photographs for the next meeting. Jack explained that he was not concerned with the removal of the trees, because that would open up the view corridor. Jack was concerned about the variances required far the site and felt this action would set a precedent for the Golden Peak House, . Cyrano's, etc. and that it was critical to determine what was reasonable when granting variances. Kathy felt that the trash could be moved and two parking spaces could still be provided. She was concerned about overhanging the property line. Kathy felt the VA lot should be paved somehow, the second floor du should be restricted as short term rental. She agreed with the staff of having 2 lock-offs on the 3rd floor. Jim Shearer asked about the perpetuity of the parking lot agreement. Jay stated that it ran with the land and had nothing to do with a grantor or with perpetuity and that if the VA developed the land, they would have to replace the parking. Jim suggested paving the lot. Connie pointed out that if the au's were combined, a density variance would not be needed. She had a problem with the parking and was not in favor of the setback variances, but agreed that it was "not that big a deal". She would rather see that the porte cochere was contained on the Christiania property. Jay stated that the ports cochere could be cut back. Diana agreed with the staff memo, but had concerns about the view corridor. This concluded the work session. • 3 4. A request for a front setback variance to allow far a garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lionsridge Filing No. 4, 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. orrison Andy Knudsen explained the request and stated that the applicant did not feel that the garage would be visible from the Town. Rusty Wood, contractor for the project, felt that the location was chosen to please all the neighbors, owners, and Town staff. He felt that the location suggested by the staff was unacceptable, and the location proposed would have the least impact. Kristan explained that the present meeting was to review the variances requested. The board went outside with Rusty to look at the site from the Town office parking lot. Diana then summarized that the setback was not a problem, but there was a problem with the cuts for the driveway. Kathy made suggestions for alternative schemes. She felt that she could not approve variances when there were alternatives. The alternatives were discussed, but the applicant did not wish to change his design. Diana suggested tabling the item to allow for revisions to the proposal. Chuck moved and Connie seconded to table this item • until November 26th. The vote was 7--0 in favor. 5. A request €or setback variances and an exterior alteration for the village Center Condominiums, 124 Willow Bridge Road. Applicant: Village Center Condominiums Association Jill Kammerer explained that there was no longer a need for a landscape variance, and showed plans explaining the proposals. She added that the staff recommended approval with one condition, that of requiring that the applicant not remonstrate against the construction of a streamwalk or the construction of a pocket park at the northeast intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Gore Creek. Kirk Aker, employee of Morter Architects, felt that the condition was a little strong because the Town could come in with a "terrible" design, Diana pointed out that the applicant could give input on the design. Kirk felt that the condition was not fair. He added that a hardship had been found for the variance and the privilege of the variance should then not be taken away. Connie felt uncomfortable requiring the condition and felt that it was backhanded. Jim Shearer could not see any difference between conditioning this variance and conditioning other variances. Diana agreed with Jim and felt that the condition would speed up the process and did not feel rights were being • 4 taken away. Chuck did not feel the condition should be placed on the approval, but felt that perhaps the part about not remonstrating against the public park should be left in, but not the part about the streamwalk because he was not personally in favor of the streamwalk. He felt the variance was OK. Dalton suggested changing the wording to encourage input into the design. Ludi agreed with Diana, Kirk felt the condition was objectionable and painted out that this was a study area, not a plan. He stated that the applicant is not getting a special privilege and that the variance was justified. The variance and the streamwalk should be two separate issues and go through normal channels. Chuck asked if the applicant would drop the improvement if the condition remained, and the applicant stated that 90~ of the owners were against the streamwalk. Kirk asked to have the item tabled until November 26th. Jim moved and Dalton seconded to table to 11/26. The vote was 7-0. 6. A request far a bed and breakfast conditional use permit at 2754 South Frontage Road; Lot B, Stephens Subdivision. • Applicant: Darlene Schweinsberg Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal and stated that the applicant met all the criteria and the staff recommendation was for approval. Dalton moved and Jim seconded a motion to approve the conditional use request. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 7. A request to amend Section 18.04.330--definition of floor area, gross residential {GRFA~; 18.09.080 Hillside Residential District density control; 18.10,090 Single Family District density control; 18.12.090 Two Family Residential District density control and 18,13.080 Primary Secondary District density control, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Tom Braun, planning consultant for the Town of Vail, explained the proposed ordinance, Linda Fried, an east Vail property owner, felt that single family homes able to be made into 2 units would be losing square footage. She felt that the amount of additional GRFA was not adequate. Kathy Warren was not comfortable with the 475 square feet figure. She also felt that the amount allowed for small lots would be out of proportion to large lots. Diana had the same concern. She . felt they were bending over backwards to accommodate developers 5 and, altheugh~she agreed philesophical3.y, she disagreed with the figures and felt the additional GRFA to compensate for credits should be less than the proposed 475 square feet. Tom Braun wondered if they were suggesting a different set of numbers for the smaller lots, Kathy suggested using 425 as the number. Tom replied that at the last task force meeting, 50 square feet was added in response to developers. Jim Shearer did not feel 50 feet mare or less would help or hurt anyone. Dalton felt more comfortable with 425 feet. Ludi stated that he was not part of the task force and supported 425 square feet. Chuck Crist did not care which number was used. He did not feel 50 square feet would make much difference. Connie was happy to hear the support for less square footage. Kathy moved and Dalton seconded to approve the proposed amendment with the additional square faatage changed to 425 square feet. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 8. A request to amend sections 18.0 coverage and sections 18.09.090, • 18.13.090, 18.14.110, 18.16.110, 18.22.110, 18.24.150, 18.26.120, 18.29.090, 18.30.110, 18.32.110, with site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail 4.360--definition of site 18.10.110, 18.12.110, 18.18.110, 18.20.110, 18.27.090, 18.28.120, and 18.39.190, all dealing Kristan Pritz and Tam Braun explained these proposed revisions. There was much discussion concerning the 4 foot "buffer" for roof overhangs with regard to calculating site coverage and far reducing the amount of site coverage allowed on steep lots. Dalton felt that if 3 sides of a garage were covered, the garage should not count as site coverage. Jim Shearer felt that the explanation of why site coverage was reduced should be included. Kathy moved and Jim seconded with the removal of any 4 fog amended this motion to apply Primary/Secondary and Duplex districts to be tabled until amendment. to recommend approval to the Council ~t buffer reference. Kathy then only to Hillside, Single Family, zoning with the rest of the zone November 26th. Jim seconded the Jim Lamont felt that more notification needed to be made to c~,~„~~ercial entities. Tom stated a press release could be used. Kristan said a newsletter could be used, but the issue would then • 6 have to be tabled to a cater meeting. Jim felt the need to do more discussion in the task force meetings. The vote was 6-0 in favor with Chuck absent. 9. A request for a work session to review a proposed amendm®nt to Chapter 18,71 of the Municipal Code--Additional Gross Residential Floor Area {250 Ordinance}. Applicant: Town of Vail 10. A request for a work session to rezone the property commonly known as the Mountain Bell Site located to the north of the main Vail I-70 Interchange from Agricultural Open Space to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Town of Vail-and Professional Development Corporation ii. A request for a work session to rezone the following property commonly known as the Pedotto property located to the south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain Subdivision from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family, Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto, and Professional Development Corporation. 12, A request for a work session to rezone the fallowing • property located to the north of Safeway and Chamonix Lane in the Vail Heights Subdivision, Lots 5-13 from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John W. and Patricia JA. Rickman for John Witt, Reuben B. Knight, and Professional Development Corporation. 13. A request for off-street surface parking an a parcel commonly known as the ~~Holy Cross parcel~~. Applicant: Vail Associates 14. A request for a height variance to allow for the installation of two satellite dish antennas on the roof of the Marriott Mark Resort, Lots 4 and 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Lots C and D, MOrpus Subdivision, lacatad at 715 West Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort/Tri County Cablevision Dalton moved and Ludi seconded to table Items 9 through 14 to the meeting of November 26. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 1S. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a garage and a wall height variance in order to construct retaining walls in the front setback at 1448 Vail Valley Drive; Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: John and Barbara Schofield Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to table item 15. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Kathy Warren was selected to be a representative on the Transportation Task Farce. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. n U ~ a + y, T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 1990 RE: Review of staff decision concerning the parking requirement for the Learning Center Lab to be located in the lower level of the Vail Valley Medical Center Parking. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center The purpose of this memo is to inform the PEC of the staff's action concerning parking for the Learning Center Lab. In April 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a request by the Vail Valley Medical Center for a conditional use permit to expand the proposed parking structure and to add a Learning Center Lab within the lowest level of the structure. The approved plan required 17 parking spaces. Upon review of the plans submitted for building permit for the Learning Center to be located in the lower level. of the Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure, the staff discovered that due to changes in the floor plans, the parking requirement for the facility should be increased. The following is a comparison of the original requirement and the new parking . requirement: Parking Requirement New Parking Requirement (~ PEC @ Buildina Permit Employees* 6.0 spaces 4.0 spaces Human Performance 3.8 spaces 4.8 spaces Study Lab 6.4 spaces 5.0 spaces Psyc Motor Skills w spaces 3.0 spaces Imaging - spaces 1.5 spaces 16.2 or 17 spaces 18.3 or 19 spaces * # of employees generated by # of offices ** Formula = S.f./15/$/2 = Required parking The additional 2 spaces which will be required are due to the reorganization of space and the increase in square footage being devoted to usable space in the facility. The following details the changes in the facility: 1 Square Footage Square Footage • ~ PEC ~ Buildina Permit Employees/Offices 6 4 Human Performance 930 1158 Study Lab 1530 1221 Psyc Motor Skills - 720 Imaging - 1140 Conference - 360 A conference area has also been added to the facility. The staff has determined that this space should not have a parking requirement because the room will only be used as an assembly room for personnel already at the hospital and parking is already provided for the staff. Prior to the VVMC's recent expansion, the cafeteria was used for both meal service and staff assembly. The new conference room will provide an assembly room outside of the cafeteria for the staff. The records show that presently there is a surplus of 4 parking spaces. This allows Vail National Bank (VNB) to build their expansion and maintain their option on 4 spaces (8 purchased and option on 4 additional spaces). The VNB's option an the additional 4 spaces will expire ten business days after the VVMC notifies the VNB that they have a temporary certificate of occupancy far the parking structure. . The Town staff recognizes that conventional formulas do not accurately predict parking needs far the hospital. Because of the unique nature of the facility, we feel that only 2 additional spaces for a total of 19 spaces will be required for the Learning Center. No parking will be required for the conference area. After the Learning Center is built, there will be 2 excess spaces assuming the VNB utilizes their option on the 4 parking spaces. • _ Future Conversion of Available by Learning Lab • November 1990 ,~ Elev. 8135 into Parking. Parking Structure 204 spaces 250 spaces Surface Parking 105 spaces 105 spaces Lot 10 18 spaces 18 spaces TOtal 327 spaces 373 spaces Available Parking 327 spaces 373 spaces Doubletree Parking -2n spaces -2o spaces Learning Center Lab -17 spaces -17 spaces M R l - 2 spaces -2 spaces Vail National Bank*'" -12 spaces -12 spaces Existing Hospital and EXpan510n * -272 spaces -272 spaces • SiafpluS 4 spaces 50 spaces Excluding LOt 1 O Parking -14 spaces 32 spaces deficit surptus * These calculations recognize the six fewer daytime employees as explained in Dan Feeney's attached letter dated June 25, 1990. The hospital "resurveyed staff projections and found that the actual number of employees anticipated is slightly lower than initially projected in 1988." ** Six spaces have been approved by the hospital and Town Council to meet the parking requirements for the Vail National Bank. A potential total of 12 spaces may be used by the Bank in the future. The Bank's use of any additional parking in the VVMC structure far future expansinns will require Town of Vaii PEC and/or Council approval. At this time, the Council has stated that all future expansinns of the Vail National Bank Building will require parking to be located on Bank property. For planning purposes, staff felt it was appropriate to consider the 12 spaces in the VVMC structure to avoid a potential parking deficit. This consideration of the 12 spaces is not .meant to indicate any type of approval. to actually use all 12 spaces. '~". vaii valley r -'~ medical center 29 October 1990 Shelly Me11o Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Shelly: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) A76-2Ab'f I understand that our proposed plan to construct an assembly room in the bottom 7eveT of the parking structure has raised the question of whether additional parking spaces should be provided to support this space. In reaching a conclusion on this issue, we feel the following facts should be considered: • The hospital has no facility where staff and visitors can assemble. While our cafeteria presently doubles as a meeting room, it obviously has limitations during meal service times. • A critical difference between this hospital and other facilities having meeting rooms is that no one will come to the hospital for the sole purpose of using the meeting room. The room will be used as an assembly point far personnel already at the hospital. Parking needs for these personnel will be comfortably met by the 299 spaces available when our new parking structure is completed later this year. Over the last four years, the Town staff and P.E.C. have consistently recognized that conventional formulas do not accurately predict parking needs at the hospital. We believe that this assembly room is another justification for tempering pre--existing parking formulas, recognizing the unique nature of the hospital's operation. DJF:bh Ray McMahan Chief Executive Officer r .