Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes April - MayPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION -- 1 Aprii 8, 1991 I� AGENDA ji'vo e f 11:30 Site Visits 1 :15 Worksession 2:00 Public Hearing Site Visits Work Session 1. A worksession to consider a conditional use permit and '.a density variance to allow the construction of additions to existing structures and the construction of employee housing on the Days Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/ Lott, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing; a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First'Filing. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn Public Hearinq 2. 1. A request for a variance from paving driveway,'Josey, Residence, Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing/ 97 Rockledge Road. Applicant: Clint Josey 2. A request for a setback variance, Forbes Residence, Texas Townhouses 4B and 5B, Lot 4B /5B, Vail Village 'Fourth Filing/ 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Walter Forbes TABLED TO APRIL 22, 1991 3. A request to repeal Town of Vail Municipal Code Chapter 18.71'- Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, commonly referred to as the 11250 Ordinance." Applicant: Town of Vail 4. A request to amend Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 18.52.160 - Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, Section 18.24.180 - Commercial Core T Parking and Loading, Section 18.26.150 Commercial Core II Parking and Loading, and Section 18.22.140 - Public Accommodation Parking and Loading. Applicant: Town of'Vail 4. 5. A request for a setback variance, Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing / 2920 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: J. Russell Pitto 3. 6. A request for a setback variance at the Christiania Lodge, Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing/ 356 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston 7. Appeal of staff decision that Christiania Lodge redevelopment proposal considered by the DRB on March 6, 1991 is in violation of the zoning code, 356 Hansen Ranch Road/ Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing Applicant: Bill Morton of Jack Morton Associates, Inc.•- WITHDRAWN 8. A request to amend Town of Vail Municipal Code Sections 16.04.330, 16.20.160, and 16.20.220 - Window Signs. Applicant: Town of Vail - WITHDRAWN 9. J Approval of minutes from March 25, 1991 meeting. 10. Update on Zoning Code Amendments for Housing and Housing Authority Business Plan Effort. Zoning Code Amendments tentatively scheduled for review by the Town Council on May 7, 1991. 11.✓ Reminder of May 13 and 20, 1991 PEC meetings. 12.1 PEC /TC worksession on Air Quality: Fireplaces and Road'Sanding meeting April 23, 1991. 13.,/ Council Review of Willow Bridge: Worksession April 16 , 1991 - PEC is invited. However, it is not required. • . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 8, 1991 Present Staff Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Connie Knight Mike Mollica Ludwig Kurz Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen Jim Shearer Shelly Mello Gena Whitten Betsy Rosolack Tom Braun Absent Amber Blecker Chuck Crist The worksession was called to order at 1 :15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A worksession to consider a conditional use ermit and a density variance to allow the construction of additions to existing structures and the construction of employee housing on the Das Inn site 2211 N. Frontage Road/Lot 1 Block A,-Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Da_s_ Schone First Filing Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Das Inn A representative for the applicant, Saundra Spach began the presentation by indicating the three items the applicant would like the PEC to review. The first was employee housing, the second was the redevelopment of the shoppette, and the final issue was the hotel upgrade. Saundra indicated, in order to accomplish the proposed redevelopment, the Days Inn would be requesting a density (GRFA and unity count) variance. Jill Kammerer clarified that employee housing is allowed as a conditional use in this zone district and, therefore, the applicant would also need to request approval of a conditional use permit. She further indicated the Fire Department and Public Works Department staffs had not yet reviewed the project. Saundra stated to the Commission a considerable amount of landscaping would be added under this proposal. Jill continued that this was viewed by staff to be a positive proposal, especially with the provision of employee housing and additional landscaping. This site is desirable for employee housing, as there is easy pedestrian access to public transportation and services (i.e., grocery store, laundry, etc.). To explain the employee housing proposal, Saundra began by showing the Commission it was a simple design which would be located at the northwest corner of the site behind the existing structures. There would be thirty -two 300 sq. ft. studios and eight 500 sq. ft. one bedroom 0 1 units for a total of 40 units in the building. Ludwig Kurz asked how the height of the building would relate to buildings existing on the site. Saundra answered that they would be about the same. Jill questioned if there could be additional storage provided, and if the building shape could be modified to wrap around in an "L" shape, instead of being rectangular in shape. Saundra answered that and "L" shaped building had been considered, and the current design was the desired shape because of the impact an "L" shaped building would have on the provision of parking. Ludwig asked if underground parking had been considered. Saundra said underground parking would not only be too expensive, but more parking could be provided in the same area with surface parking, as opposed to structured parking and parking on the site was already tight. Ludwig expressed his preference to see either sub - terrainean parking or semi - covered to minimize the expanse of blacktop. Saundra clarified the intent of the design was to provide a low, inconspicuous building, and the building will shield the view of the asphalt from the residential areas to the north. The 2 story addition at the eastern end of the Shoppette structure and the new facade was discussed next. Additional space for the bank and a drive up bank window on the first floor was a part of the proposal, as was second floor additional office space. The exterior would be stucco, and a new shingled or shaked roof would be built. Window relief would also be a part of the design. Jill mentioned the Public Works Department staff wanted the number of cars which would be utilizing the drive- through to be addressed. Saundra continued her explanation of the proposed project by focusing on the hotel renovation. The most noticeable changes would be the new facade and primarily retail space upgrades to the existing retail and CJ Capers restaurant spaces by filling in the existing deck to provide more retail space. Kathy Langenwalter questioned the loss of the restaurant's dining deck, but Saundra stated the restaurant's owners had been polled about the changes and the owners did not have any concerns regarding it. Ludwig asked if the second floor access on the eastern end of the building would be changed or renovated, as the plan presented indicated the area between a free standing stairwell and the building would be filled in. Saundra said the main entry to the commercial space would be from the south, but she was unclear as to whether this area would be filled in. It may have been a drafting error - she would check on it. Jim Shearer turned his attention to the hotel entry, asking if the stairs under the porte cochere would be the main entrance. Saundra clarified an existing elevator in the Days Inn Building would be the primary access point. Kathy wondered if the entire building would be faced with stucco, to which Saundra replied affirmatively. 0 2 Saundra stated the applicants wanted feedback from the Commissioners, as well as having them address concerns of the applicants. The intent was to have the renovations completed by Christmas. rill Kammerer added the PEC should also address whether the proposed redevelopment plan should proceed through the variance or Special Development District (SDD) process. She asked Peter Jacobs, the applicant, if rental levels had been proposed on the employee units. Peter said they had not been set, to which Diana Donovan declared the building should not be paid for with rents. Peter stated he would prefer to build hotel rooms, but had proposed the employee units to help address the employee housing need within Vail. Jill pointed out pedestrian access would probably need to be addressed in the final plan, and the Colorado Department of Highways would most likely need to review the landscaping along the Frontage Road. She also reminded the applicants building retrofit items, such as sprinklers, might need to be performed. Architect Gordon Pierce indicated to the Commission there was a larger issue facing the proposal, and that was if the Town placed caps on employee housing rental levels, the Days Inn would eliminate that aspect of the proposal and pursue hotel rooms. At this point, the applicant presented an alternative development proposal which was identical to the previously discussed development proposal, with the exception the alternative plan did not propose any employee housing, but instead proposed the construction of a new western wing to the Days Inn building. Additional hotel rooms would be provided in this wing. Kristan Pritz clarified Ah to the applicants the PEC had approved the affordable housing zoning code amendments, and the Housing Authority and PEC would be formulating affordable housing regulations in the future. Gordon responded that, since there was also a need for additional hotel rooms in the Valley, that may be the direction they would pursue. Income from the additional units would have to be generated in order for the redevelopment to be economically viable. If the employee units were not built, approximately 40 -50 hotel rooms could be built in the new wing. Under this scenario, approximately 4 additional employees would be needed to support the hotel expansion. Connie Knight would be more supportive of granting a GRFA variance for employee housing rather than additional hotel rooms, as the need for employee housing was more pressing. She also indicated she was not fond of the appearance of the building. She did not like the flat roof on the employee building, and thought the building should look more attractive. 