~ TD: Planning and Environmental Commission i FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 1990 RE: A request for a work session for a density, common area, and setback variances in order to allow construction of an addition to and the remodeling of the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston I. BACKGROUND On May 11, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve density and setback variances in order to allow the construction of additions to the Christiania Lodge. At the time it was the Community Development Department staff's opinion that approval of an increase in density would be a grant of special privilege and rec~,~~a~.ended the request be denied. During this same time, public hearings had been held to review the Vail Village Master Plan, however, the plan was still in draft form and had not been formally adopted by Council. The Goals and Objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan supported the 1987 remodeling proposal and therefore the PEC voted to approve the density and setback variances. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, no construction has occurred. A comparison of the 1990 redevelopment submission and existing conditions follows in the Description of the Proposal section of this memo. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REMODEL; Mr. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania Lodge, proposes to add a third floor to the existing structure, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a Porte cochere, to expand Sarah's Bar, to construct a stream walk along Mi11 CReek, and to add common area to the lodge under this proposal. Under this redevelopment proposal, 7 evergreen trees must be removed, This request will require density, setback, and parking variances, Although the parking variance request will be discussed in this memo, no formal action can be taken regarding the granting of this variance because the matter has not been advertised far the November 12th public meeting. The parking variance will be heard at the November 26th PEC meeting. Approval of the parking variance should be a condition of approving the setback and density variances. The following is a summary of the development proposal: 1 A. Ground Floor (Garden Levell •7 accommodation units @ 2074 sq. ft. •Common area @ 2229 sq. ft. •Chateau mechanical area @ 271 sq. ft. •Christiania Realty Office (conditional use permit has been obtained) @ 237 sq. ft. B. First Floor •8 accommodation units @ 2326 sq. ft. •Common area @ 1422 sq. ft. •Airlocks @ 141 sq. ft. •Restaurant @ 1178 sq. ft. •Fireplaces: 2 C. Second Floor •1 dwelling unit with a lock-off @ 815 sq. ft. •10 accommodation units @ 3292 sq. ft. •Common area @ 623 sq. ft. •Fireplaces: 2 D. Third Floor (Condominium Levell •2 dwelling units East unit @ 2166 sq. ft. West Unit @ 2195 sq. ft. = 4361 sq. ft. Total •Common area @ 164 sq. ft. •Fireplaces: 4 E. Mechanical Loft •Mechanical @ 205 sq. ft. •Common area @ 13 sq. ft. F. All existing fireplaces are proposed to be gas including the conversion of the wood burning fireplace in Sarah's Bar. G. Site Improvements •Construction of stream walk along Mill Creek •Removal of 596 sq. ft. of asphalt •Removal of split rail fence on Christiania parcel •Enclosure of dumpster •Landscaping of periphery of northern parking lot •Paving of northern parking lot • H. Proposed Dwellina Unit vs. Accommodation Unit Summary 3 D.U.s at 5,176 sq. ft. = 3.0 D.U.s 25 A.U.s at 7.&92 sq. ft. = 12.5 D.U.s Total 12,868 sq. ft. = 15.5 D.U.s III. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED A. Dansity Variance The property is located within the Public Accommodation (PA) zone district. Under PA zoning, 9 dwelling units or 18 accommodation units are allowed on this site (please note that 2 accommodation units or units without kitchens = one dwelling unit). The existing lodge has 25 accommodation units and two dwelling units which equals 14.5 dwelling units. Therefore the existing situation is nonconforming in that the property is already 5.5 dwelling units over the allowable 9 dwelling units. The proposal calls for a total of 25 accommodation units plus 3 dwelling units which equals 1.5.5 dwelling units. A variance is needed far the 1 dwellina unit increase in density. Existing Proposed Accommodation Units: 25 25 Dwelling Units: 2 3 Total Dwelling Units: 14.5 15.5 Through this proposal the applicant is increasing the density of the lodge by 1 dwelling unit. In addition to comparing the existing vs. proposed accommodation and dwelling units, it may be helpful for the Commission to review existing vs. proposed lodge capacity based upon bed counts and existing vs. proposed square footage of lodge and dwelling units. The following lodge capacity comparison does not take into account the number of beds there may be in the 2 third floor dwelling units. Existing Capacity: 66 people* Proposed Capacity: 72 people Additional capacity following remodel: 6 people *Assume 1 person/twin and single bed & 2 persons/ double, king and queen bed. • Square Footagg--From 1987 GRFA analysis Existing Acc~~~~~t~odation Units: 6536 sq. ft. Proposed Acc~~~~~~~odation Units; 7692 sq. ft. Existing Dwelling Units: 1120 sq. fit. Proposed Dwelling Units: 5176 sq. ft. Existing ground floor accommodation units are being converted into common space and being replaced with larger upper story accommodation units. This redevelopment effort also calls for the remodeling of existing accommodation units and dwelling unit bathrooms. The request does not require a GRFA variance. The lodge may have up to 13,232 sq. ft. of GRFA. The existing GRFA is 7,397 sq. ft. Proposed GRFA including the new third floor would be 12,868 sq. ft. The property would have 364 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining after the remodeling is complete. Section 18.04.210, defines "Lodge" as follows: "Lodge" means a building or gro~ip of associated . buildings designed far occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the cross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the cross 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 request meets the definition of a lodge. Of the 12,868 sq. ft. of GRFA in lodge room and dwelling unit uses following redevelopment, 7692 sq. ft. (59.8) will be devoted to lodge roams and 5176 sq. ft. (40.2) will be allocated to dwelling units. • B. 20~ C~~«~«on Area Variance Common area, as defined in the zoning code, includes halls, closets, lobbies, stairways and common enclosed recreation facilities. The allowed common area is 20~ of the allowable GRFA, or 2,646 sq. ft. Presently, 2,255 sq. ft. of common area exists. The proposal adds 2,196 sq. ft. of additional hall space, lobby area, accessory office, and storage which brings the total amount of common area to 4,451 sq. ft. A variance is necessary for the 1,805 scr. ft. of common area over thP_ allowable of 2.646 sa. ft. C. Setback Variances The Public Accommodation zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. Under PA zoning architectural projections (eaves, roof overhangs, awnings etc.) may project not more than 4'-0" into a setback. Unroofed balconies decks and terraces etc. projecting from a height of more than five ft. above the ground may project not more than 10'-0" into the setback. Porches, steps, decks or terraces at ground level or within five feet of ground level may project not more than 10 feet into the required setback. The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the lodge. A zero setback exists on the east side of the property as the Christiania Lodge connects directly with the Chateau Condominiums to the east. A 17 foot setback exists on the west side of the property as the southwest corner of the building encroaches three feet into the 20 foot setback area. The rear setback is 20 feet. The proposed additions will further encroach into the west side, front, and rear setbacks. West Side--At the northwest corner of the building, a 2nd and 3rd floor building overhang will project 7'6" into the setback. Also in this area is a roof overhang which projects 9'0" into the setback. The code only allows an cave to project 4'-0" into a setback before a variance must be obtained. With the construction of the roof overhang, which projects the greatest amount into this area, the resulting setback would be 11'-0". A variance is necessary for the resulting 9'-0" setback. • Front-WTwo additions are proposed to the front facade of the building. One of the additions is a new covered entry to Sarah's Lounge, the other is to the lobby, These two additions will not encroach any further into the front setback then the 1'-6" existing face of the building currently encroaches. A second floor bay window will project 3'-0" into the front setback and the roof overhang will project 4'-5" into the front setback. A proposed porte cochere off of the main entrance will have a support column that wall be located at the property line. A zero setback is needed for the suabort column. The roof of the Corte cochere would also overhang 3 feet onto the uublic right-of- wav. The roof overhang would not extend beyond the existing 3 foot planter encroachment into the public right-of-way. Rear--The southwestern most addition will encroach 8 ft. into the rear setback. At this same location the 3rd floor condominium overhang encroaches 1o ft. into the rear setback, a second floor deck overhang encroaches 14 ft. into the setback and the roof overhang encroaches 14'-6" into the setback. Because the 14'-6" roof overhang encroaches the greatest amount into the rear setback, a variance is necessary for the 14'-6" encroachment. This encroachment will result in a 5'-6" rear setback. The final addition to occur on the site is the expansion of Sarah's Bar. The expansion of the deck will encroach 5'-0" into the setback which is allowable under the code without obtaining a variance. The existing Sarah's deck currently encroaches 12'-5" into the rear setback. In addition to the above mentioned encroachments, on the front, west-side and rear setbacks, the roof overhang on the proposed new lobby addition will further project into a zero east-side setback situation. This zero east-side setback variance results from the Christiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. D. Parking Variance: Although the Commission can not, at this time, formally vote on the parking variances required to allow this project to be constructed, staff believes it is appropriate to discuss the required variances at this time. • 6 Under this redevelopment proposal 100 of the parking to be provided will be surface parking. Section 18.20.140, states 75% of all required parking spaces in the PA zone district be located within the main building and hidden from public view. This requirement applies only to the 6 additional spaces required under this redevelopment proposal. Under this redevelopment proposal 100°s of the parking to be provided will be surface parking. A variance will be required to allow 75~; of the additional 6 spaces not to be located within the main building and hidden from public view. The Christiania parking which occurs within the front setback on both the north and west lots is not allowed under PA zoning, however this is a pre-existing, nonconforming situation. Use of the existing northern lot does not reflect the fact that a portion of this iot is owned by the Town of Vail. The existing paved road northwest of the lodge which links Hanson Ranch Road with Gore Creek Drive is on private property. The parcel which was platted for this purpose cuts through the middle of the northern parking lot. Town Engineer, Greg Hall, has indicated the Public Works Department would have interest in formalizing the situation as it currently exists so that the Town would have title to the property underlying the road as built and in turn the Town would vacate the platted, unimproved, platted parcel. Under the existing northern lot layout, cars which utilize the western half of the lot are parking on Town right- of--way. This is not the situation with the Christiania leased, eastern half of the lot. As previously discussed, a portion of the Christiania lot is owned by the Town of Vail and a portion is owned by Vail Associates. Of the portion leased from Vail Associates, 6799 sq. ft. (61~) will be paved and 4310 sq. ft. (39~) will be landscaped. In order to meet the 41 space parking requirement, 17 of the 37 spaces in this lot (46%) will be valet parking. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: Public Accommodation S. Site Area: .38 acres or 16,540 sq. ft. • • C. Density: (25 d,u.s allowed per acre, 1 d.u = 2 a.u.} Allowed: 9 d.u.s = 18 a.u.s Existing: 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.s Existing over allowable: 5.5 d.u.s Proposed: 3 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 15.5 d.u.s Difference from existing: 1 d.u. Amount over allowed after remodel: 6.5 d.u.s D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of GRFA buildable site area.) Allowed: 13,232 sq. Existing: 7,397 sq. Proposed: 12,868 sq. Remaining after 1990 E. Common Area: (20~ of alloy allowable per 100 sq. ft. of ft. ft. ft. redevelopment: 364 sq. ft. cable GRFA) Allowed: 2,&46 sq. ft. Existing: 2,255 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,451 sq. ft. or 33.6 of allowable GRFA • Amount over allowed after remodel: 1,805 sq. ft. F. Accessory: (10% of GRFA): Allowed: 1,323 sq. ft. Existing: 780 sq. f.t Proposed: 1,415 sq. ft. Amount over allowed: 92 sq. ft. G. Setbacks: Required: 20 ft. all sides Existing Front 15 ft. East Side 0 ft. West Side 17 ft. Rear 20 ft. Proposed 0 ft. 0 ft. 9 ft. 5'-6n • e H. Site Coverage: (.~~ of site area} Allowed: 9,097 sq. ft. Existing: 5,235 sq. ft. Proposed: 5,98$ sq. ft. Remaining: 3,149 sq. ft. 2. Landscaping: (30~ of site area} Required: 4,962 sq. ft. Existing: 7,490 sq. ft. Proposed: 5,943 sq. ft. J. Height: Allowed: 48 ft. sloping roof 45 ft. flat roof Existing: 36 ft. sloping Proposed: 43 ft. flat K. Parking: Existina Use # Spaces Reauired Proposed # Spaces Reauired Accommodation Units: 25 units = 16.4 25 units = 17.7 Dwelling Units: 2 units 4 3 units = 7 Sarah's Lounge: 6 8.5 Realty Office: 0.3 1 Christian Chateau Condos: 9 9 Total 35.7 or 36 43.2 or 44 or *36 spaces required -33 on site 3 space grandfathered or 44 spaces required - 3 grandfathered 41 spaces for addition *The Town currently recognizes the Christiania as having 36 parking spaces. The applicant's representative has indicated the condos have a right to one space per unit. There are 9 condos existing so the condominium's demand for parking is 9 spaces. The 1980 parking lot configuration shows a total of 33 spaces. The new parking requirement of 6 spaces can be handled on-site. The reconfiguration of the north lot and the use of valet parking will allow an additional 4 spaces on this lot. The other two spaces are available due to the recognition of a grandfathered situation where the Christiania currently parks in the front yard drop-off area. • 9 In addition to the currently provides existing building. situation as parki; applicant proposes at this location. gravel lot to the north, Christiania parking in a small lot west of the This lot is also a grandfathered ng occurs in the front yard setback. The to continue to provide 2 parking spaces V. 