0 Gena Whitten wanted to see a tie -in of the employee units to the hotel, i.e., rather than the alternative plan accommodating just hotel rooms, it should also accommodate the employee units. Peter Jacobs indicated that would pose a problem for the hotel's image. Gena thought there would be less neighborhood opposition to the project if it were tied into the hotel. She also would be more supportive of a GRFA variance if it were to be used for employee housing rather than additional hotel rooms. Ludwig wanted to know the proposed occupancy of the new employee building. Saundra 9 • indicated 40 units were designed, and no occupancy limitations were proposed. Jim Shearer favored employee housing, and felt a statement should be made to that effect. If concessions were needed to construct the units, they should be given for the employee units instead of hotel rooms, but those employee units should be permanently restricted. Jim also preferred to see the provision of rental rate caps, but was less concerned with caps under this proposal than he would be if the units were attached to a single family residence. Jim thought the building design and size of the units would restrict rents. Peter indicated he would have no problem with restricting the units to employees, but he did take issue with rental caps. He is aware the units could be rented 5 times over, and that market rental rates for a studio were ranging from $600 -700, but he would accept rates in the range of $400 -500. Jim indicated he was pleased to see the studio units in the proposal, as most developers were not willing to develop that type of unit. He agreed with Ludwig and would like to see under- ground parking, but understood the costs would most likely be prohibitive. However, he suggested semi - covering the parking by taking into consideration minimizing the hill impacts. He said he would like to see the proposed location of the employee housing building staked for the next PEC site visit. He would also like to see the provision of an additional landscape buffer between the east side of the hotel and McDonalds. On the whole, Jim encouraged the provision of as much landscaping as possible. Regarding the employee building, Jim would prefer wider balconies for these units, as well as a redesigned building. He did not like the look of the building. Jim thought the building color and materials should match existing buildings on site so that the employee housing building would not appear to be an add on. Gordon Pierce responded that if the facade were embellished, the costs for the project would rise above the level where it would be practical. Jim noted that if a guest of the hotel were facing the employee building, they would wonder what that "annex" was. rim stated a desire to see the roof be the same as the hotel's, and the provision of more storage space for the studio units. He thought if adequate storage space was not provided, the applicant will end up with a bunch of stuff stored on the balconies and where ever else the tenants could find to put it. Questioning the signage on the front of the commercial buildings, Jim asked if there would be standard awnings, or if the applicant would be setting parameters for the style and size of signing for all of the structures within the development. Gordon stated they were not to that stage in the design yet. Peter stated he planned to clean up the entire appearance of the project. Jim wanted to see strong guidelines set for exterior signage. Further comments on the design from Jim included his desire to see some transparency in the elevator shaft, perhaps from east to west. He also questioned whether four employee units would be sufficient to handle the increased hotel capacity under the alternative proposal if the employee building were not built. He wondered if the additional commercial space had been M taken into account in generating the 4 employee number. Peter said that the additional employee demand generated by the additional commercial and office space had not been taken into account. The additional 4 employees would be the number of employees required to service the alternative plan hotel expansion only. Peter said if he received a clear indication from the PEC they wanted employee housing, the Days Inn will build it, as long as it did not become too restrictive. Kathy Langenwalter said she could support a density variance only for the construction of the employee units. She was concerned about the site planning, in that it appeared there was a great deal of asphalt involved. She would be supportive of decreasing the number of employee units in order to decrease the parking need and, therefore, decrease the amount of paved area. In addition, she saw a problem with the height and architecture of the employee unit, since it would be located in a residential neighborhood, she thought there could be a great deal of opposition to the height. Another limitation Kathy noted was the elimination of the restaurant dining deck, as this could negatively impact the viability of the restaurant as a whole. Gordon asked how she felt about openable glass doors for the summer in the restaurant, and Kathy replied that was a workable solution. On the whole, Kathy was supportive of the plans to upgrade the facade of the shoppette and the Days Inn building. 0 Other issues Kathy addressed included the trash issue, namely where the additional trash bins would be located, and how they would be screened. Kathy was also concerned the amount of landscaping proposed may not be sufficient to screen and improve the appearance of the development site. Ludwig Kurz commented he preferred employee housing to additional hotel rooms. He suggested mitigating the height impacts of the employee building by having a stepped building/roof. Ludwig wanted to know where the driveway access for the employee units would be. Gordon said they would use existing access points. Gordon did not believe the proposed development would generate that much traffic. Diana Donovan commented that the proposed location was great for employee housing, but cautioned she supported the Housing Task Force's recommendations for density. She would not like to see the redevelopment proposal come before the PEC as a SDD proposal, preferring variance applications instead. She felt a sign program for the property was needed, and would like to see some of the office space above the porte cochere used as hotel rooms or employee housing, instead. Saundra replied that they could add 12 hotel rooms at this location, but it would further increase the required density variance. Diana agreed with Kathy on the loss of the C7 Capers dining deck and viewed the loss of the auditorium in the Days Inn building as a problem. Peter said they were upgrading the facility to be more flexible by creating a flat floor instead of the existing sloped floor with fixed seating. Gordon added they would be opening the meeting room (auditorium) to the garden, which would actually improve the facility. 5 • Diana was concerned about the tight bank drive- through space. However, she did not believe an entire traffic study by outside consultant was necessary to determine the impacts of the proposed development on the existing transportation system. She believed the figures would be easily devised without such a study. Regarding rents, Diana indicated the Town was recommending the ability, but not requirement, to set rates on future employee housing. Kristan Pritz added that a studio unit would be counted as .3 units in density calculations. She will talk with Larry Eskwith about the process for permanently designating those units as employee housing and whether the proposed development needed to be processed through the SDD or variance process. Jill Kammerer concluded the worksession by asking the applicants for clarification on changing out their fireplaces from woodburning to gas, and Gordon replied they were changing to gas. Jill then asked what the modifications to the north facade were proposed, Gordon answered that they had not decided yet, but it would be similar to the remainder of the proposal. At this point, the Commission went into recess, and Kathy Langenwalter left the Commission for a period of time. At 2:20PM, the public hearing was called to order. 1. A request for a variance from paving driveway, Josey Residence, Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing/97 Rockledge Road_. Applicant: Clint Josey Shelly Mello explained the request for a variance from paving the driveway. The driveway cannot unable to be paved at this time as it is partially located on Forest Service land, and the Forest Service has not yet reviewed a special use permit which would allow for paving on USFS property. The encroachments onto USFS land also included portions of Rockledge Road. The Town of Vail and the Forest Service are currently in the process of doing a verifying the boundary to determine where the boundaries of the USFS lie. When the house was built 25 years ago, there was no information available on the USFS boundary. The Josey residence meets all zoning considerations, the driveway will have no more than an S% grade and will be 12 feet wide. The USFS special use permit application requests permission from the Forest Service to both pave and heat the driveway. Regarding the impact on neighboring lots, Lots 2 and 3 which use the drive will be impacted by this variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance, based on the hardship associated with the location of the driveway and the USFS requirements. Unless and until the Forest Service grants a special use permit, the applicants are prohibited from paving the driveway. The applicants C.1 M have agreed to provide a letter of credit pending the approval or denial of the USFS special use permit request. In addition, when staff examined the possibility of moving the driveway, it was found it could not be easily done considering the amount of mature vegetation found on the site. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant, stated that there was a newly - formed association which had been created to deal with similar Forest Service issues. The applicant has had to live with an unpaved driveway since the house was originally built in 1964. Although they wanted to pave the driveway, the Forest Service has not given them the approval, due to the unresolved boundaries. Connie Knight moved to approve a paving variance from Section 18.52.080(E) in order to construct an additional dwelling unit on Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing/97 Rockledge Road as recommended by staff, contingent upon a letter of credit being posted. The granting of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. In addition, 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. The motion was seconded by Ludwig Kurz, with a unanimous 5 -0 vote in favor of the ordinance. 2. A request for a setback variance, Forbes Residence, Texas Townhouses 4B and 5B, Lot 4B /5B, Vail Village Fourth Filing/ 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Walter Forbes Ludwig Kurz moved to table this item to the April 22, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Connie Knight seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 3. A request to repeal Town of Vail Municipal Code Chapter 18.71 - _Additional Gross Residential Floor Area commonly referred to as the "250 Ordinance." Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz introduced Tom Braun, consultant to the Community Development Department regarding zoning code changes. Tom began by recapping where the 250 Ordinance came from, and the history of why this issue was before the Commission at this time. One year ago, the Town Council requested a complete zoning code revision. They set as their highest priorities revision of the Special Development District procedures, Gross Residential Floor Area revisions, pay in lieu parking and the 250 Ordinance. During the preliminary meeting on the 250 Ordinance, repealing the ordinance was discussed. Different options were discussed, and it became apparent that there were two major areas which created problems with the Ordinance. The first was the demo/ rebuild amendment and 7 0 0 the second was variance requests associated with the use of the 250. • Since January, the Zoning Code Task Force had been working on trying to resolve these two issues and still maintain the ordinance. Through this process, the Task Force determined there were two major problems with the ordinance which could not be resolved, hence, the recommendations to repeal the ordinance. The demo /rebuild amendment was put into the 250 ordinance in 1988. The justification for this amendment was that the stated objective of the ordinance was to "provide an inducement to upgrade existing units." Demo /rebuilds were cited as being the "ultimate upgrade." The problem with this amendment is the perception that it is not in keeping with the original intent of the ordinance to upgrade existing buildings. Tom stated the underlying purpose for the ordinance was to allow forgmall additions to "maxed out" residences without going through the variance process. Prior to the 250 ordinance, variance requests were the only method homeowners had to add to existing buildings which had reached their maximum GRFA. Because the variance procedures require a finding of some physical hardship, most of these variance applications were denied. Tom stated that a principle of land use and zoning is to have controls over the size and mass of buildings. The 250 Ordinance contradicts this principle. The second issue with the 250 Ordinance are variance requests in conjunction with 250 proposals. The issue is that if a variance is necessary for a 250 to be approved, the lot