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 variances 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. Density Variance: • The proposed redevelopment will have the following effects on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: a. Under the redevelopment proposal the applicant is increasing the mass and bulk of the building in a manner which the staff believes is acceptable. The project meets the GRFA, landscaping, height, and site coverage requirements of the PA zone district. b. The removal of existing paved area, the construction of the stream walk and the enclosure of the dumpster will all generally improve the appearance of the property and positively impact adjacent property owners. c. The removal of 7 evergreens which feet in height is a concern of the the installation of a significant landscaping should be required to the removal of these trees, are 18+ staff and amount of mitigate 10 A view analysis also indicates that the third floor addition will not impact any adopted view corridors, however the proposed view corridor over the Red Lion may be impacted. Staff is reviewing this situation with the applicants representative. The proposed redevelopment project is compatible with existing uses and structures in the area. Surrounding properties are either zoned Public Accommodation or Commercial Core I. Both zone districts promote lodge uses. Common Area Variance: The 20~ common area variance is directly related to the density variance. In order to add new rooms and upgrade the lodge, it is reasonable to add adequate lobby, hallway, and accessory office space. The additional common area that is proposed will improve the functioning of the lodge and is not in excess of what is a reasonable amount for these uses. Landscape, height, and site coverage standards are still maintained with the additional common area. Setback Variances: In general, the staff believes that the setback variances do not impact the property or adjacent uses any mare than the pre-existing setbacks do. The Porte cochere will extend nv further into the right-of-way then does the existing planter and further, the Public Works Department has indicated they do not have a problem with the Porte cochere encroachment. The property mast impacted by the setback requests, the Christian Chateau Condominium Association building, has agreed to the redevelopment as proposed. A11 other building expansion setback encroachments will project no further into the setback then the roof overhang. For this reason, the considered to have no adjacent properties. setback variances are major negative impacts on ~ ~~ 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and • literal interuretatian and enforcement of a specified reaulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without arant of special urivileae. density Variance: Under the existing redevelopment proposal the applicant will be increasing the existing density by 1 dwelling unit. The Vail Village Master Plan encourages the provision of short term overnight acc~~~u«odations. The existing lodge contains 2 dwelling units, one on the basement level, which is to be converted for ski storage and restrooms and one on the 2nd floor which is to remain. The 2nd floor dwelling unit has a lock-off unit associated with it. Staff believes the applicant should convert the second floor dwelling/lock-off unit to 2 accommodation units, and further that the applicant should provide 2 lock-off units in association with each of the 2 new third floor dwelling units. These third floor lock-off units would further the Vail Village Master Plan goal of increasing the number of short term overnight accommodations in the Village while not contributing any additional density as each dwelling unit is allowed one accommodation lock- off. The applicant could avoid the density request all together by simply combining accommodation units and creating larger unit sizes. This combination of accommodation units would still result in a majority of the square footage of the project in accommodation unit uses, the project would still meet the lodge definition and the project would still meet the Vail Village Master Plan support criteria. Staff has encourage the applicant to maintain or increase the existing number of lodge units and believes this density variance request is supportable subject to the fallowing conditions: a. All accommodation units be short-term rental restricted. b. The 2nd floor dwelling/lock-off unit be short term rental restricted or converted to two accommodation units. • 12 c. The applicant provide a short term rental restricted lack-off unit in association with each of the two 3rd floor (condominium level} dwelling units. This proposal, if approved, would not represent incompatible nor dissimilar treatment from other sites in the vicinity if the 2nd floor dwelling/lock--off unit is converted to 2 accommodation units and staff recommended short- term rental conditions are approved. The Ramshorn and Garden of the Gods special development districts increased the allowable density for these sites. In addition, a density variance was granted for the Tivoli Lodqe in order to increase lodge capacity. Setback Variance: The staff believes it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the setback variance of the encroachments due to the fact that the remodel does not increase beyond those that already exist on the property except for the west setback encroachment, which has minimal impacts, as the encroachment is due to several third floor bay windows. Common Area: Variances have been granted for common area density increases as this square footage benefits the guests and provides the guest amenities typically associated with a quality lodge. 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 density, common area and setback variance requests will have no negative impacts on any of the above criteria. The construction of the stream walk adjacent to Mill Creek will enhance the Village pedestrian experience. V. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Staff's opinion is that proposed redevelopment with staff recommended conditions of approval meets the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasized the upgrading of lodges, the addition of acc~.~~.~~odation units, the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open space. 13 This proposal supports the Master Plans objectives by improving existing lodge units and adding new units while complying with site development standards. The paved parking area and landscaping improve the appearance of an existing parking area in a highly visible portion of the Village. The pedestrian path and seating area also enhance open space for pedestrians. The following is a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Objectives which relate to this project: • GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment,of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the wail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Poiicv: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are 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, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the landscaping and other existing pedestrian ways by improvements. 1~ 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), alang adjacent pedestrian ways. GOAL ~4, - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the difference roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. GOAL ~5 - INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFTCZENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE. Sub-Area Concept No. 8: "Mill Creek walking path, west side mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." The Urban Design Guide plan calls for the construction of a path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village area. In further support of this goal, the applicant proposes to remove 596 sq. ft. of paved area to the northwest of the site. This paved area currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage is located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property. Even though the path was originally proposed for the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash room for Cyrano's as well as several utility boxes which make it an unpleasant area to walk throughout. • 15 VTT. 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. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the setback, common area, and density variances. The setback variance can be supported by Findings A, C (1), and C (3), as the encroachments are not generally increased from those that presently exist on the site. Staff is able to support the density and common area variance request by Findings A, B, and C (3) based upon the Vail Village Master Plan Concepts and Goals. Staff rec~,~„~~ends approval of the three variance requests subject to the following conditions: 1. The Christiania parking lot shall be landscaped. The proposal would alsc landscaping the northern, southern, of the lot owned by Vail Associates. should be placed along the northern, western periphery of the entire lot the lot from adjacent properties and i paved and include and western portion Plant materials southern and in order to screen pedestrian ways. 16 LJ 2. The applicant shall construct a stream walk between the existing bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. This path shall also include a small seating area. Path location and construction material shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB, Town Engineer, Town Landscape Architect and Community Development Staff. 3. Construction of the stream walk and trash enclosure, installation of all landscaping and removal of all paving designated for removal shall occur at the time the Christiania remodel occurs. 4. Approval of all parking variances. 5. The applicant shall provide one permanently restricted employee housing unit, on or off-sitA, within the Town of Vail. Said unit shall have a minimum square footage of 500 sq. ft. 6. The applicant shall provide two lock-off units. Said units shall be associated with each of the two 3rd floor (condominium level) dwelling units and shall be permanently restricted for short term rental. Said restriction shall remain in effect even if the dwelling units are condominiumized. 7. The applicant shall permanently restrict to short term rental all accommodation units and all dwelling units except those dwelling units on the 3rd floor (condominium level}. 8. If the ability to park in the north lot is compromised by snow build-up/accumulation, applicant shall remove/truck-out snow from the site. 9. Applicant must obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the Town in order to construct the ports cochere and planter as proposed and to improve the northern parking lot as proposed. 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of six 8'-10' spruce trees on the north side of the northern parking lot. 11. The applicant shall work with the Town and Vail Associates to resolve the situation regarding the right-of-way which bisects the northern parking lot. 17 tl 12. The applicant shall relocate or replace the 7 evergreen trees proposed to be removed from the Christiania parcel back onto the Christiania parcel with evergreen trees of similar size. The applicant shall guarantee survival or replacement of said trees for a period of two years from date of installation. 13. The applicant must obtain approval to encroach into utility easements from the appropriate utility companies prior to the release of any building permits by the Town. • 18 r~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community DevelvY~«ent Department DATE: November 12, 1990 RE: A request for a front setback variance to allow for a garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4; 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED The applicant proposes to construct a detached two car garage in the front yard setback. Though the garage would be one story, there would be two Ievels of parking-- one inside the garage and one on the roof. The driveway accessing the interior spaces will loop around the structure and descend to the lower level (see site plan). The driveway will have a 10 to 12 percent slope. The garage will be buried into the hillside and will not be visible from Aspen Grove Lane. The garage and driveway will be visible from below. • The variance request is for an 18 foot encroachment into the 20 ft. front yard setback. The side setbacks would be 60' and 40' and the rear would be 92'. the slope under the proposed garage does not exceed 300. There is an existing single family residence on the site which was constructed approximately 18 months ago. A caretaker unit, one third of the allowable GRFA, is allowed but was not built. The zone district is Single Family Residential and allows detached garages without a specific Design Review Board (DRB) approval of the separation. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Lot Area: Site Coverage: Single Family Residential 17,075.5 sq. ft. Allowed: Existing Proposed: 3415.1 sq. ft. 1786.1 sq. ft. 232.5 sq. ft. 30.0 ft. 9.5 ft. (20 percent} (10.5 percent) (13.8 percent} Height (garage only): Allowed: Proposed: 1 Setbacks (garage only}: . * Front - Required: 20 ft. Proposed: 2 ft. Rear - Required: 15 ft. Proposed: 92 ft. Side (south) - Required: 15 ft. Proposed: 60 ft. Side (north) - Required: 15 ft, Proposed: 40 ft. *Area of setback variance request. TTI. 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: Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationshib of the reauested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the, • vicinity. The requested variance would have a min impact on the immediate neighborhood. the east end of Aspen Grove Lane would notice the structure since it would be The applicant has been concerned about neighbors and has sunken the garage to aimal negative The neighbors on probably not below grade. the views of the preserve them. However, looking at this request from a larger perspective, planning staff is very concerned that the structure and driveway will have a negative impact when viewed from the valley floor. This lot is quite prominent and the existing house is highly visible. Staff believes that the cut and fill required to build the driveway disturbs the site more than is necessary. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows the finished grade of the slope exceeding 1:1. The driveway slope, at 10 to 12 percent, has not been approved by the Town Engineer. He has suggested that it be redesigned so that it does not exceed 8 percent. Staff believes that the siting of the garage could be accomplished in a more sensitive manner that would also decrease the amount of asphalt on the site, minimize grading, and maintain a driveway grade at 8$ or below. • 2 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 believes that there is an alternative location for the garage which results in a better site plan. The area immediately west of the residence has adequate room to accommodate the garage the applicant is proposing. This location would probably require a side setback variance in addition to a front setback variance. Staff acknowledges that a stand of aspens would have to be removed and that same of the existing windows in the house may have to be covered. However, there are benefits to the alternative location. First, the driveway grade would be under 8 percent. Secondly, the garage would be pulled away from a highly visible ridge; and thereby, the amount of asphalt would be reduced significantly. The current proposal results in a large amount of asphalt in the front yard. Enforcing the development standard for setbacks is reasonable in this case since the variance approval would not provide compatibility among sites in the vicinity. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and airy . distribution of population, transportation and traffic, facilities. public facilities and utilities. and public safety. The variance request does encroach into a 30 foot wide utility easement. Moving the proposed structure a minimum of one foot to the east would be necessary if the variance is approved. 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. • 3 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 Staff recommends denial of the request because it does not meet the criteria or the findings for a variance. Specifically, the relationship of the proposal to other structures in the vicinity could be improved, as there is a location for the garage which has fewer impacts. The visual impacts of the garage and the driveway will be visible from the valley floor. The slope of the driveway is not acceptable to the Town Engineer. Furthermore, the finished grade of the fill around the driveway will be steeper than a 1:1 slope, which is discouraged by the DRB guidelines. The current proposal has several drawbacks and is not based on any hardship which would justify relief from the strict enforcement of the setback regulation. Staff does commend the applicant for trying to locate a garage on the site. We believe that safer access and an improved site plan result from locating the garage in the northwestern portion of the site. • 4 • ~ s Ge.o' 1-. eM~1 ZE" ~. ss.ss'. ~iLTN6y ~VlN6NY • ~~¢~ sA~ s~ 1'j0A . ~ %\. :KT lfflLEft • A41~Eq't+ Mil pE VAEl~ 1 do bµ ~I ~ f 4~ } ~ ~ I ' ~'~ ~~ / ~~ / ~ ~ 4 a ~ ~ T ;tip. • '~i o _ ~ ~XILTEN6~ ,_~n 1. / cos+*misa uuE LswEeh~ ! l ~ J ' Liti1E(YY~ ~~ ., . / J .f ~' ~~ ~ °b Tf~AGT 8 1 r _ _tKE~sE x5 6 ~ i ~ ~CyKikT6 Pict. swra K~ ,~ x~ 5l~AD~ ~tOVW F! 3 ,~ $ IN[7 FLIr-t~ ' 6c.~irEa 1"=toi i No'r>+~s ~x1s+T~ yrnay~ milt DATA mop . 'Fi71L`/GYlN4E,~1G. (SlfRY6Y~1'£ T-6~o} i ~` 1 t~x~~-~~~~ l S.F. ~sr NcE~ ~ECK iNbi ~~ J `y Lcz al ~x ~ ` ~ w a"~ 1 , f .~ ~ `a .~~ w .~ ~ ~~ \~ `K ~ ~ . ~~ ~o v i • TRiM Td 4'1RTG!} SrKe.E• o~ E~71M~ Fkrds~ - Z-_ - Woa1~ stnlNt,, DN FURtt1VC~ vnl c+aNG. E WCK W AU.. ~!!}1N C '1'o f~4A-~Gt} MA~r~L., ? S'Y~'{L~ ANO CaLPQ 3 - oF>rrclsTrNGi1~PLYSE ~ ~ ~ Trl.lVC * 1l,9 1 x 1-r' RufF-SAWN IiARQteAfeb / t GR1ZA ~ ~~'~~~ t''lAfJbvO~'1'~ ... 