may not be able to accommodate the additional square footage. The Task Force felt that it would be unreasonable discrimination to deny a homeowner the opportunity to request a variance in conjunction with a 250 request. In addition, because of the legal issues which were raised in conjunction with the creation of the demo/ rebuild amendment to the ordinance, that section could not easily be deleted, either. For these reasons, the Task Force found they had two options: To leave the ordinance intact and accept the demo /rebuild provision and variance issue as they stood, or 2. Repeal the entire ordinance. After much deliberation, the second option became the recommendation of the Task Force. Tom addressed the other fundamental issues with regard to the 250 ordinance. The first was that there was no direct public benefit from this ordinance. It only served to make larger homes, and larger was not necessarily better. The second issue was that even without this ordinance, improvements could still occur to existing homes. Third, the 250 ordinance contradicts GRFA policy. If there is a desire to allow 250 extra square feet for a home, it should be built into the density control section of each zone district. Lastly, when the 250 was researched with other areas, no comparable ordinance could be found. • Torn stated that the affordable Housing issue with relation to the M ordinance was not addressed at this time. The reason for this is that the direction the Housing Authority wished to take on affordable housing had not yet been determined. Staff felt that a 250 -type ordinance could be used as an incentive for the construction of affordable housing units in private housing. Larry Eskwith addressed the Commission by stating he saw a need to make the legislation valid with relation to public welfare. The problems in the ordinance arose with the demo /rebuild amendment. There was a perception that this did not relate to the original purpose of the ordinance. However, in order to delete the demo /rebuild provision, the reason why the ordinance exists would have to be redefined. The first member of the public who wished to speak was George Lamb, a member of the Town of Vail Design Review Board. He stated he believed the 250 ordinance is a positive feature of the zoning code, in that it helped address problems in older homes. It helped eliminate deficiencies in these homes (i.e., adding or improving bedrooms, bathrooms or kitchen). In addition, the 250 was not automatic; the DRB had the authority to review the applications for their individual design merits and impacts on the surrounding areas. If a deficiency existed on the site, such as landscaping or other problem the Town identified, it could be corrected in conjunction with the 250 application and approval. Mr. Lamb saw this as direct benefit to the Town and the neighborhoods. Mr. Lamb stated that any repeal of the ordinance resulted from a misunderstanding of the intent of the ordinance and an abuse of its use. He recommended that either the GRFA be changed in the zone districts to allow for an additional 250 sq. ft., or to redefine what an "existing home" is to eliminate the demo /rebuild provision. He also asked the Commission to consider phasing out the ordinance over time. A phase -out would serve to prevent a new home from being designed with a future 250 sq. ft. addition in mind. He concluded his statements by asking the Commission to think about a way to eliminate the visual massing problem on some of the larger homes by eliminating the demo /rebuild provision. Mike Shannon was the next speaker. He said he had never seen so much angst over an issue in the Town. Though he saw the current system as being too complicated and unjust, he also did not feel it was logical to eliminate the entire ordinance in order to fix the problematic sections. Mike stated that the reality of ownership in the Vail Valley is that ownership of a home has a very high value. If owners cannot economically add to their homes, it will force many long- time residents to sell and move down valley. He indicated that Aspen had done the same in the past and it became a bad example of planning, although the intended purpose was good. H the 250 ordinance was abolished, it would be impossible for most local homeowners to make necessary renovations or improvements to existing homes without having $500,000 to spend on a demo/ rebuild. N One of the problems Mike perceived was the Primary/Secondary Zone District. in these districts, two houses were built on lots originally designed for only one. Mike thought this was a contributing factor to the stated problem of too much mass and bulk of buildings in the Town. In addition, on the issue of employee housing, Mike said that they would not be provided unless the space for them was additive, not deleted, from a lot's GRFA. He suggested that the GRFA for an employee unit be additive to a lot's GRFA, with a cap for large houses to prevent too much added bulk on an already large project. He also stated that 250 sq. ft. for an employee unit was not nearly enough. There would be too much loss of investment without nearly enough in return. He suggested some type of restriction in the deed to an affordable unit, but not one which would make the construction of such a unit ultra - expensive. Mr. Shannon felt that to repeal is to lose sight of the problem. With the solution they proposed, local homeowners would need to have significant funds to add or remodel, or be forced to leave the Valley. Those residents who live in Vail on a year -round basis often need to remodel in order to make the more affordable, but often older and/or smaller, houses liveable for growing families. If remodeling is made more restrictive and prohibitive, an auction environment would result, with second home owners able to afford renovations and locals forced to sell and move down valley where their money could purchase more space. It would also result in the richest few in the valley being able to maximize design considerations of a house through demo /rebuild, and the rest shut out of the process. The problem, as Mike saw it, is that there are too many exemptions. The ordinance itself is not flawed. Diana Donovan clarified to Mr. Shannon that the 250 sq. ft. to be applied to an affordable housing unit would be a credit, but the rest of the GRFA would be deducted from the lot's GRFA. Kristan Pritz further indicated that, when the Town Council first reviewed the affordable housing reports, they envisioned a 500 sq. ft. credit to be used in addition to allowable GRFA. The Zoning Code Task Force was waiting to see the ultimate resolution of the 250 ordinance before they worked on an ordinance for employee housing. Mike Shannon answered that if 500 sq. ft. were allowable (like on a Two Family zoned home), those 500 sq. ft. should be allowed at any time, not just after the homes had reached their full allotment of GRFA. Kristan asked if 500 sq. ft. was adequate for employee housing. Mike agreed. Ron Byrne rose to speak next. He said that the fact that people liked the 250 ordinance so much, and that there was definitely a need for it in older dwellings, he felt it should not be abolished. He was concerned that if there was no economic incentive in terms of GRFA, there would be no form of improvement in older buildings. The original intent of the ordinance was to decide if the improvements were necessary on a site -by -site basis, and that 41 10 11 the Town would ultimately gain from the improvements to the site in terms of landscaping and other non - conforming aspects. Ron indicated the size of the additions were proportionate, being mostly made up of bedroom/bath additions. He believed the staff could legislate on a case -by -case basis. He also did not see a problem with the amount of variance requests, as they allowed the appropriate entities to say no if the site could not support the additional space. Mr. Byrne emphatically stated that a vehicle was necessary to improve older structures, and he believed the staff and Town Council were over - reacting to specific houses and not the entirety of the ordinance. There is a benefit to the community in that the ordinance protects the family environment of the Town. Speaking as an author of the original ordinance, Rod Slifer stated that the ordinance has worked over the years and is a beneficial ordinance. It has helped reduce the outflow of residents moving to obtain more for their money. If the ordinance was repealed, Vail would become a community of second home owners. The necessary mix in the community would be lost. Mr. Slifer recommended the Commission wait to hear from the Housing Authority on future use of the ordinance for affordable housing. M Regarding the origination of the ordinance, Mr. Slifer indicated that the 250 sq. ft. was not a "magic" number, but the amount which, through public hearings, seemed to be about the amount of a bedroom/bath. He recommended, if the Commission wanted to change the ordinance, they should increase the GRFA slightly and have a simple review by the DRB. Also speaking as one of the original authors of the ordinance, Bob Ruder spoke to the evolution of the Valley, and the fact that most of the buildings grew from differing rules. Due to this, there are quite a few existing non - conforming sites. These sites should not be penalized and, in fact, the Town can gain benefit from bringing some of the sites more in conformance through the use of the 250 provisions. • Mr. Ruder also stated that the Town should be encouraging existing families to remain and improve their properties. However, if the Town made it economically unfeasible to improve, it would be guilty of over - legislating. There are always problems with a rule, but overall, this ordinance is good. The additions improve the look of the Town. The ordinance works. Larry Agneberg, President of the Vail Board of Realtors, asked staff how many 250 ordinance requests had come through the Community Development Department. Kristan Pritz replied that a lot had. Larry questioned Kristan what percentage had been approved, in order to determine what the benefit was versus the abuses of the ordinance. Kristan said that determining the abuses was a subjective number, but that most of the problems had come through the demo /rebuilds. Larry further questioned if this was, overall, a good ordinance. 11 Kristan stated that people did seers to enjoy it, but wondered how many people would have gone ahead and remodeled without the ordinance being in effect. Larry responded that although there are problems with the current ordinance, people do enjoy it, and they should be able to upgrade with the current inducements. He recommended that the ordinance either be left in place, or that 250 sq. ft. should be added across the board to all the zone districts. Frank McKibbon stated his belief that if the real estate community were to be polled, they would say the ordinance works. As one drives around the Vail Valley, the areas not originally developed as a part of the Town are noticeably not built to the same standards. To illustrate this, he gave the example of the lack of garages in Matterhorn. Because of this, many decks are used for storage of items usually placed in garages. Mr. McKibbon thought the only inducement to improve these units is the 250 ordinance. Mr. McKibbon believed it would be a crime to lose residents from the Town because of their inability to economically renovate their houses to meet their changing needs. He stated that, although the ordinance does have problems, it still works overall. He felt that the few houses which had abused the ordinance were being focused upon, instead of concentrating on why those abuses had taken place. Since other communities are not usually as restrictive as Vail in their planning and zoning, the 250 ordinance was created for flexibility. He concluded his statements by referring to the Town of Vail 1990 -91 slogan, "If it ain't broke, fix it" by stating the 250's slogan should be "If it ain't broke, don't break it!" Sue Dugan rose to say she agreed with all that had been said previously, and that she believed the Town should consider the 250 like an IRS regulation - that if it were changed, someone would still find a loophole. What has to be done instead of eliminating the entire ordinance is simply change it to close the loophole which had been found. Ned Gwathmey, Chairman of the Design Review Board, spoke as the "owner of the ugliest house in Vail." He stated that the intent of the ordinance was to enable homeowners to build an addition to an existing house, as well as provide a vehicle to the Town to improve the appearance of non - conforming lots. He recommended the modification of the current ordinance to eliminate the demo/ rebuild provision through redefining what are "new" and "existing" houses. Ned also thought it seemed intelligent to tie the 250 into incentives for building employee units. He saw the 250 ordinance as a tool which had improved housing, and did not view it as having increased the bulk and density of a house to an unbearable level. A former PEC member, Sid Schultz, spoke to the Commission by indicating his belief the 250 ordinance was the best thing the commission ever recommended to the Town Council. Prior to it's inception, every PEC agenda had an application for a GRFA variance. • 12 Unfortunately, most had to be denied since there was no hardship found to grant a criteria. Since it's passage, he has seen the ordinance as an improvement to the properties and the Town. Will Miller, Manager of the Montaneros Condominiums said that the 250 ordinance had made existing units at the Montaneros more attractive to renters by allowing changes to some of the top floor loft units without any exterior changes to the building. He felt that the ordinance had been used well to make not only his project, but the entire Town, more attractive. Architect Gordon Pierce related that he had looked for another way to handle GRFA, but that overall, the 250 ordinance was simple to use. He also saw the 250 ordinance as a positive statement to other communities in that it was good for us to show what we can do, even within the boundaries of a strict zoning code. The loopholes of the ordinance should be closed, but the ordinance itself should be kept as a positive statement to residents and buyers. Mr. Pierce has found that clients from all over the world think the ordinance is wonderful. Jim Shearer asked Kristan Pritz approximately how many 250 applications are received each year. Kristan replied that staff had not broken them out, but she would say approximately 40. Jim followed up by asking what percentage of those were granted, to which Kristan said almost all. Kristan explained the history of the examination of the 250 ordinance by staff and the Zoning 10 Code Task Force. She said there was a great deal of negative feelings a year ago when the Council directed staff to examine the zoning code. Staff had examined the ordinance to determine how it would be possible to legislate out the negatives. What staff was asking for through this meeting was a recommendation from the Commission to Council for their April 16, 1991 meeting. She stated that perhaps the Council had gotten the wrong impression when they originally reviewed the 250. As a result, if the Commission was willing to say they will live with the inconsistencies in the ordinance, the Council may decide to keep the ordinance as it stands. • Jim Shearer, after polling the audience to see if any present would like to see the ordinance phased out, and receiving a response that the ordinance is automatically phased out because the square footage is only provided once, stated that if it were possible to legislatively trim the abuses of the ordinance, he would like to see it kept. Kristan responded that people can always ask for a variance from the applicable GRFA requirement, but that there were some inherent problems they found in the ordinance which they could find no way around. The major problem was that the demo /rebuild was classified as an "ultimate remodel" and that, logically, they could find no way around this; no way to distinguish between an addition using the 250 square feet and a demo /rebuild project using the 250 square feet. Connie Knight expressed her opinion that this problem originated because the ordinance had been abused and used for resales, but that the original premise behind the ordinance was fabulous. However, when it was used to tear down an already large house and make it larger, 13 it did not serve to make Vail any better. She would be in favor of maintaining the ordinance without the demo/ rebuild provision. Ludwig Kurz asked Diana Donovan if the recommendation of the Task Force was really the best answer to the perceived problems. Diana explained the position of the Task Force that there had been a very strong consensus that repeal of the ordinance was the only solution. Originally, there were very strong proponents of keeping the ordinance. Finally, all the members agreed that the ordinance should be repealed. In addition, the Task Force viewed the use of the 250 for the provision of employee housing to be a separate issue, and not connected to the current action. Diana continued that many different options had been considered, but it was decided none of them would be a complete solution. The opinion from the Task Force was that people would still be allowed to apply for a variance in true hardship circumstances. Ludwig stated that he was not satisfied that the two issues were not enough to repeal a well functioning vehicle for renovation. In the interests of the Town, he believed it was too early to repeal the ordinance. Gena Whitten stated that the 250 ordinance was a response to the need of residents to have larger homes. However, she did see it as unwieldy to enforce with the differing requirements. As an alternative, increasing the GRFA to adjust to the changed lifestyles of residences was a positive option in her opinion. She suggested increasing the GRFA 5 -7% to relieve the pressure valve. Diana Donovan explained that the main problem with the 250 was that the original intent was not for upgrading buildings, but to accommodate small houses so that the owners could stay in the valley. However, there needed to be an official statement of intent, and that was stated, for legal reasons, as providing a mechanism for upgrading existing residences. In fact, many of the people originally involved in the creation of the ordinance were surprised to see upgrading as its purpose. She said one problem with increasing the GRFA across the board was that the Town would be losing the benefit of being able to upgrade existing non - conforming lots. In effect, the current ordinance serves as an across the board increase in GRFA now. This increase helped older units in the Town. However, by using the 250 with the new system of calculating GRFA, the mass and bulls of a building can be increased beyond that which may be visually desirable. If people believe there need to be an incentive given for improvements to be made to a house, Diana asked what happened to a person's pride? What would happen 10 years down the road, after the 250 had already been used, when the property again needed renovations? There is no ending point to this if people do not have enough pride to renovate their own houses. 0 14 IN Diana countered the opinions expressed by the audience by saying that M6 sq. A. was probably not enough to keep anyone from moving down valley. The economic incentives were too great if their main objective was to have more space. There are other reasons people chose to live in Vail. In the long run, Diana said, the 250 ordinance probably hurts our community in that once it has been used, there is no future flexibility. It is used as a sales strategy by many real estate professionals. There is no legal way to change the intent to state that the 250 should only be used for unforseen difficulties. If the intent is not changed, the demo /rebuild provision cannot be deleted. Gary Bossow commented that the homeowners have already voted on this ordinance by the amount of those who have taken advantage of its availability. Frank McKibbon indicated that the phenomena of demo /rebuild to increase property value will eventually be eliminated, as there are few houses whose owners would be willing and/or able to do this. He felt that the areas which had been prone to this type of renovation will soon be saturated. The majority of the community has used the ordinance for good purposes. Larry Agneberg commented that when mass is seen to be a problem, the neighbors have spoken up. Connie Knight replied that the problem is that homeowners have not spoken up at an appropriate time, or if the building is not in their "back yard." Tom Braun elaborated that A the Task Force's charge was to resolve perceived problems in the ordinance, but they found no way to make a distinction between existing units and demo /rebuilds. Jim Strain asked why a demo /rebuild could not be legally defined, and thus eliminate the problem? Tom Braun stated that there was no difference in square footage created by an addition and square footage created by a demo /rebuild. Mr. Strain reiterated that a demo /rebuild was constructing a new house, not renovating an existing structure, and that should be enough to eliminate that use. Kristan Pritz stated that the ordinance was amended to allow an existing, 5 year old structure to be demolished and then rebuild because the intent of the ordinance was to upgrade, and what is the difference between adding to an existing home and completely remodeling? Jim Strain replied that the amendment is what is in trouble, and that portion alone should be repealed. He did not think the benefits of the rest of the ordinance should be taken away. • Mr. McKibbon suggested using a definition that if a certain percentage of a structure were demolished, then it would be a new house. Tom Braun repeated the problem with deleting the demo/ rebuild provision was that there is no distinction between a "pure" addition and a demo/rebuild. Diana Donovan continued that the problem was contained in the legal preamble which stated the purpose of the ordinance was to "upgrade for the public good." 15 0 Gary Bossow asked Kristan how many demo /rebuilds had been performed. Kristan estimated that there were approximately 20, and stated that regardless, the number was a minor amount of the total. The staff had not done an official tally as no one was disputing that the ordinance was popular. Diana Donovan indicated that although it was a minor number at this time, and questioned how far it could go before all the buildings became too big for their sites. George Lamb stated that all the approvals which had been given were appropriate and that he felt the "ultimate remodel" use of the ordinance was also appropriate. He asked, however, if a building were demolished, would it be able to retain its wood burning fireplace? Kristan answered that no, it would be a new house in that connotation. George then asked why that principle could not be used for the demo /rebuild issue? He requested the DRB be given more "teeth" to approve or deny the requests. GRFA is not an adequate control of mass of a house, and he would like to see the DRB given the ability to refuse a proposal because it was simply too large. Rod Slifer reiterated that if the issue was the mass of a building, he did not think that 250 sq. ft. is a problem. If the Commission were concerned about mass, controls on mass should be devised through setback, height, volume, overhang, site coverage and courtyard size, among others. Gordon Pierce further illustrated the problem by stating he had recently done three models with the same height, site coverage and other zoning restrictions. The three models ranged in size from 1,800 sq. ft. up to 3,600 sq. ft. This illustration was made to show that zoning considerations do not hinder square footage abilities. Ken Wilson declared that he was amazed and disappointed that the discussion was to repeal the ordinance without knowing how many times the demo /rebuild provision had been used. He also stated that this was not a real estate issue, but one of families and keeping them from being forced to move down valley. Without the 250 ordinance, many families would be forced to either eliminate one spouse and the kids, or move. He asked the Commission not to make it more difficult than it already is to live in Vail. Kristan responded to Ken's question about the numbers by stating that the reason the numbers had not been calculated was that the staff was not disputing that the ordinance was popular, and that the demo /rebuilds were clearly a minor amount of the total. Ken asked why, then, the recommendation was for repeal when it was a perception problem not an actual problem in the ordinance? He was amazed that the Council directed the ordinance be repealed when it was so popular. Tom Braun clarified that the Council simply directed staff to resolve two issues, not repeal the ordinance. Ken replied that he would like to see the dialogue kept open, and work continue on how to maintain the ordinance. Diana Donovan clarified to the audience that the 1988 amendment was made because of legal problems, and that if someone could persuade her that 250 sq. ft. would keep a family from moving, she may change her mind on repealing the ordinance. Frank McKibbon replied that 250 sq. ft. were easier to build than to buy new property. 