1 ` g ~+~R t<I.ITES OYTtof,t/kt~ !-1wTcH F.KISTtNC~ 14AVS~ per,vKS .- . ' f - ~ .. ' ~1pitTHE~s'f ELF~/AT10N ` ~ ~ ~ . SDI]'~'~L~A~T ~~L~VATfot~1 (ND1e:~HWEsT tIHl~14K 95~ITGP'Pps1TE ~AI.tL~~ 5C116E= ~"sf=o' • ORRlSON . RESIf.~ENCB; ~ ~.4-RgGE LOT 10, BLOCK 2, ~.~oNs ~rac~ ~~~.~t~G,~ a :,~:-~ - . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: C~.,N..unity Development Department DATE: November 12, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration and two side setback variances in order to construct a new exterior stair and install an elevator on Building C and to upgrade an existing open stair on Build D for Village Center Condominiums, 124 Willow Bridge Road, A part of Tract C and Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Village Center Condominium Assoc. and Village Center Commercial Assoc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval of an exterior alteration and two side setback variances for the Village Center Condominiums. These approvals are necessary in order to allow the construction of a new exterior stair and the installation of an elevator for Building C and to upgrade an existing open stair on Building D. In addition to these improvements the applicant will be upgrading the site's landscaping. Buildina C--Building C is the western most condominium building and is located adjacent to the east side of Willow Bridge Road. Currently this 5-story structure does not contain an elevator. The applicant proposes to change an existing interior stairway care to an elevator core with a ground floor entrance vestibule. The interior staircase would be replaced with an exterior staircase which would be located adjacent to and east of the elevator core. The new exterior staircase will be 7'-9" wide. In addition to these stair/elevator alterations, the applicant will be modifying the walk to the vestibule and the landscaped area adjacent to the walk. In order to accomplish this construction, two large aspen trees will need to be removed. The applicant's representative has indicated he will commit to relocating these trees within the same general vicinity. Under CCII zoning, the required front side and rear setbacks are 14 feet. At this location the structure is 3 ft. from the property line. The new stairway/elevator will encroach no further into the side setback then the 7 feet the existing structure encroaches. There will be no expansion of the building footprint (site coverage). The additional encroachment resulting from the installation of an awning to mark the elevator vestibule entrance will be 2'-0" which is the same as the roof overhang encroachment. A 9 foot side setback variance is required at this location. The resulting side setback will be 1'-0". • 1 . The proposed alteration will not impact allowable GRFA because the interior space to be modified is already in a common area use and will remain in a common area use. Ru;i;ldina B--Building 8 is located immediately east of and adjacent to Building C. The applicant proposes to modify the entrance to this structure through the removal and replacement of an existing exterior stair and the complete removal of a second exterior stair. The existing exterior stair to be replaced is currently constructed in part on Village Center Commercial Association owned property. VCCA has agreed to allow the stair demolition/rebuild to occur as proposed on the property. The existing situation, where the stair case is built on an adjacent property owners parcel, results in a zero side setback. Building A--Improvements to the entrance of building A are also proposed at this time, however, no variances are required for these changes. As a part of improving the visibility, accessibility and appearance of the building entrances, the applicant proposes to apply a stone veneer around the doorways and to add awnings. The stone will match the stone used in planter construction on the site. S The applicant will also be undertaking a major relandscaping of the area between the north side of these buildings and the commercial structure to the north. II. TONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. Zone District: Commercial Core II 2. Lot Area: 0.598 acres or 30,413 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage: No Change. 4. Parking: The parking requirement does not increase since no new GRFA is being added. • 2 III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL • First, the Urban Design Considerations express large scale, land use planning and design considerations. SEcondly, architectural/landscape considerations establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations. The Design Review Board will review architectural/landscape considerations. The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan does not address the Village Center area. Third, the variance criteria are also part of the review criteria because of the setback encroachments, Finally, the Vail Village Master Plan addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. TV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE IT. The purpose of CCII is defined in the Vail. Municipal Code as follows: 18.26.010 Purbose: "The Commercial Core Ii District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and c...~u~~ercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards." This request complies with the purpose of CCII as it is an expansion to a mixed-use building complex which includes multiple dwellings and a commercial establishment. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR, LIONSHEAD CCII ZONING. The following design considerations for Lionshead relate to the proposal. Lionshead considerations are cited as the project is zoned CCII. These considerations include the following: Accent Elements: All materials to be used in construction will match existing building materials. • 3 Landseatie Elements: • The upgrading of the existing landscaping will greatly enhance the pedestrian experience and the visual appearance of this area. The proposed exterior alteration will have no impact on pedestrian traffic flout, building height and massing, roofs, facades-transparency, walls/structures, decks and patios, or service and delivery. VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA 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 side setback 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. As the requested variances will cause no further encroachment into setbacks, the relationship to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity remain the same. The requested variances and new exterior finishes and awnings will improve the visual appearance of the buildings, To this end, existing structures and uses in the vicinity benefit from the requests. Other than the physical appearance benefit, the variance requests will have no impact on structures and uses in the vicinity. 2. ThP decree to which relief from the strict and 3itera7 interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. As a result of previous subdivisions of this property, the applicant is faced with a hardship in that the building is within 18" of the property line. The requested setback variances will cause no further encroachment into these setbacks then currently exists, There will be no special privilege as the condition currently exists. • 4 3. The effect of the requested variance On light and . air, distribution of aooulation, transportation and traffic facilities, qublic facilities and utilities, and bublic safety. There will be no effect on light and air distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, public safety or utilities. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN SUB-AREAS. Sub-area No. 1-9 Studv Area: Villaae Stream Walk states: "Study of a walking only path along Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing stream walk, further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. (Reference the Vail Recreational Trails Pian for additional information on this trail)." Sub-area No. 1-12 Villaae Pocket Parks states: "Located on Gore Creek, these small parks provide public access to the creek, passive recreational opportunities, and locations for public art." Staff recommends that as a condition of approval of the setback variance and the proposed exterior alteration, the applicants commit to not object to the Town of Vail installing the stream walk adjacent to the condominium buildings, on Town of Vail owned land, nor to the creation of a pocket park adjacent to the site at the intersection of Gore Creek and Willow Bridge Road. With the possibility of redevelopment of the Sonnenalp, an opportunity exists to make a significant positive impact on the pedestrian experience in the Village through the installation of the Village Stream Walk. Installation of the walk adjacent to these two properties would create a linkage between Vail Road and Bridge Street. Although the Vail Village Master Plan clearly states in Policy 3.4.2: "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 Plan", because of the minor scale of the exterior alteration proposal, staff felt it was inappropriate to ask the applicants to install the stream walk (1-9} or a pocket park (1-12). • 5 VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN GOALS The following goals, objectives and policies which are identified in the Vail Village Master Plan are applicable to the Village Center Condominium alterations: GOAL #2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR--AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.5 Objective; Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5.1 Policv: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhances as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 2.5.2 Policv: The Town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. GOAL #3: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements, 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policv: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public aGGeSS. • 6 IX. VARIANCE 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 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. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this exterior alteration and these setback variance requests subject to the following condition: 1. Village Center Condominium Association and the Village Center Commercial Association shall not remonstrate against the construction of a stream walk or the construction of a pocket park at the northeast intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Gore Creek by the Town of Vail, on Town of Vail property. • 7 • Tn staff's analysis, we believe that the alteration meets the review criteria. It complies with the Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps of the Vail Village Master Plan and would also comply with the Master Plan's Vail Village Sub-Area concept if the condition of approval is adopted. Furthex appraval of the side setback variances is not a grant of special privilege and is warranted due to the fact that strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback requirements would result in an unnecessary physical hardship. The findings supporting this proposal include findings A, B, and C(1). • 8 1-~ ~ ~~~~ ms's f~~ ~~~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ r :~~ r~ S =f` ~ ~ Sci'..~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ate' r ~ ~rL a ~ ' ~d ll!~L( (}L ~ 1~~••; ~xw { ~ ~~ ~w ~~~~~~~~ ~' e1 _ ~.NL ~Ti _.(„ - ~.' ~e , ~ (,s s Lam.'. ~ ~ .. r + / ~ ~ LCsri J.ia~ Qzasrx P~i'`Y jy a- 1 1 ~~ ~ i :; ~ ~ti ~~~ ~II~~I'JY~ § ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~7'tl ^$t~ .. !.! err ~i ~~ ` ~~u,~ F ~~r~ +.'. '"~~C` ~~ S~, '~' 1 •~~ - ~y A w. ~ m n ~.~+ ~ - 3 s e~ d,~,.,~,- ~'. '. ' ~ 4~ ."S, y, G1 '" -ter 3 y~ 1 .i ti ~ r ` ~ x ~ ~~~~ x ~ ~L ® 'C._'fi: Pte. .y OR Q ~~~f{~~ ~_, a N rrorao• w sao ~ ~!. ~~~ `" .- -- WILLOW 817lDGE ROAD (3CJ ~~asi ~- ~ ~• ~. i f~~ ~:~ . ~~ 8 t .~~ ~. 1 5 _. ~ ~ a r ~ ~~ ~ 1~~ ~ ~~ ~~ _~ fl "o .~ ~,~~. ~~~ ' ~.__. _._. L.___.. r. '-. ._._ 1 ~ ~ . i ~ a----- I ~. 1 1 -- ~ ;--- - ~ ~ i 1 ----. _. - ~. ! ! ~ i- -__._-~ j.~._____.~ 1~ 4 ~" 9 ~v _ ~ ~ ~ . ~_~ I ~...._ . iii I Y ~ ~~ ~___. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ _,~. r ~ ~nuy ~ - -. . ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~. 4...:~-- ~~11 I ~] ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~t ~- ~ ~! ~~ >a r f~ . __ __ ~~ _ ,~- wF* p. ? , ~ .. ._ : i ... :~; n ~';tit _~:'_- .°~ r~ ' ~ ~ ~ 1J ~..~_~ ._,~gggg .. _.:F~ : ,~ : c. ~.. ~~ • swn~uE ., _. ~_~ ~~a~w~~ ~ k ,; .~ ~ T Q T ' ~ - ~ r - ~~ , r# - ~ ry ~ . ~ ~ / r~ t~ ~, ~ } ~ ~ r~ o . r t i ~ 3 '~ r , ,4 , ~ I ~ ;~ fi i i ~ I . I -- ~ ~ 1 n ~ . ~~ _ t- ~ ~~ i ~ i ~ i .... ~ ~ _ 1 __ . 3 JI ~ ~ >~ ~ ~ a -~ ~ _ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~-'" L-, ~. ~I . ~ i >~ ~ip ` 4 ~' ~i ~~ i i • a i• -~ 4 r~ i I I I i 1 i ., ~~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 1990 RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast on Lot B, Stephens Subdivision, 2754 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Darlene Schweinsberg I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail. The definition given in that ordinance states: "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." Ms. Schweinsberg has applied for a conditional use permit to allow her to use two bedrooms in her home in a Residential . Cluster zone district for a Bed and Breakfast rental. The bedrooms and bath contain a total of 365 square feet. Two guests could stay in each bedroom far a total of 4 guests. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the C~~~~~~~unity Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the rise on the, development ob~iectives of the Town. The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. 2. The effect of the use on light and air._ distribution of population. transportation facilities, utilities. schools, barks and recreation facilities. and other ~aublic facilities needs. Four guests can be accommodated at one time, and . it is unlikely that there would be more than two guest vehicles. There is a bus stop 2 blocks away. Yt is felt that the impact on the use of parks and recreation facilities and on transportation facilities would be minimal. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to, congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and, convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the, street and parking areas. It is likely that there would be two additional vehicles driving to the Schweinsberg residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the. proposed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to. surrounding uses. The staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior • changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as, specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code, for Ordinance No, 31. Series of 1989. Bed and. Breakfast Operations shall be subiect to the, following reauirements; a. nffstreet designated parking shall be reauired as follows: One space for the owner/proprietor plus one space far the first bedroom rented plus 1/2 space fnr. each additional bedroom rented.. The Schweinsberg property contains more than the required 3 parking spaces. b. Enr,]_ospd_ trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. The trash containers will he housed in the garage with regular trash pick up. • • 4 c. Removal of landscaping for the provision of, additional barking is stroncxly discauraaed. There will be no removal of landscaping. d, Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one, residential name Mate siaii as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sian Code., A name plate has not been applied for at this time . e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use, brooerty or facilities owned in common or, jointly with other property owners such as aarkina spaces or a driveway in duplex, subdivisions by way of example and not 7_i_m,i_fiati~n. the written aaoroval of the other, nroaerty owner, owners, or applicable owners' ~.~sgciat~on shall be required to be submitted. with. the application for a conditional use, permit. Not applicable. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the, following findings before arantina a conditional use permit, for a Bed and Breakfast operation: A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department 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. T~s Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 9, 1990 RE: Reminder--Joint Work Sessions, Zoning Code Revision Project A simple reminder that the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission are scheduled for joint work sessions on the following dates: Date November 13, 1990 November 20, 1990 Subject SDD's, 250 Ordinance, Parking, update on Site Coverage. CCI, Administration, SDD (if necessary) • To: Town CouncilJPlanning and Environmental Commission • From: Department of Community Development Tom Braun Date: November 13, 1990 Re: Amendments to the Special Development District Chapter The accompanying draft of the special development district ordinance has been revised based on input received at the October 16th joint session. The major changes that have been made to the ordinance are: 1} The "density bonus" system has been eliminated. 