16 Connie Knight asked Kristan if the ordinance could be maintained without the demo /rebuild amendment. Kristan indicated that it is the opinion of the staff and Task Force that no, it could not. She added that if the PEC was willing to state to Council they were willing to live with the inconsistency, the Council may take note. Connie Knight asked if the demo/ rebuild provision could be legally eliminated from the ordinance. Tom Braun replied he was not sure it could be done without a legal challenge. Kristan elaborated that there would be a weakness in the ordinance, but the benefits gained may outweigh that weakness. Ken Wilson suggested that language be placed in the ordinance that if a certain percentage of the house were demolished, then it would no longer qualify as an existing home for another 5 years, and further suggested the percentage be 50 %. Jim Shearer commented that he felt the purpose of the ordinance was to upgrade an existing structure. He would like to see the ordinance modified in order to allow the worst houses to remodel, but could not see a mechanism to do that. He wanted to protect more of the smaller homes rather than the larger, and felt that the controlling factor in a remodel be the 5 year provision. Jim said that if a homeowner could use the new GRFA calculations to find additional square footage for a remodel, they should be encouraged to do so. He would also Re to see the direction the Housing Authority decides to take before acting on the current 250 ordinance. He would not like to see the provision of employee housing be taken out of GRFA, but rather added to it. If the ordinance is kept and amended, he would like to see a stronger definition of "improve" and "upgrade." If a variance were to be granted in . connection with a 250 request, Jim proposed that the criteria for that variance be only the effect on the site, structure and neighborhood, with an addition to bulk and/or mass of the building to be weighed negatively. • His statements concluded, Jim Shearer moved to modify the existing 250 ordinance based on the findings of the Task Force, with the intent to minimize abuses of the system. The 5 year requirement for renovation would be used on all 250 requests, be they reconstruction or additions. Employee /affordable housing will be figured as a separate issue. Any variances given in conjunction with a 250 request will be justified by the benefits to the community, site, structure and neighborhood, with an addition to bulk and/or mass weighing negatively against a variance, but not necessarily ruling out the variance. These factors would be weighed on a one -to -one basis for each application. In addition, if enough of the building is demolished to require the building to be brought up to code under the Uniform Code of Building (i.e., 50% of the building), then the structure would be classified as a new house, and would not qualify for a 250 sq. ft. addition for another 5 years. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. Diana Donovan asked for a clarification that the motion was recommending that the ordinance be returned to the Task Force to tidy up. Kristan replied that this ordinance would go to Council regardless of Jim's motion. Jim indicated his intent was for the ordinance to proceed to Council to have them return it to the Task Force. He would like a statement from Council to the Task Force to tighten up the ordinance. 17 Jim amended the previous motion to add the following language to the beginning: He moved that the ordinance be sent to the Town Council with a recommendation of denial of the staff recommendations in order for the ordinance to return to the Zoning Code Task Force to clarify the issues stated above. Ludwig Kurz amended his second to include the additional wording. Jim stated his intent was that the good work which had been done on GRFA controls not be negated, and he wanted the 250 ordinance tightened up to help those people for which it was designed. He thought that the Town should encourage improvements, and make the process as simple as possible for the "little guy." Diana Donovan wished to go on record with the reason she would be voting against the motion with the statement that she thought the Town needed to start fresh with a new ordinance, not just doctor up the existing regulations. She also wanted to see if the Town Council would give clear direction to the Task Force and PEC that they would stand behind the Town in a potential lawsuit if the demo /rebuild provision were eliminated. Larry Agneberg asked if Diana thought the ordinance should be repealed and a new ordinance be developed. Diana replied yes, if the Council would back a hard line approach. Larry stated that he would like to see the repeal delayed until a new ordinance was ready. Jim stated that if he had to vote on the ordinance now, he would leave it as is, but work is toward modifying it based on the history of problems. After fine- tuning of the specific wording, as finalized above, and with Jim and Ludwig's consent, the recommendation was voted upon. The vote was 4 -1, with Diana Donovan in opposition. The meeting was briefly recessed, and was called back into order at 5:10. At that time, the following two agenda items were taken out of order in the interests of time and public comment. 5. A request for a setback variance, Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filina2920 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: J. Russell Pitto Mike Mollica presented the staff memo and recommendations for this variance. The request was for a 10' -6" side setback variance which had previously been approved, but had subsequently lapsed. The zoning for the property is Two Family Residential (duplex), and Mike briefly reviewed the zoning considerations. There was no concern for GRFA with this request, but the site coverage would be at its maximum 20 % if the variance were to be approved and the addition constructed. 0 18 . Staff recommended denial of the request because they were unable to identify a }physical hardship. They felt the addition could be added elsewhere on the property without a variance. Staff noted, however, that from the previous request, the applicant had lowered the height of the structure per the request of neighbors. • The previous PEC approval of the variance was contingent upon the ridge height not exceeding the existing structure's ridge height. Staff believed that Findings A, B, and C (1 -3) were not applicable to this request. Should the PEC support a variance, staff requested additional landscaping along the creek side of the addition as a buffer for the adjacent stream. tract. Jay Peterson, legal representative for the applicant, stated that this proposal had been changed since the previous variance had been granted, and that these changes were positive. The owner had gone to the neighbors to determine their concerns, and the consensus was that they wanted the addition to be placed as proposed in this application. The neighbors felt it would impact their land least in this position. In order to place the addition in another location on their lot, the house would have to be internally reconfigured and "flip- flopped" to accommodate the expanded kitchen. Regarding land use questions, Jay agreed that there needed to be a buffer between the house and the creek. He indicated, however, that since the stream tract meanders, this location was actually further from the creek than if it had been placed on another area of the lot which might not require a setback variance. Jay emphasized that nothing had changed substantially since the previous PEC approval of the setback variance, and that the neighbors were in favor of the addition. He believed the proposal met the criteria for a variance, the purpose of which was to prevent practical difficulties. The house is one of the older homes in the neighborhood, and the location was a problem in designing the addition. The scale of the home fit well into the neighborhood. If a strict interpretation of the code were used in this case, the neighbors would be negatively impacted. Jay commented that the only options the owners would have would be to sell the property or resort to a demo /rebuild. Pam Hopkins was also present representing the applicant, and she pointed out that utilities had been built on the creek bank. Diana Donovan explained that the previous variance approval was partially due to the fact the creek was not pristine because there was an extensive water pump and vault which had been placed in the easement. She also further explained the design consideration of placing the addition into the setback was partially determined by the fact that either side of the house was essentially open space, and the placement of the addition into the setback impacted fewer views and hid the addition from more homes. In effect, the hardship was created by the neighbors. Jay Peterson agreed, and stated the applicant had worked diligently to minimize the impacts to both the site and the neighbors. Q'7 Connie Knight asked if` there would sti� be room �'or a stream walk to be built, and IVlilce indicated there would. The Town's recreation path is currently located on the south, or opposite, side of the stream. Ludwig Kurz moved for approval of the setback variance for the Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing/ 2920 Booth Creek Drive, finding that the strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. A condition of approval would be that the owners place additional landscaping along the southern elevation of the addition. If any trees are removed during the construction process, they shall be replanted or replaced. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. An additional condition of approval was that the new roofline of the addition not exceed the height of the existing roof ridge. The vote on the entire motion was 4 -0 -1, with Gena Whitten abstaining, due to the fact that she was absent during the site visit. Kathy Langenwalter returned to the meeting at this point. 6. A request for a setback variance at the Christiania Lodge, Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing/356 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston is Jill Kammerer briefly explained the request before the Commission was to grant a setback variance to the eastern setback in order to allow the expansion of Christiania Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of the proposed eastern, third floor dwelling unit. She indicated that there is a zero setback currently at this location. Findings A, B, and C (1 -3) support the granting of this variance because the encroachment would not be increased. Connie Knight asked if the parking questions had been resolved. Jill responded the only recognized Lodge parking by the Town are the three spaces located on Christiania Lodge - owned property immediately west of the Christiania Lodge structure. Under the original purchase agreement with Vail Associates, the Lodge has the right to park in perpetuity on Parcel P -3. However, the property they currently park on is Lot J. It would appear the Christiania Lodge has never used Lot P -3 for parking. Therefore, the Town does not recognize the parking spaces which could be accommodated on Parcel P -3. Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicants, added that the square footage being added did not increase the amount of parking which must be provided by the Lodge. Jill concluded that no additional units were being added under this proposal. Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval of the setback variance at the Christiania Lodge, Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing/ 356 Hanson Ranch Road per the staff recommendations, with findings A, B, C(1 -3) applicable to this request. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion, and by a vote of 6 -0, the variance was approved. • 20 0 The following agenda item was discussed at this time. 4. A request to amend Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 18.52160- Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, Section 18.24.180 - Commercial Core I Parkin and Loading. Section 18.26.150 - Commercial Core II Parking and Loading, and Section 18.22.140 - Public Accommodation Parking and Loading. Applicant: Town of Vail Tom Braun discussed the current parking program. There were two areas he discussed, the first being the goal of eliminating vehicular traffic in the core areas of Vail, and the second issue was to examine the number of sites identified for infill as an alternative to use as parking. Torn explained the staff memo. Diana Donovan asked if a person could request to be included in the program. Tom replied that a person could request to be included, and that there was a difference between the regulations and who could apply. Diana Donovan stated that she believed condos and office spaces required more vehicle servicing than lodge and retail locations, and therefore should be required to provide their parking on -site. Jay Peterson stated that some condominiums were completely short term, and functioned like lodges, and he would also like to see flexibility to construct small infill office space. Diana answered that she would like to encourage more hotel rooms rather than condo development. Jay Peterson responded by stating that a mix with office space can help maintain existing traffic by ensuring locals would be around during the off - season. Gena Whitten mentioned that she parks in the structure and then walks back and forth to her office, and she believed many of the locals did the same. Jay asked that the door not be shut for office development, especially in Lionshead. Diana questioned Tom as to whether the proposed variance criteria would allow anyone to be denied. He replied it would be difficult, but not impossible to deny a request. Kathy stated that her concern was that redevelopment would occur without additional parking being provided. Diana asked if redevelopment of certain properties would allow for the elimination of parking. Kristan stated that for a new office use, assuming there was no surplus on -site parking, the parking would still have to be located on -site. However, for a restaurant, parking could be provided through the pay in lieu system. Kathy asked that language be placed in the code that a redevelopment project could not eliminate current on- site parking. Diana further stated that the Town should not keep putting more locals in the parking structures. Kristan responded to these suggestions by indicating it would not be fair to say that if a redevelopment resulted in a decreased parking requirement, the previous parking levels would have to be maintained. 9 21 f Gena stated she believed the amount collected through the pay in lieu program should only be used for building additional spaces. Jim Shearer indicated a hesitance regarding the one time payment provision. Jay Peterson discussed the Village core plan, asking what the difference between the Lodge and the Mill Creek Building or Slifer was, since the latter two properties also had the ability to have direct vehicular access. Kathy agreed that the Mill Creek Building should also be excluded from the program, but felt that the physical difficulties with that site, a steep drive for example, prohibited putting parking on site. Connie expressed her apprehension over excluding office and condo spaces, and felt that the exceptions should not be placed in the ordinance. Tom countered by saying the code could be more clear, but not everyone felt the same over these two uses being included or excluded. When Connie asked why they were being excluded, Kathy Langenwalter responded by saying if the Gondola Building were redeveloped, placing 300 -400 VA employees in that building, and VA was allowed to use the pay in lieu program, the public parking would be wiped out. Kristan communicated to the Commission that the possibility of an office or condo redevelopment consisting of less than 1,000 sq. ft. being included in the pay in lieu program, with those projects over 1,000 sq. ft. having to provide parking on site had been rejected by the Task Force as being too complicated. • Jay Peterson turned the Commission's attention back to the Lodge at Vail, and stated that in their circumstance, it was actually cheaper for them to build their own parking. He also stated that if a building in the core area which currently provided parking on site were to be torn down, it could be rebuilt as a hotel with common retail space and not have to provide any parking except through the pay in lieu program. Diana thought the provision was too lenient on parking within the Town. Kathy questioned why staff was requesting a separate process with special criteria for projects that wanted to use pay in lieu for office and condo uses that normally would be required to provide on site parking? Kristan responded that they had wanted to keep the criteria more flexible. Kathy said she did not want to prohibit additions or redevelopment, but she did not want to make the parking process too simple. Kristan indicated it was already difficult in Lionshead to obtain approval for development due to the amount of condo associations, and Connie Knight agreed, stating the proposed wording was tight enough. • Jim Shearer conveyed he had no problem with offices being included in the pay in lieu program, and thought that above ground level office space should be encouraged, and the process for such development be streamlined. Kathy stated she could support existing office space being allowed to use the pay in lieu program, but not space which resulted from a redevelopment. She also encouraged infill in the Lionshead area, but stated there was potential for mis -use through development projects. 22 The example she gave was a small restaurant space which went un- leased for a period of time. If that space were then converted to office space, there would have to be a variance given to the on -site parking requirement, as there would not have been any parking developed in the first place. Kathy recommended keeping the program as it stands, with the variance process intact. She stated she did not believe the format should be changed since it already accomplished the goals of the new provisions. Kristan thought that a more flexible variance procedure would be helpful. The procedure could be kept as the Task Force had recommended (that retail and restaurants were allowed to use the pay in lieu program, but condo and offices must provide parking on site), but that variances should be available. She thought that a mixed use are was more vibrant year round, and that if it were necessary for offices and condominiums to obtain standard variances, it would make development of the mixed use areas more difficult. Kathy wanted offices and condominiums to provide their own parking. She stated that parking is the issue, and if the Town did not require anyone to provide parking, then the Town ends up providing it all. Jim Shearer agreed with Kathy, but said he did not think the plan would encourage or discourage development. Diana indicated she was going under the presumption that there would be no fewer offices and condominiums in Lionshead as there were today, and that based on that, she did not want to see offices or condos included in the pay in lieu program. • Larry Eskwith joined the meeting to clarify the special review process proposed by staff, and reminded the Commissioners that if the current variance procedure were used, a physical hardship would have to be defined for a variance to be granted. 0 Kristan clarified to the PEC that the Lazier parking was in the program. Diana asked if a provision could be added to require that spaces always be available for parking for the uses creating the need for the parking, and not storage, etc. Tom Braun answered that, during staff's review of the zoning code, the issue had been identified as a problem to be addressed in the revision process. Diana wanted to know if the PEC should address it at this time, to which Kristan replied there were other concerns in the parking code as well, which would be brought to the PEC at a later time, but this issue was implied in the code. Kristan asked the PEC for their opinion on the Lodge. Kathy said she always thought the Lodge should be excluded since it can provide its own parking without any access difficulty. Kathy Langenwalter moved to recommend to Town Council that they amend Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 18.52.160 - Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, Section 18.24.180 - Commercial Core I Parking and Loading, Section 18.26.150 - Commercial Core 11 Parking and Loading, and Section 18.22.140 - Public Accommodation Parking and Loading based on the staff memo, but deleting the staff recommendation of new review criteria for offices and condominiums. A comment from the Planning and Environmental Commission to 23 the Town Council was that the Commissioners felt that their charge was to get as much parking provided in the private sector as possible. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6 -0. 4a. Proposed amendments to Section 18.22.140 Parking and Loading in the PA district Section 18.24.180 Parking and Loading in the CCI district and Section 18.26.150 Parking and Loading in the CCII district. Jim Shearer asked for clarification of what "structured" parking entailed. Kathy Langenwalter said the normal definition was covered and enclosed, with Kristan further clarifying it was to be located in a building. Jay Peterson said he had a problem with the Lodge being included in this provision. If they added 500 sq. ft., they would be required to add 1 1/2 covered parking spaces. This would present a practical difficulty. Kristan said that a variance could be applied for in those circumstances. Diana said that most of the time, the system works, and asked Jay to have faith in it. When Gena Whitten asked why structured spaces were called for, Kristan replied it was to help conceal them. Connie Knight moved that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend to Town Council the proposed amendments to Section 18.22.140, Parking and Loading in the PA is district; Section 18.24.180, Parking and Loading in the CCI district; and Section 18.26.150, Parking and Loading in the CCII district be approved per the staff memo. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. The recommendation was approved, 6 -0. 9. Approval of minutes from March 25, 1991 PEC meeting. Gena Whitten moved the minutes from the March 25, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting be approved, with the exception of the Lazier/Lifthouse Lodge portion, to be approved at the April 22, 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer seconded the motion, which passed 6 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15PM. • 24 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to repeal Town of Vail Municipal Code Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, commonly referred to as the 11250 Ordinance." Applicant: Town of Vail I. INTRODUCTION Dating back to its adoption in 1985, a certain amount of controversy has always surrounded the 11250 ordinance ". Recently, debate over the purpose and need for the ordinance resulted in it being made a high priority item of the zoning Code Revision Project. This memo provides a brief background on the 250 ordinance, an explanation of the two main issues with the ordinance, and recommendations on what to do with the ordinance. • The 250 ordinance has been discussed on numerous occasions during the past six months, and of all the issues that have been dis- cussed during the Code Revision Project, none can compare with the wide range of opinions that have been expressed about this ordinance. While discussions with the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council produced no definitive agreement on what specific changes should be made to the ordinance, agreement on the problems with the ordinance has been reached. The two main issues, or problems that have prompted the discussion of this ordinance are: A. The "Demo /Rebuild Provision" There is near unanimous agreement that the 1988 amendment permitting an additional 250 square feet of gross residen- tial floor area (GRFA), in demo /rebuild projects is inconsistent with the original intent of the ordinance. B. Variances in conjunction with 250 Proposals Many members of concern over va setbacks) being to develop GRFA property. 40 the Council and Commission have expressed riances to site development standards (i.e. granted in order to allow a property owner in excess of what is permitted on a 1 Eo4-h of +-hcsc issues arc discussed in much grcatcr detail in other sections of this memorandum. Based on discussions with these two boards, it became fairly clear that if these two issues were resolved, the 250 ordinance could be maintained (albeit in a modified form). The charge of the Task Force, staff and consultant was to develop amendment alternatives that would delete the demo /rebuild provision and prohibit site development variances in conjunction with 250 proposals. In January, the staff began working with the Zoning Code Task Force to try and resolve these two issues. The goal of this effort was to evaluate alternatives and reach consensus on an amendment responsive to the Council's and Planning Commission's direction. Ironically, the result of this effort is a recommendation from the Task Force to repeal, rather than modify this ordinance. This recommendation, which is supported by the staff, is based on inherent difficulties in resolving the two main issues with this ordinance. II. BACKGROUND ON THE 250 ORDINANCE . Throughout the early 1980's, an increasing number of GRFA variance requests were made for small additions to existing residences. While a very small number of these requests were approved, most were denied by the PEC or by the Council on appeal. The reason for denial was that approval of a variance requires that some physical hardship exist on the site - a physical hardship that creates practical difficulties in the development of the property. As stated in the code, "physical hardships may result from the size or shape of a lot; the location of existing structures thereon; from topographical or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations . ". It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a legitimate physical hardship as justification for developing GRFA over what is allowed by zoning. The majority of these GRFA 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 having to deal with these requests resulted in direction to the staff to develop a process that would allow for small additions to existing residences that exceeded allowable GRFA for the property. 0 2 Aftgp Jdngthy analysis and diseussion, 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 were: 1) Units in multi -- family buildings could add the square footage only by converting existing interior spaces; physical expansions or deck enclosures were not permitted in multi- family buildings. 2) A residence had to be at least five years old before qualifying for additional square footage, thus ensuring that the ordinance is used for additions to existing structures. 3) properties that obtained additional GRFA had to comply with minimum site and landscape standards - for example, the DRB could require additional landscaping as a condition of adding additional GRFA. 4) Additional GRFA permitted by the ordinance could be granted only once. The key element of this ordinance had nothing to do with "provid- ing an inducement for the upgrading of certain structures ". Instead, what the ordinance did was allow a property owner who has developed all allowable GRFA to develop additional GRFA without going through the variance process. As a result, the physical hardship criteria did not have to be satisfied in order to construct a small addition to a "maxed out" property. In the late 19801s, it became quite common to see the demolition of existing single family and duplex residences in order to construct a new residence. With very few exceptions, this trend has been limited to the Forest Road and Mill Creek Circle areas of town. 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 ordinance was amended to allow demo /rebuild projects to qualify for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. As a "trade -off" for allowing this additional square footage, the amended 250 ordinance requires that the reconstruction of any demolished building result in the total elimination any nonconforming site development standards. • 3 III. TWO MAIN ISSUES WITH THE 250 ORDINANCE A. Demo /Rebuild Provision The most commonly heard comment by the Council and the PEC over the past six months has been that the ordinance is no longer in keeping with its "original intent ". This raises the question of what was its "original intent ", and how can the ordinance be amended to reflect this intent? It is widely agreed that the original 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 home owners, particularly the local resident, an opportunity to make their homes a bit more livable. 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 1985 version of this ordinance was successful in allowing for these types of additions. Demo /rebuilds have probably become an issue because it is not the type of development people had in mind when the ordinance was originally adopted. Nonetheless, it was generally agreed that the 1988 "ultimate remodel amendment" bears no relationship to the original intent of the 250 ordinance. With the demo /rebuild provision, the 250 ordinance has become a tool for speculative development, adding significant value to the redevelopment potential of property in Vail. Another inconsistency with the 1988 amendment is that the stated "trade -off" of non - conforming buildings being eliminated for an additional 250 square feet is irrelevant. Town regulations already require that nonconforming site development standards be eliminated in demo /rebuild situations. The Task Force's goal was to amend the 250 ordinance by deleting the demo /rebuild provision. However, simply deleting this provision is not as easy an undertaking as it first appeared because it is directly related to the stated purpose of the ordinance and fundamental legal considerations. The justification for amending the 250 Ordinance in 1988 to allow additional square footage in demo /rebuild projects was the "ultimate remodel" - if the original purpose of the ordinance was to "provide an inducement for upgrading property ", is it not appropriate that the ordinance be used as an inducement for the'total reconstruction of new homes? 4 in rasponso to this rationale, thn Task Force diseussed removing any reference to the "upgrading of property" from the purpose section of the ordinance. The theory being that if "upgrading property" is not a purpose of the ordinance, the rationale for the 1988 amendment is no longer valid. For example, one draft proposal considered by the Task Force stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to "provide an alternative to the variance process ". However, modifying the purpose statement of the ordinance is nothing more than playing with semantics, and it does nothing to change the realities of the situation. The reality is that ultimately, there is no clear objective that can be made between square footage added by an addition to an existing structure and square footage added by a demo /rebuild scenario. 250 square feet is 250 square feet - regardless of how it is developed. Further, whether the additional square footage is an "upgrade" or not is a subjective judgement. Another alternative was to forget about modifying the purpose statement of the ordinance, and simply state that the additional square footage is available for additions to existing residences only. However, this would conflict with a fundamental precept of zoning -- that there must be sound rationale for treating similarly situated properties differently. The impact�of 250 square feet of GRFA is the same from an addition as it is from a demo /rebuild. There are no valid reasons to distinguish between these two types of development. The only real distinction between an addition and a demo /rebuild is that square footage added by an addition is "in keeping with the original intent of this ordinance ". However, from a practical standpoint, from a planning and zoning standpoint, and more importantly from a legal standpoint, this is not a sound basis for deleting the demo /rebuild provision. B. Variance Requests in Conjunction with 250 Proposals The issue of variances in conjunction with 250 requests dates back to some of the original debates over the merits of this ordinance. There was considerable discussion of the potential impact resulting from an additional 250 square feet of GRFA on every single family and duplex lot in Town. It was assumed that if this square footage could be added without the need of a site development variance (setback, height, site coverage, etc.), that the bulk added to the site was probably acceptable. Likewise, there was concern that if a variance was needed to develop the additional 250 square feet, it was an indication that the site may not be • 5 capable of accdmmedating the additional square footage. . However, again from a legal standpoint, it is not advisable to deny someone the right to ask for a site development variance. The issue of variances in conjunction with 250 requests is the same now as it was in 1985 - if a property needs a variance to accommodate additional GRFA, it is probably an indication that the site may not be able to handle the square footage. To work around the legal issue of prohibiting variance requests, a draft proposal submitted to the Task Force stated that if a project required a variance, then the application for the additional square footage was denied. The basis for this approach was that everyone has a right to request a variance, but not everyone has the right to the additional square.footage. This was potentially a clever way to skirt around the issue of denying someone the right to request a variance. However, as with the demo /rebuild issue, semantics are simply not the right way to try and resolve this situation. It is simply unreasonable discrimination to deny someone the opportunity to request a variance. While the logic for prohibiting variance requests in conjunction with 250 proposals is sound, there is a clear legal basis for why this amendment alternative is not appropriate. A property owner should always be able to have the right to request a variance. IV. ALTERNATIVES FOR AMENDING THE 250 ORDINANCE There are basically two alternatives for dealing with the 250 ordinance, given the concernsraised by the PEC and Council: A. Leave the Existing Ordinance in Place From a fundamental standpoint, the 250 ordinance does what it is supposed to do - allow "maxed out" property additional square footage. However, if the ordinance is left in place, one would have to accept the fact that additional GRFA would be permitted in demo /rebuild projects and that site development variance requests could be made in conjunction with 250 proposals. B. Abolish the Ordinance This can be accomplished very quickly, however, a great deal of opposition from the public, particularly the development community, can be expected. This ordinance has been in place for five years and property owners have grown accustomed to the square footage that is available through this ordinance. 