2) GRFA and units in excess of development permitted by underlying zoning may be requested, but only in the Lionshead/Village area. Increased development would be restricted to accommodation units and timeshare units. 3) Affordable housing requirements consistent with the recommendations of the proposed Affordable Housing Study have been incorporated into this draft. . 4) SDD's may be proposed anywhere in the town. 5) The revised design criteria have been maintained and will provide the basis for evaluating SDD proposals. The following is a section by section summary of the latest SDD proposal. I. MAJOR CHANGES TO SDD~s 18.40.010 Purbose No major changes 18.40.020 Definitions The definition of a "minor amendment" has been revised to allow staff to approve a slight modification in the amount of GRFA that has been approved in a SDD. 18.40.030 Annlicatians SDD's may now be requested in any zone district. Yn order to be consistent with requirements in the Administration Chapter, applications will now be required to submit stamped addressed envelopes to be used in the notification of adjacent property owners. • 18.4x.040 Develonment Review Procedures • In addition to minor wording changes, a work session with the planning commission is now required before a formal application for a SDD is made. Notification of this work session will be provide to adjacent property owners. 1.8.40.050 Submittal Reauirements New submittal requirements include a title report, written verification of service from applicable utility companies, a description of employees generated by the development and a statement outlining the development objectives achieved by deviations from the property's underlying zone district (if applicable}. 18.40.060 Development Plan Development standards, previously located in a different section, have been moved to this section. The section states that with the exception of GRFA and units, deviations to any development standard (i.e., building height, setbacks, site coverage, floor area, commercial etc.) may be requested by a SDD proposal. Deviations to GRFA and units may be requested in the Resort Development Overlay District (the Village and Lionshead area), and for SDD's dedicated exclusively to affordable housing. 1.8.40.070 Affordable Housing Reauirements This new section establishes two different "levels" of affordable • housing requirements: 1) A 15~ requirement for affordable housing will apply to any SDD proposal. 2) An additional 15-30% requirement for affordable housing will apply to any SDD requesting development in excess of what is permitted by the project's underlying zoning. Requirements proposed in this section were derived from the Affordable Housing Study. The Council will be discussing all the recommendations of the Affordable Housinq Study on November 20th. 7,8.40.080 Uses No change 18.40.090 Design Criteria This section requires the Council to find that "deviations from the project's underlying zoning development standards benefit the project, the neighborhood and the cv~~~~«unity" . Further, that the benefits resulting from such deviations would not be possible if the project was developed as per underlying zoning. Revised design criteria address view corridors, sun/shade patterns, open space accessibility, traffic impacts, internal circulation, pedestrian circulation, employee housing, project amenities, town infrastructure, conservation and interim phasing plans. • _ • 18.40.100 Resort Develooment Overlay District, The bonus criteria have been eliminated from this section. The purpose of this section is to recognize the Village/Lionshead areas as the locations where GRFA and units aver allowable zoning may be requested. Additional restrictions on such units are also established. 18.40.110 Affordable Housing Density Bonus This section is also based on recomendations of the Affordable Housing Study. This section would provide a density bonus for projects developed exclusively for affordable housing. An increase of up to 25% may be requested. 18.40.120 Amendment Procedures No changes 18.40.130 Recreation Amenities Tax No changes 18.40.140 Time Reauirements No changes 18.40.150 Fees The only change to this section is the use of outside consultants to review SDD proposals. Currently, the Town Council is required • to affirm the Community Development Department's decision to utilize an outside consultant. This requirement would be deleted. It should be noted that in the event of applicant disputes the need far an outside consultant, an appeal of the staff's decision can be made to the Council. The only real change from this amendment is that a meeting with the Council is avoided if all parties are in agreement with the staff's decision. 18.40.160 Existing Special Development Districts, Minor changes recognize the new SDD's that have been approved since this chapter was last amended. In evaluating this proposal, the key question to ask is how this ordinance differs from the current SDD ordinance. The major improvements made to the existing ordinance are: 1} Tn direct response to goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, the SDD ordinance defines where residential density in excess of density permitted by underlying zoning may be requested, and also limits the type of residential to short term overnight accommodations. • ~ 2) Affordable housing requirements are established for all SDD proposals. 3) Design criteria used to evaluate SDD proposals have been modified to to provide a more thorough analysis of the benefits and impacts of a proposal. 4) A mechanism is established to allow density increases for projects developed exclusively for affordable housing. • • ~rr 5 ~~ ~„ z ~~ ~_ ~t V ~~~ ~~ dp n A K' ~ A ~_ S A ~ R p * A A ? ~+ ~ ' tl te~ Y . 4 .1N~ 1~ _"'~--_ ~~. ."~^ _ ~ ~„ W 4 c F w -`. \\ * ~ ip 'al:c'~7.~,. ~ ~~ `~ r ~'M r~~+q, V I w ~ ~~ ~~ (;^j\ Y O CiiAPTER 18.4 0 • SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (draft-2} sections: 18.40.010 Purpose (amended) 18.40.020 Definitions (amended) 18.40.030 Application (amended) 18.40.040 Development Review Procedures (amended) 18.40.050 Submittal Requirements (amended) 18.40.060 Devel~~..«ent Plan (amended) 18.40.070 Affordable Housing Requirement (new section) 18.40.080 Uses (amended) 18.40.090 Design Criteria (amended) 18.40.100 Resort Development Overlay District (new section) 18.40.110 Affordable Housing Density Bonus (new section) 18.40.120 Amendment Procedures (unchanged) 18.44.130 Recreation Amenities Tax (unchanged} 18.40.140 Time Requirements (unchanged) 18.40.150 Fees (amended) 18.40.160 Existing SDD's (unchanged) 18.40.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision 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, in conjunction with the standards of the zone district in which the special development district is located, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in Section 18.40.060. 18.40.020 DEFINITIONS A. "Agent or authorized representative" shall mean any individual or association authorized or empowered in writing by the property owner to act on his (her) stead. If any of the property to be included in the special development district is a condominiumized development, the pertinent condominium association may be considered the agent or authorized representative for the individual unit owners if • authorized in conformity with a21 pertinent requirements of . the condominium association's declarations and all other requirements of the condominium declarations are met. B. "Minor amendment (staff review)" shall mean modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district and are consistent with the design Criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet to approved setbacks and or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes of not more than 1.5% to approved gross residential floor area (GRFA) or 3~ of gross floor area of retail, office, c~,~„«ercial or common areas. C. "Major amendment (PEG and town council review)" shall mean any proposal to change uses, increase gross residential floor area; change the number of number of dwelling or acc~..,.~.,.odation units; or modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than minor amendments as defined in Section 18.40.020 B.). D. "Underlying zone district" shall mean the zone district existing on a property, or imposed on a property at the time a special development district is approved. E. "Affected property' shall mean property within a special development district that, by virtue of its proximity or relationship to a proposed amendment request to an approved development plan, may be affected by the re--design, density increase, change in use, or other modifications changing the character of an approved special development district. 18.40.030 APPLICATION An application for approval of a special development district may be made for property located in any zone district. An application may be filed by any owner of property to be included in the special development district or his (her) agent or authorized representative. The application shall be made on a form provided by the Community Development Department and shall include: 1. A legal description of the property to be included in the special devel~~.~~~ent district • 2. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all affected • and adjacent property owners, and prepaid return receipt requested addressed envelopes to each owner, as prescribed in section 18.66.140 B. 3. Written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development, or their agents or authorized representatives 4. Submittal requirements outlined in Section 18.40.050 5. A development plan as outlined in Section 18.40.060 18.40.040 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and activity within the special development district. B. Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall participate in a pre-application conference with the community development department. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's comprehensive plan, and the review procedures that will be followed far the application. G. The initial public review of a proposed special development district shall be a work session held by the planning and environmental c~,~„~~ission, This meeting shall be scheduled by the director of community development at a regularly scheduled meeting. Notification of this work session shall be provided to adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of section 18.66.090. Submittal requirements for the work session shall be as determined by the director of community development. Following this work session, a formal application for a special development district may be submitted. The planning and environmental commission shall consider the proposal in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and applicable provisions of section 18.66.160. A report of the C~.~.~~.unity Development Department staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. A report of the planning and environmental c~,«,~~ission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council. The town council shall consider the special development . 3 district in accordance with the provisions of sections 18.66.130 - 18.66.170. NOTE: Sections referenced above reflect amendments proposed to the Administrative Chapter. 18.40.050 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following information and materials shall be submitted with an application for a special development district. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the department of community development if it is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to SDD Design Criteria (Section 18.40.080), or that other practical solutions have been reached. 1. Application form and filing fee. 2. A written statement describing the project to include information on the nature of the development proposed, proposed uses, proposed densities, contemplated ownership patterns and phasing plans, and (if applicable) a statement outlining how the proposed development deviates from the development standards prescribed in the zone district in which the proposed special development district is located and what specific development objectives are achieved by such deviations. 3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the property to be included in the special development district, to include the location of improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, water courses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel. 4. A title report, including schedule A and B. 5. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations, etc.), if applicable. 6, A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed development to include a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, number of units and parking spaces. 7. A site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal site development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, proposed contours and preliminary drainage plans. • 8. Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than 1/8" W 1', in sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of uses, and general scale and appearance of the proposed development. 9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than 1" = 50'. 10. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property in the vicinity of the proposed special development district. 11. Amassing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed development in relationship to existing development on the site and on adjacent parcels. 12. A preliminary landscape plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site development features such as recreation facilities, paths and trails, plazas, walkways and water features. 13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 18.56, hereof unless waived by section 18.56.030. . 14. A written statement from applicable utility companies verifying their ability to provide service to the site, including a statement describing any adverse impacts on surrounding properties or the community at large that may be anticipated if service is provided to the proposed special development district. 15. A description of the number and classification of seasonal and year around employees generated by the development and a plan describing the method by which the applicant will meet the housing needs generated by the development. The plan shall state specific commitments proposed to meet employee housing requirements as prescribed in this chapter. 16. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the director of the community development department. With the exception of the massing model, four complete copies of the above information shall be submitted at the time of application. When a massing model is required, it shall be submitted a minimum of two weeks prior to the first formal review by the planning c..~~~,E~ission. At the discretion of the director of community development, reduced copies in 8.5" x 11" format of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution to the planning c~.~,.,~ission and town council may be required. • 18.40.060 DEVELOPMENT PLAN An approved development plan is the principal document for guiding the development, uses and activities of a special development district. A develapment plan shall be approved by the town council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of the ordinance approved by the town council establishing the special development district and all applicable submittal material necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking and circulation plan, open space plan, preliminary landscape plan and a plan outlining how the special development district will comply with all applicable affordable housing requirements. Development standards within a special development district shall be established by an approved development plan. Deviations to lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, building height, site coverage, gross floor area of retail, commercial, office and common areas, open space, landscaping and parking requirements, as prescribed by the zone district in which the special development district is located, may be requested in any special development district proposal. In addition to the above, deviation to allowable dwelling and acc~t~LL«odation units, and gross residential floor area may be requested in accordance with the provisions of sections 18.40.100 - Resort Development Overlay District and 18.40.110 -Affordable Housing Bonus Section. 18.40.070 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT The development plan of any special development district approved in accordance with this chapter shall include provisions for providing affordable housing units. The number of affordable housing units required shall be relative to the development proposed and to the anticipated number of employees generated by such development. Affordable housing requirements shall be as follows: A. Affordable housing requirements for any special development district proposal shall be as follows: 1. Affordable housin accommodation unit proposed shall be district. g units equal equivalents provided by to 15$ of the number of or dwelling units any special development • 2. Affordable housing units capable of housing 15~ of the . employees generated by the retail, office or commercial square footage proposed shall be provided by any special development district. B. Affordable housing requirements for any special development district requesting dwelling units, accommodation units, GRFA, or retail, office or commercial square footage in excess of the project's underlying zone district shall be as follows: 1. Affordable housing requirements prescribed in paragraph A above shall be applied to all proposed development that is permitted by the project's underlying zone district. 2. Affordable housing units equal to 15-30~ of the number of accommodation unit equivalents or dwelling units proposed in excess of development permitted by the project's underlying zone district shall be provided. 3. Affordable housing units capable of housing 15-30~ of the employees generated by the retail, office or commercial square footage developed in excess of development permitted by the project's underlying zoning shall be provided. The manner is which the affordable housing requirement is satisfied {i.e. size and type of unit, location of unit, use restrictions on unit, and/or any fee in lieu option), and adopted standards for estimating employees generated per square foot of development and standards for equating number of employees per affordable unit shall be as prescribed in the Vail Affordable Housing Plan and Policies. 18.40.080 USES Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and the town council as a part of the formal review of the proposed special development district. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the zone district in which the special development district is located. Under certain conditions, commercial uses may be permitted in residential special development districts if, in the opinion of the town council such uses are primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall be compatible with the residential character of the special development district. The • amount of area and type of such uses, if any, shall be established by the town council as a part of the approved development plan. 18.40.090 DESIGN CRITERIA The following design criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating the proposed development plan of a special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria. As prescribed in section 18.40.060, deviations to development standards may be requested by a special development district. Prior to approving any such deviation, the town council shall find that the deviation benefits the design of the project and that such benefits mitigate any potentially adverse impact of such deviation. The design criteria shall provide a framework for evaluating requests far development standards that deviate from the project's underlying zone district. No application for a special development district shall be approved by the town council unless it is found that: r~ U 1. Community Plans The development objectives of the project are consistent with community goals and the development plan complies with all applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies and urban design plans. The development plan is designed in a way that will not preclude the future development of public improvements identified in community plans, and when necessary to mitigate the impacts of proposed development, such public improvements are included as a part of the proposed development plan. 2. Underlying Zoning/Uses The uses and activities in which the project is proposed development an efficient and workable development and uses. permitted by the zone district located are appropriate for the d will provide a compatible, relationship with surrounding Deviations from the development standards of the zone district in which the project is located will benefit the design, the site, the surrounding neighborhood and the c~,~~~~unity, and such benefits could not be achieved if the property were developed in accordance with the development standards of the underlying zone district. • a 3. Project Design Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Building height, site coverage and overall building bulk are sensitive to the site and to surrounding development and properties. Massing of the proposed development minimizes shadow patterns on adjacent properties and rights-of-way and does not adversely affect prominent public view corridors or views from private property. 4. Site Planning Building locations are designed to produce a functional development responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. Proposed setbacks provide an adequate buffer zone between the special development district and adjacent properties and uses. Site planning is sensitive to natural features, • maximizes open space provisions and improves the overall aesthetic quality of the site. 5. open Space Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, and are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site. Open space plans maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. Easements, deed restrictions, public dedications and other means as deemed necessary are implemented to assure land remains open and accessible to the public. 6, Parking/Circulation The public street system can accommodate increased trip generation resulting from the new development, or improvements proposed as part of the development plan are sufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development. • s Internal circulation improvements are designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, will accommodate service and delivery functions and will encourage and facilitate the utilization of public transportation facilities. The proposed parking plan is in compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Pedestrian circulation provides safe, convenient and aesthetically pleasing walkways throughout the project, and where possible, linkages with existing or planned public and private pedestrian walkways. 7. Geologic Sensitivity Natural and/or geologic hazards have been identified and the development has been designed in response to such hazards, ar such hazards that affect the proposed development have been mitigated. 8. Housing Type and Variety Residential development within the special development district meets the needs of the community in terms of variety and housing type as established by community goals and policies. . The proposed special development dis}riot complies with all affordable housing requirements as mandated by the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Plan and Policies. 9. Project Amenities Project amenities such as public art, recreation facilities, convention and meeting rooms and other facilities are designed to provide guest and community services typically associated with resort development. 10. Infrastructure/Town Services Adequate utility capacity is available to serve the development without adversely affecting service levels or existing or future development in the area. The project is designed to assure safe and efficient access and service by the town's fire department and public works department. The design of drainage improvements and utility connections are sensitive to existing natural features and designed in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the site and surrounding areas. . 10 ~~. Environmental issues Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the development plan. The proposed development is designed, built and operated to maximize energy and resource conservation. 12. Project Phasing Project phasing or subdivision plans will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Interim landscape/site improvement plans will be implemented between phases, and the completion of interim improvement plans are guaranteed by a cash bonds, letter of credit or some other assurances acceptable to the town. 18.40.1OQ RESORT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT The purpose of the Resort Development Overlay District is to achieve the goals of the Vaal Comprehensive Plan by encouraging, where appropriate, the development of overnight acc.~.,....odations . and retail activity in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas. Special development district proposals within the Resort Development Overlay District may request development in excess of development permitted by the zone district in which the special development distract is located an accordance with the following provisions: 1. The Resort Development Overlay District shall be as indicated on Appendix A, the Resort Development Overlay Map. 2. Requests shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of section 18.40.040 - Development Review Procedures. Section 18.40.080 - Design Review Criteria shall provide the principal means for evaluating such requests. 3. Residential development approved in accordance with this section shall be limited to accommodation units owned and managed to be available for overnight rental and timeshare units. Said units shall be permanently restricted so as to prohibit conversion to condominium ownership. A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder, in a manner acceptable to the town attorney, for the benefit of the town to insure that said restrictions run with the land. ~ ~~ 4. The development of accommodation or timeshare units in accordance with this section shall comply with affordable housing requirements as prescribed in subsection 18.40.070 B. of this chapter. 18.40.110 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS The purpose of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus is to achieve the goals of the Vail Comprehensive Plan by encouraging, where appropriate, the development of affordable housing units throughout the town. Special development districts proposed exclusively for the purpose of developing affordable housing may utilizing the Affordable Housing Density Bonus to request density in excess of that permitted by the zone district in which the special development district is located in accordance with the following provisions: 1. The Affordable Housing Density Bonus may be requested on any property zoned for residential development. 2. Requests shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of section 18.40.040 - Development Review Procedures. Section 18.40.080 - Design Review Criteria shall provide the principal means for evaluating such requests. 3. All units approved in accordance with this section shall be permanently restricted so as ensure their use as affordable housing units. Specific restrictions shall be as outlined in the Vail Affordable Housing Pian and Policies. 4. The maximum bonus that may be requested is a 25~ increase in dwelling units and a 25~ increase in gross residential floor area. 18.40.120 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES A. Minor amendments: Minor modifications outlined in Section 18.40.020 B. may be approved by the department of community development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved modifications shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the department of community development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staff action of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district that may be affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the department of community development. Notification shall be postmarked no later than five days following staff action on the 12 amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the planning and environmental c~..~~,~~ission will be informed of the staff decision. In all cases, the report to the planning and environmental commission shall be made within twenty days from the date of the staff's decision on the requested amendment. Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, planning and environmental commission members or members of the town council as outlined in Section 18.66.030 A. of the municipal code. B. Major amendments: Requests for major amendments to an approved special development district shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in Section 18.40.040. owners of property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, and owners of all property within the special development district that may be affected by the proposed amendment {as determined by the department of . community development). Notification procedures for major amendments shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.090 of the municipal code. 18.40.130 RECREATxON AMENITIES TALC A recreation amenities tax shall be assessed on all special development districts in accordance with Chapter 3.36 of the Vail Municipal code at a rate to be determined by the planning and environmental commission. This rate shall be based on the rate of the zone district in which the special development district is located, or the rate which most closely resembles the density plan for the district, whichever is greater. 18.40.140 TIME REQUIREMENTS A. The developer must begin initial construction of the special development district within three years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the special development district is to be developed in phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase. . 13 B. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any phase of the special develvN«<ent district within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The planning and environmental commission and town council shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to re-establish the special development district following procedures outlined in Section 18.40.040 of this chapter. 18.40.150 FEES Filing fee far special development district applications and requests for major amendments to approved special development districts shall be five hundred dollars. Filing fee for minor amendments to approved special development districts shall be one hundred dollars. Projects deemed by the department of community development to have significant design, land use or other implications on the community may require review by professionals outside of town staff. In this event, the applicant shall reimburse the town for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant selected to review an application for a special development district shall be selected and utilized by the town staff. The department of community development shall . determine the amount of money estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting services, and this amount shall be provided to the town by the applicant at the time of application Any unused portions of these funds shall be returned to the applicant following the review of the proposed special development district. Expenses incurred by the town in excess of the estimated amount shall be reimbursed to the town by the applicant. 18.40.160 EXISTING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of special development districts No.'s 2 through 25. The town council specifically finds that said special development districts No.'s 2 through 25 shall remain in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail. These districts, if not commenced at the present time, shall comply with Section 18.40.140, time requirements. . 14 T0: Town Council • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 9, 1990 RE: Notice~~Review of "Affordable Housing Study" November 12, 1990, 11:30 a.m. The "Affordable Housing Study" will be reviewed by the PEC on November 12, 1990 at 11:30 during the public hearing of the Commission. You are invited to attend in order to familiarize yourself with the study. r~ U • To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Department of Community Development Tom Braun Date: November 12, 1990 RE: A work session on proposed revisions to the "25D Ordinance" Issues surrounding the 250 Ordinance have been raised on a number of occasions during discussions of proposed amendments to gross residential floor area. These discussions have focused on whether the existing ordinance is consistent with the purpose of the ordinance when it was first adopted in 1985. At the October 9th joint session, an overwhelming number of council members and planning commissioners agreed that the original intent of the 250 Ordinance is good, but in its .present form the ordinance 15 not appropriate. Specifically, the provision that allows for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA when an existing unit is totally demolished and then rebuilt was cited as an example of what is wrong with the ordinance. The consensus at this meeting was that the 250 Ordinance should be maintained, provided, however, that "the ordinance is amended • to be consistent with the original intent of the 1985 ordinance" The staff has interpreted this to mean eliminating the provision that allows additional square footage on demo/rebuild projects. Background on the Original Pro~aosal Throughout the early 1980'x, an variance requests were made for dwellings. While a few of thes were denied by the PEC or by th for denial was that approval of physical hardship exist on the creates practical difficulties property. It is difficult, if legitimate physical hardship as over what is allowed by zoning. increasing number of GRFA small additions to existing e requests were approved, most e Council on appeal. The reason a variance requires that some site - a physical hardship that in the development of the not impossible, to find a justification for developing GRFA The majority of these variance requests presented no adverse impacts to the site or adjacent properties. Nonetheless, most were denied because they did not satisfy variance criteria. The PEC and Council's frustration with these requests resulted in direction to the staff to develop a process that would allow for small additions to existing units. • After lengthy analysis and discussion, Ordinance 4 of 1985 was adopted for the purpose of "providing an inducement for the upgrading of certain structures by permitting the addition of up to 250 square feet of GRFA to certain structures provided certain criteria are met". Among these criteria was a requirement that a residence be at least five years old before qualifying for additional square footage, thus ensuring that the ordinance is used far additions to existing structures. A provision requiring properties obtaining additional GRFA to comply with minimum site and landscape standards was added to the ordinance. 1988 Revisions to the Ordinance, In the late 1980's, it became quite common to see the demolition of existing single family and duplex residences in order to rebuild on a lot. A request to utilize the 250 Ordinance in conjunction this type of redevelopment prompted revisions to the 250 Ordinance in 1988. Referred to as the "ultimate remodel", the purpose section of the ordinance was amended to allow for demo/rebuild projects to qualify for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. As a "trade- off" far allowing this additional square footage, the ordinance requires all redevelopment to conform to all other zoning standards such as setbacks, height, site coverage, etc. . Proposed Amendments to the 250 Ordinance, As ironic as it may sound, the simplest solution is to amend the 250 Ordinance back to its pre-1988 wording. A handful of minor amendments made in 1988 would be maintained, however, provisions that allow additional square footage to demo/rebuild projects would be deleted. As revised, the ordinance could be used for additions to existing buildings only. Justification for deleting the demo/rebuild provision from the code is best understood by considering the original purpose of the 250 Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance was to allow owners of existing dwellings an opportunity to make small additions to their homes. While not stated in the ordinance, the underlying purpose of the 250 Ordinance was to allow people, particularly the local resident, an opportunity to make their homes a bit more livable. The 1985 version of this ordinance was very successful in allowing for these types of additions. • 2 The Councils direction to staff to draft this original legislation was not prompted by requests to demolish buildings and rebuild them with more square footage than what is allowed by zoning. Rather, arguments heard in 1985 were "don't hurt the little guy", "provide an incentive to keep local families in Vail - make it possible to build the additional bedroom or enlarge the kitchen". The 1988 amendment, allowing for the "ultimate addition", bears no relationship to the original intent of the 250 ordinance. The demo/rebuild provision is a means to add significant value to the redevelopment potential of property in Vail. In addition, the stated "trade-off" of non-conforming buildings being eliminated is another benefit supporters of this provision cite. In a demo/rebuild situation, the zoning code already requires that nonconforming site development standards be eliminated. This amendment raises the question of when an addition is an addition, and when an addition is a rebuild, Far example, would a proposal to demo an entire building with the exception of the foundation be considered a demo/rebuild or an addition? Would a proposal to demo 70% of a building, then rebuild with the additional 250 square feet be consistent with the "original intent" of the ordinance? Tt simply comes down to where you want to draw the line. This revision to the 250 Ordinance should clearly articulate how these types of situations are to be handled. Purpose of this Meeting The staff is in agreement that the 250 Ordinance should be amended back to its original intent - the additional square footage should be used for additions only and riot for demo/rebuild projects. Prior to presenting an amendment proposal at the November 26th meeting, the staff would like to discuss some of the issues involved in this amendment with the PEC. These issues include: 1. First and foremost, do you agree with the staff's assumption that "amending the ordinance back to its original intent" means deleting the 1988 demo/rebuild provision? 2. Eliminating the demo/rebuild provision will require new language defining the circumstances in which the 250 Ordinance can be used. When is an addition an addition and when is an addition a demo/rebuild? For example, would a proposal to demo an entire building with the exceptio of the foundation be considered a demo/rebuild ar an addition? Would a proposal to demo 70% of a building, then rebuild with the additional 250 square feet be consistent with the "original intent" of the ordinance? • 3 It simply comes down to where one wants to draw the line. One option is to limit the use of the ordinance to additions only. An addition means just that, an addition to an existing building. This approach may well be considered very, hard lined, but it should be understood that this square footage is basically a gift. It is not unreasonable to establish standards for when the square footage can be constructed, A second option is to limit the use of the ordinance to additions only, with a provision that the demolition of a portion of the existing structure may be permitted. At the discretion of the staff, up to 25 to 50% of the structure can be demolished if the demolition is necessary to facilitate the development of the 250 square feet. This alternative would allow same latitude to the homeowner while respecting the intent of the original ordinance. 3. The 250 Ordinance has been discussed as a means for encouraging the devel~r~~Eent of accessory employee units in low density residential neighborhoods. The Affordable Housing Study has proposed that an additional unit be permitted in the single family, two family and primary secondary zone districts, if the unit is permanently restricted to employee rental. Presently, the "pooling" of the 250 square feet is not permitted on duplex or single • family lots. Amending the ordinance to allow the "pooling" of square footage may be one way to encourage the development of these type of units. This would allow for up to 500 square feet to be built under this ordinance - if it is used to build a permanently restricted employee rental unit. This square footage could also be used up front when a duplex is proposed far a vacant lot. • f j Mrs• ~1~.rley ~• H~.gla~,e, Jr. i Folo Club Lane flenvex, CD 8Q209 733-83~]. 83(7-1465 - FAX November S , 7~5 ~ d M~. Diane Donavan FAX ~§79~2i57 Dear D~.anv, T am wr~,t~.ng you. to let you know hoar strongly .I feel that we+ shauXd preserve our open space. I understand i,n Vail; but deve~.oper be: . the best uee 1i.[-titsd agen how acute the employee housing situation is to r-z~iy ga~.n 2ti~ for empl.oyeas and have a refit froia t~xe dthex 80~ does not seem t4 Yee of the land, or warrant g~.ving up our very space. If the xoniz~g is changed at ail 2 heiievs it shau].d be far sate landmark building such a~a a Performing Axis tenter, and nr~t dust $ddix~g maze aondom~.n~.ums to an already over-~ ornwdad apprpaah to Vail. If there are any a~.terx~ative locati.cns foa~ employee hausinq I urge the Aoaxd tQ pursue them before invading upon open space. ~auld you please sea that ~y ].ettex reaches the appropriate me~ubers of tha Town Cauno~,i or Planning Board. Sincerely, ~~~ Loxra~.ne A~.gb e x va ~i~~r,etyyv~ Div sivtxx'rtn~~~ ~~a5 : -~o o~ -5v •z ~ r r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development/Tom Braun DATE: November 12, 1990 RE: Amendments to Gross Residential Floor Area The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of proposed amendments to GRFA at their October 22nd meeting. However, prior to Council review, it was learned that any amendment to the density control section of the zoning code requires that all property owners affected by said amendment be notified. As a result, notification of this amendment was sent to all property owners in the single family, primary secondary, duplex and hillside residential zone districts. The review process of this amendment proposal is essentially beginning aver again. The following memo has been modified in response to the last PEC hearing and after consultation with the town attorney on the formal wording of the ordinance. I. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (proposed definition) 18.04.130 Floor area, cross residential (GRFAI Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes}. GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical chases, vents and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces and patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of paragraph A below. A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space, not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code. • C 2. Attie space with ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart). 3. Crawl space accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. 4. Raafed or covered decks, parches, terraces, patios or similar feature/space with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25~ of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature/ space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall then be deducted from total square footage. B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwelling or accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Garages; 2. Solar heating rock storage areas; 3. Common hallways, common closets, lobby areas, stairways and common enclosed recreation facilities not exceeding a maximum of an amount equal to twenty percent of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot. Any square footage which exceeds the twenty percent maximum will be included in the calculation of GRFA; 4. A11 or part of an airlock not exceeding a maximum of twenty-five square feet per allowable dwelling unit . • • Note: Paragraph B is not changed by this amendment proposal II. GRFA RATIO This definition does two things. First, it simplifies the method of calculating GRFA by eliminating all allowances and credits (with the exception of garages) and by including all floor area within the exterior walls of a structure in GRFA calculations. Secondly, the definition reduces the amount of square footage that can be built on a lot. The resulting reduction in GRFA is not an objective of this effort and therefore the following modifications to the GRFA ratio are proposed in order to compensate for the decrease in allowable square footage. A. Analvsis of GRFA Chances: In terms of how GRFA is measured, the following changes will be made through this amendment (square footage indicated is on a per unit basis): Credits Credits for storage (200 sq.ft.), airlocks (25 sq.ft.) and mechanical (50 sq.ft.) space will be eliminated. Square footage for these credits (275 square feet per unit), will be added to the GRFA ratio on a per unit basis, but only if the unit is constructed, In the past, credits were given based on the allowable number of units per lot. For example, on a duplex lot, if only one unit was built, the owner could still utilize 400 sq.ft. of storage, even if the second unit was not constructed. Stairwells and Elevator Shafts Under the existing definition, stairwells and elevator shafts are counted at the lowest level only. The proposed definition will count stairwells and elevator shafts at each level. Based on minimum building code requirements for stairs, 150 square feet will be added to the GRFA ratio. Covered of Roofed Spaces Covered or roofed spaces that are enclosed by no more than three walls and that are less than 25~ open will not count as GRFA (see subparagraph 4 of the definition) . "Habitable Space" The term "habitable space" has been eliminated from the definition. This is the term that allowed the construction of "void spaces" throughout units. • 3 Crawl Stiace and Attics The proposed GRFA definition i5 . designed to count everything within the enclosing walls of a structure as GRFA. The only areas not calculated as GRFA are attics and crawl spaces that satisfy floor to ceiling height requirements (see subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the definition). This is essentially unchanged from existing regulations. Miscellaneous Sx~aces Interior spaces such as vents, flues, fireplaces, landings and bay windows now count as GRFA. 50 square feet of GRFA has been added to the GRFA ratio to compensate for this change. Measurements Square footage is still measured from the interior face of exterior walls. However, the "interior face" has been clarified to prevent wall modifications designed to reduce square footage. Garage Credit This is the only credit remaining in the proposed system. No change is proposed to this section, the garage credit is still based on allowable units. A single family zoned lot would have a maximum garage allowance of 600 sq.ft. A primary/secondary zoned lot may have a garage of up to 7.200 sq.ft., even if only one unit is constructed. While the actual numbers will vary due to building design, it is estimated that under the proposed definition, if no compensation were made far square footage, approximately 950 square feet of floor area would be taken away from each duplex and p/s lot in the town. This 950 sq. ft. number is based on the following existing credits, average stairwell area and void areas: Storage Credit Airlock Credit Mechanical Credit Overlapping Stairs Flues, vents, etc. single family 200 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 150 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. Dublex. P/S or Hillside Res. 400 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 7.00 sq. ft. 300 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 425 square feet 950 square feet Tn order to compensate for square footage which would be lost if the proposed amendments are adopted, it is necessary to modify the existing GRFA allowances by building 950 square feet back into the system for each duplex and p/s lot and 475 square feet for single family lots. Caretaker units allowed in certain single family zone districts and the hillside residential zone district will also be allowed to utilize 475 sq,ft. • Increasing the existing .25 GRFA ratio is the most direct way to . add square footage to a lot. Allowable GRFA is based on lot size; the larger the lot, the more GRFA allowed. As a result, it is difficult, if not impossible to modify the existing ratio so that all lots receive 950 or 475 square feet -- increasing the ratio will "award" more square footage to larger lots than smaller ones. While many alternatives have been studied for square footage back into the system, the most compensate for square footage taken away by tl to simply add 475 square feet per unit to the This is essentially what is now done with the system. B. Chances to the GRFA Ratio building this equitable way to he new definition is existing .25 ratio, existing credit The recommended alternative will amend the density control section of the two-family, primary/secondary and hillside residential zone districts to read: Density Control - Primary/secondary and Two-Family zone Districts Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots less than fifteen thousand square feet. The following GRFA shall be permitted on each site: 1} Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus 2) Ten square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area, plus 3) Five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. In addition to the above, four hundred seventy--five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA} shall be permitted for each constructed dwelling unit. Density Control - Sinale Family Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site. • 5 The following GRFA shall be permitted on each site: • 1} Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first twelve thousand five hundred square feet of site area, plus 2) Ten square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet o£ site area over twelve thousand five hundred square feet. In addition to the above, four hundred seventy-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site. Density Control - Hillside Residential Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site. The following GRFA shall be permitted on each site: 1) Twenty square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first twenty-one thousand square seven hundred eighty square feet of site area, plus 2) five square feet of GRFA far each one hundred square feet of site area over twenty-one thousand seven . hundred eighty square feet. In addition to the above, four hundred seventy-five sauare feet of arose residential floor area GRFA) shall be permitted for each Construct dwelling unit. III. IMPLICATiONB OF THESE AMENDMENTS This amendment will take effect following review and approval by the Town Council. At that time, all new development proposals will be required to comply with these regulations. Approved development that is under construction at the time the amendments take affect may be completed as approved under the previous regulations. The issue of development proposals that are in the review process, but not yet approved, is less clear. Taking the most restrictive interpretation, these new regulations could be adopted and immediately apply to all proposed and approved development with the exception of projects that have obtained a building permit and begun construction. This scenario would present a tremendous hardship on projects that have applied for design approval, or have received DRB approval, and have not began construction. The implementation of this amendment should allow same concessions to projects that are "in process", but have not begun construction. • s In order to provide for a reasonable transition from existing regulations to this proposal, it is rec~~«~«ended that any project that has submitted a complete application for DRB review prior to the effective date of this ordinance be allowed to complete the permitting process under existing GRFA regulations. The earliest possible date this ordinance could take effect is December 12, 1990. This time frame allows a month for projects to be submitted for DEB review, Given the four months in which this amendment has been discussed, this provision would provide a reasonable timetable for implementation. There is at least one example of an single family lots is established b' the project is affected by the GRFA not benefit from the new GRFA ratio ordinance). Amendments to this SDD the permitted GRFA or "grandfather" IV. RECOMMENDATION existing SDD where GRFA on ~ ordinance. In this case, definition change, but does {because the GRFA is set by will be initiated to modify the use of existing credits. While "field testing" has been done during the development of this proposal, there is no way to definitively state what impact these changes will have on new development. There are unique circumstances involved in every development, and no single zoning regulation can be expected to cover every single situation that . may arise. Zoning controls provide a framework for guiding development. The design guidelines, and to a lesser degree the variance process, will ultimately determine the characteristics of new development. Amendments to GRFA may not solve every "perceived" problem with development in Vail. Some may consider these changes a further encumbrance on development, while others may regard them as not going far enough to control development. The amendments will, however, accomplish the goals and objectives of this effort. In evaluating this amendment proposal, it is important to consider the underlying goals of this effort: 1) Clarify the intent of the regulations 2) Simplify the administration of the regulations, and 3) Close the loopholes inherent in existing regulations The proposed amendments will accomplish these goals and objectives. 7 This amendment marks the first step toward revision of Vail's zoning code. Many othe presented over the next few months. These done incrementally based on a work program PEC and Council. • the comprehensive r amendments mill be amendments will be defined by the staff, • a Policies on the Ynterpretation of Gross Residential Floor Area and Site Coverage The following policy statements shall be used by the Department of Community Development for calculating gross residential floor area and site coverage. The purpose of these policies is to highlight significant changes in the calculation of GRFA and site coverage and clarify interpretive issues inherent in these new definitions. GRFA 1. Allowable garage area is awarded on a "per space basis", with a maximum of two spaces per allowable unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. All floor area included in the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space. 2. Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations. For duplex and Primary/Secondary structures, common party walls shall be considered exterior walls. 3. Bay windows, fireplaces and mantels shall be included in GRFA calculations. 4. Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are not included in GRFA calculations. 5. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development and the Chief Building Official, crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation" with a floor to ceiling height in excess of five feet may be excluded from GRFA calculations. Site Coverage 1. Bermed structures with portions of building elevations visible on any side, shall be included in site coverage calculations. totally underground structures that do not alter the natural topography of a site, shall not be included in site coverage calculations. 2. "Cut-outs" in roof overhangs shall be included in site coverage calculations. 3. A deck that is covered shall be counted as site coverage. The area for site coverage shall extend from the building face out to the railing. A four foot eave is allowed beyond the railing. If a roof eave extends beyond the point of the railing by more than four feet, the additional eave shall also count as site coverage. • R~C'0 NOV - 71~^~ ~TEUEAfS[7N iE~O RautYti OE,ean Haulevar•d Marralapan, F3.s~rida ~3~~~ FF~ane •~FD7-~~3-7t~iS Fa;~ ~~7-5~~-7~~.b Ttr a T1s~YO~' Dent Rose. Town of Vail Town Crsuncil, Town of Vail f~'lanning ar~~i ~nviresnm~ntal Cammis~si,on, Town of Vail Fr-omss RaY and Allyn Stevenwon X75 heaver Dam F~+~ad 13~~7 Vail Val ley l~riv~ Res ProRr~~~d c#~an~eg, GRFA Wax are stranglY a~i-rased t~ any ~hartiges ir-~ ~e~c#.ir~r~ f~,.E1~. f~~ W},i,~h would i`ur•th~r limit ar-~d r•estriet re~identiai building in Vail. WI^~ila ws ~~rtai,r'kly Gelieve th~.r•c~ sh~tal.d be raea~~c-n:~~,l.a a~rchitectr.~r-al c,antr`ol and ,~nvirr~nrt~er-~tal consid~retiGr-~s, wra beli,~v~a that prQp~r trlar~age:rnent, rt~t mor+r" qtr^ir~g,~nt r~rbitr-ar-y rules, is rnor~ a~~prcrr~r•iate].Y walled frr-. There must Ise a rn~»cF-~anism !~Y which Fsrsrnaowr~ers oan expand and r emcrd~ 1 as their l i g~stY 1 a ohar7gas r eau i re and the i r• f i n~xnces ~sermit. Few paapla =:tan aFf~,rd or- desire to demol isF'r are axiwtin~3 home to update the ].r~c~tt or• pra~+ci~ality of th~xt Mc}me. The building at 1:337 Vai ~. Vat~11Ey Drive ~,~ a ~~=cad ~xampl~e ctf a home that would greatly Genei`it frrsm a fa~el i~t and remr~del, using additiar•Fa~. s~ua~r•e fta~'~~.age to #~~eP up with currertit trends in home s#~e ar~d t,rsa~~. Rlease ~onQider cur camm~rtits ar~d not F~.rt undue stress r~rk Vai.1 property owners b~L;ausE X71" ~ f~W is+~iated Sftuatinns t~'smtt were not hgndl~~9 irr an ~pitmal rnanr~-~r. Managementp not m+~nda~.e, is the be'Gter course. TF~ank you. • w. To: Planning and Environmental Commission • From: Department of Community Development Tam Braun Date: November 12, 1990 Re: Proposed Revisions to Site Coverage After lengthy discussion, proposed revisions to site coverage were tabled by the PEC at the October 22nd meeting. Three issues were raised during this discussion that prompted this item to be tabled: 1) How the definition will deal with roof overhangs and covered decks; 2) Given the amount of square footage that can be built, is the 20~ site coverage allowance on single family and duplex zoned property adequate for smaller lots; and 3) Does the reduction in allowable site coverage (from 20a to 15$) on lots with greater than 30~ slope present unreasonable constraints on development. This memo presents a revised definition of site coverage and • revised policy statements on the interpretation of this definition. These revisions were made in response to questions on haw covered decks and roof overhangs will be calculated. In addition, site coverage on small lots and steep lots is also addressed. REVISED DEFINITION OF SITE COVERAGE, "Site coverage" means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, port cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include ally portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, deck, porch, terrace ar patio that extends mare than four feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns. • 1 .... The mast significant changes resulting from this definition are: • 1) "Building area" is measured at grade or above grade, so any portion of a building that is cantilevered will now count as site coverage. 2) Covered elements such as carports, part cocheres, arcades and covered or roofed walkways or stairs will count as site coverage. 3) The definition essentially allows a four foot "buffer zone" around the perimeter of a building - within this zone, roof overhangs, eaves and covered decks will not count as site coverage. Overhangs, eaves and covered decks that project more than four feet from the face of a building will count as site coverage. 4) Uncovered decks are not included in site coverage calculations. The following policy statements articulate how the staff will interpret this definition. Another purpose of these statements is to maintain continuity in how site coverage is calculated. It is anticipated that these policies will be amended as needed in order to implement the intent of the site coverage definition. 1) Bermed structures with portions of building elevations visible on any side, shall be included in site coverage calculations. Totally underground structures that do not . alter the natural topography of a site, shall not be included in site coverage calculations. 2) "Cut-outs" of roof elements shall be included in the calculation of roof overhangs and eaves. 3) A four foot allowance shall be made for a roof overhang or eave that projects out from a covered stair, deck, porch, terrace and patio. 4) Any portion of a deck below a roof overhang or eave shall be considered a covered deck. This definition will now count portions of buildings that are presently not included in site coverage calculations. However, in the vast majority of building designs, this change will be very minor. The four foot "buffer" provides an opportunity for overhangs and decks without affecting site coverage. As was the original intent of this effort, these revisions are designed to prevent buildings that go beyond the intent of site coverage regulations - massive overhangs, cantilevered buildings and covered decks). These changes should have no impact on the majority of new development. . IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE ON SMALLER LOTS The point has been made that given existing GRFA allowances, the 20~ site coverage on smaller lots is not adequate -- zoning standards will force architects to design taller, bulkier buildings with less detail and articulation, in order to build all permitted square footage and still meet site coverage regulations. There is no question that designing all the permitted square footage on a small lot {<10,000 sq. ft.), is more difficult than designing on a larger lot. However, this situation, if it is a problem, raises the question of whether to increase site coverage on smaller lots, or to decrease GRFA on smaller lots. If site coverage and GRFA regulations are out of sync on smaller lots, it is difficult to argue that proposed revisions to site coverage are not making the situation any worse. As stated above, the four foot buffer allows for articulation with decks and overhangs. Increasing site coverage allowances is not recommended at this time. While there is validity to the point that has been made regarding the relationship between site coverage and GRFA, the signs of this being a problem are not evident. Their have not been a great number of site coverage variance requests. This is not to say, however, that this issue should be ignored. The Department of Community Development will be monitoring development on smaller lots over the next year and report its findings to the PEC. If a marked increase in variance requests should occur, or if their is cause for concern over the design of homes on smaller lots, the staff will consider changes to development standards on these lots. Tf the relationship between site coverage and GRFA does become a problem as more smaller lots are developed, decreasing GRFA is considered a preferred alternative over increasing site coverage. SITE COVERAGE ON STEEP LOTS Currently, site coverage reduced from 20~ to I5~. a common practice and is of the lat. This is the in the front setback wit request. an lots with average slope over 30~ is Reducing site coverage on steep lots is generally done to minimize disturbance same reason why a garage may be located rout review and approval of a variance . 3 Revising this provision is not recommended at this time. The . variance process is the appropriate avenue for dealing with this situation. In the case where there are legitimate physical hardships involved in developing a steep lat, the variance process may provide relief from zoning standards. The Perot residence is a recent example of how this process can be used to solve site planning and design difficulties on steep lots. In discussing this issue, the Zoning Code Task Farce felt it would be helpful to state why site coverage is reduced on steep lots. The following statement will be added to Site Coverage Policy Statements: 5) Site coverage on lots with an average slope of 30% or greater is reduced to 15~. The purpose of reducing site coverage is to minimize disturbance on a lot by consolidating structures, This issue will be address in much greater detail during the revision of the Design Guidelines. In addition, the staff will also monitor this situation over the next year. • . 4 SITE COVERAGEIGRFA ANALYSIS October 29, 1990 24000 25000 2saDD 27000 28DDD 29000 30000 EXISTING REGULATIONS Permitted Floor Area 4150 4400 4650 4900 5150 5400 5650 5904 6000 6100 6200 63Do 6400 s50D 6600 s7oo 6800 6900 7000 7100 r2DD 7300 7400 Permitted Site COv at 20aYo 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2640 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 Ratio SCIGRFA 2.59 2.44 2.33 2.23 2.15 2.08 2.02 1.97 1.88 1.79 1.72 1.66 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.46 1.42 1.38 1.35 1.31 1.29 1.26 1.23 SCENARIO #1 SCIGRFA Ratio Kith SC at 259~a 2.08 1.96 1.86 1.78 1.72 1.66 1.51 1.57 1.50 1.44 1.38 1.33 1.28 1.24 1.20 1.17 1.13 1.10 i .08 1.05 1.03 1.01 0.99 SCENARIO #2 sc at 2o~io 300 sq ft Ratio 'ed. in GRFA SCIGRFA 3350 2.09 3600 2.00 3850 1.93 4100 1.86 4350 1.81 4800 i .77 4850 1.7'3 5100 1.70 5200 1.63 5300 1.56 5400 1.50 5500 1.45 5600 1.40 570D 1.36 5800 i .32 5900 1.28 6000 1.25 6100 1.22 6200 1.19 6300 1.17 6400 1.14 6500 1.12 i 6600 1.10 Permitted Floor area reflects a duplex lot utilizing all GRFA w! full garage credit {1200 sq.ft.) Site coverage created by exterior walls is not included in this analysis.