0 6 0 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the 250 ordinance be repealed for multi- family, duplex and single family development. This recommendation is supported by the Task Force and consultant, and is based on practical difficulties inherent in implementing the two major amendments that have been identified by the Council and PEC. In addition, the following points provide further basis for the staff support of this recommendation: A. The ordinance has no direct relationship to any public purpose or community development objectives. The square footage afforded by this ordinance does permit larger homes, but bigger does not necessarily equate to higher quality. B. Even if one accepts the notion that a demo /rebuild property provides a community benefit, there is no evidence to suggest that the additional square footage permitted by this ordinance is responsible for such development. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the property that was redeveloped in the past five years would have been redeveloped or remodeled regardless of the 250 ordinance. C. The ordinance contradicts the purpose of bulk and mass . controls (GRFA). If single family and duplex lots can in fact accommodate'an additional 250 square feet of GRFA, and if the Town is intent on allowing this square footage, then 250 square feet of GRFA should perhaps be added to the density section of the Single Family, Primary/ Secondary, Two - Family and Hillside Residential zone districts. D. While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty that their are no similar ordinances in existence, no comparable ordinances could be found. In fact, when asked if they were familiar with other type of ordinances, the reaction of the research librarians at the American Planning Association was one of bewilderment. Their question was why have square footage control if additional square footage is going to be permitted'through the 250 ordinance? The staff believes a modified':250 ordinance is appropriate if used for the development of restricted employee housing units. one of the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Study is to permit caretaker units in single family and duplex zone districts. Additional GRFA should be offered as an incentive to develop these caretaker units. In this case, justification for additional square footage would be based on the public benefit provided by the affordable housing units. • 7 The affordable housing alternative is not addressed in this amendment. It is recommended,that the existing 250 ordinance be repealed at this time and dis6ussion of a new ordinance permitting additional square Footage for affordable housing be initiated in the near future. c: \Pec \tov \250ord.408 • is 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to consider a density variance and conditional use permit in order to allow construction of additions to existing structures and the construction of employee housing on the Days Inn property, 2211 N. Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn I. BACKGROUND The 4.4 acre Days Inn property'is located within the Commercial Core III zone district. There are currently two structures located on this site. The two most easily identified businesses, . located within the easternmost structure, are the 7- Eleven store and the FirstBank of West Vail. The westernmost building houses a furniture store, CJ Capers restaurant, an optometrist and the Days Inn hotel. Under this redevelopment plan, the applicant proposes to construct additions to bothiof these buildings, and to construct a new free standing building for employee housing along Chamonix, at the northwest corner of this site. However, the applicant will require approval of a conditional use permit and a density variance in order to construct the employee housing. Multi - family dwelling units for employees of the Upper Eagle Valley are a permitted use in the Commercial Core III zone district, subject to the issuance of,a conditional use permit. The density variance is necessary to`allow the construction of the employee housing. Under the zone district, 57,354 sq. ft. of GRFA is allowed to be constructed on the site. There are currently 45,328 sq. ft. of GRFA on the site. Through the construction of the employee housing; the site will exceed allowable GRFA by 13,772 sq. ft. The zone district permits a density of 12 units per acre. Through the construction of the 40 new employee housing units, the density there would be 22.2 units per acre. II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposed additions to, and'remodel of, the Days Inn site consists of the following three main parts: 1 0 1. 06nstruction of a new, free standing employee housing building. 2. Additions to and remodeling,of the shoppette building west of the Days Inn hotel building. 3. Additions to and remodeling of the Days Inn hotel building. The proposed 40 unit employee housing building would be located at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Chamonix Road. 32 of the proposed 40 units would be 300 sq. ft. studio apartments. The 8 remaining units would be 600 sq. ft. one - bedroom apartments. The proposed structure would also include an entry vestibule with mail facility, a manager's office, screened trash storage, a common laundry room, and a storage unit for the tenants. The applicant proposes�to rent these units for a period of 30 consecutive days or greater, and units will be rented to individuals who are full -time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley includes the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full -time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week. The applicant proposes to set rent based on the free market demand for the units. The modifications proposed to the westernmost building, which currently contains a 7- Eleven store, consists of the construction . of a two floor addition at the east end of the building. The first floor of this addition would be leased to the FirstBank of West Vail, and the second floor will be 'speculative office space. The remodeling aspect of this building will consist of adding a new sloped roof to solve current ice,and water penetration problems, the enclosure of an existing walkway, and an application of a new exterior finish +material which better relates to the Days Inn building. 7- Eleven will remain the tenant on the first floor, and'an interior design group and a radio station will remain tenants on'the second floor. An optician and framing shop, currently located in the Days Inn building, will be relocated to this building. There are a number of additions proposed for the Days Inn building. These additions include the construction of a new, on- grade entry at the west end of the existing furniture store, and the enclosure of the existing CJ Capers deck. Interior modifications include the remodeling of the existing hotel conference room from a lecture /theater to a more flexible conference facility, and the addition of restrooms for the conference facility. The main 'lobby'of the hotel will also be remodeled. New second floor office space will be constructed over the main entry at the east end of the building. This second floor office addition will create a porte cochere type entry for the first level. The hotel offices will be moved to the second floor office space, and the vacated first floor hotel offices • will Mcem6 A small retail spacn. Additionally, there will be speculative office space for lease on the second floor. On the first floor, to the north of the east entry, the existing ski locker space will be expanded.,' An existing hotel conference room will become a new laundry facility for the hotel. The hotel rooms and hallways will be cosmetically remodeled with new furnishings and finishes. The applicant has also indicated that, under the proposed hotel remodeling project, he will investigate the conversion of 20 existing woodburning fireplaces into gas log fireplaces. A new exterior finish system will be added to the south, east and west facades of the existing hotel building to integrate the hotel building with the shoppette and employee housing building. Some work,:such as a new guttering system and /or a new cold roof will be investigated as a part of this redevelopment proposal in order to solve current ice build -up problems on the hotel roof. The existing outdoor pool will be removed and replaced with a screened garden for use by the conference room and the hotel spa area. A screened trash dumpster and °loading area will also be created. The existing hotel spa area will be cosmetically remodeled. The limits of the existing :parking surface will be maintained. However, landscaped islands will be added to break up the existing continuous asphalt surface. Additional landscaping will be added throughout the project area, with particular emphasis on landscaping along the south side of the parking area. This landscaping will buffer the existing parking from the Frontage Road and I -70. In order to accomplish landscaping in this area, the applicant will have to obtain Colorado Department of Highway permission. In addition to this landscaping along the south side of the'existing parking area, landscaping will be added along Chamonix Road and Chamonix Lane to screen the site from properties on the north and west. The applicant has indicated 277 parking spaces are required for this project. The applicant has provided 264 parking spaces on- site. Of these 264 spaces, 63 are valet. The total number of required parking spaces could be accommodated on -site if the proposed parking lot landscaping is reduced to 6.90. Code requires 100 of the area'of a''parking lot be landscaped. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: B. Site Area: 4.444 C. Buildable Area: i Commercial'Core III (CCIII) i acres or 193,580 sq. ft. 4.389 acres or 191,180 sq. ft. • D. Banaity! (12 d.u.s allowed per Allowed: 53 d.u.!s Existing: 17 d.u.s a: Existing Over Allowable: Proposed: 57 d.u.s and 83 Difference from existing: acre, 1 d.0 = 2 a.u.) 106 a.u.s ad 83 a.u.s = 58.5 d.u.s 5.5 d.u.s a.u.s = 98.5 d.u.s 40 additional d.u.s Total amount over allowed after remodel: 45.5 d.u.s E. Common Area: (20% of allowable GRFA) Allowed: 11,471 sq. ft.. Existing: 25,348 sq. ft. or 44% of allowable GRFA Proposed: 24,373 sq. ft. or 420 of allowable GRFA Amount Over Allowed: 12,902 sq. ft. (This amount over allowable has been added into GRFA) F. GRFA: (30 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area.) Allowed: 57,354 sq. ft. Existing: 45,328 sq. ft. Existing Under Allowable: 11,996 sq. ft. Proposed: 58,224 sq. fit. Amount Over: 870 sq. ft. Common Area Over:' 12.902 scr. ft. Total Amt. Over,: : 13,772 :sq. ft G. Commercial Area: (10% of GRFA).: Allowed: No Limit Existing: 22,178 sq. ft. Proposed: 23,714 sq. ft. H. Setbacks: V Required: 20 ft. on all exterior boundaries of the zone - district. No buildings now, or under this proposal will, encroach into the required setbacks. ' 4 �i 0 . . 5 i i Z. Sita eevarager (40t of- site area) Allowed: 77,432 sq. ft.. Existing: 44,242 sq. ft. (23 %) Proposed: 49,950 sq. ft.. (26 %) Remaining: 27,452sq.ft. IV. COMPARISON OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOPPETTE BUILDING (Westernmost Building) E Existing Proposed Commercial Area 1st Floor: 4,869 sq. ft. 6,796 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 4,361 s . ft. 49364 sq. ft. Total: 9,230 sq. ft. 13,160 sq, ft. Increase: 3,9301sq. ft. Common Area: 544 sq. ft. 503 sq. ft. DAYS INN BUILDING Existing Proposed Commercial Area 1st Floor: 8,495 sq. ft. 5,550 sq. ft 2nd Floor 4,453 sq. ft. 5,004 sq. ft_. Total: 12,948 sq. ft. 10,554 sq. ft. Reduction: 2,394 sq. ft. Existing Proposed Common Area: 1st Floor: 15,528 sq. ft. 9,646 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 3,092 sq. ft. 4,120 sq. ft. 3rd Floor: 3,092 sq. ft. 3,092 sq. ft. 4th Floor: 3,092 s . ft. 3,092 sq. ft. Total: 24,804 sq. ft. 19,950 sq. ft. Reduction: 4,854 sq. ft.' Existing Proposed Airlock Area: 1st Floor: 363 sq. ft. 325 sq. ft. Decrease: 37 sq. ft. 0 . . 5 LJ • 0 EMPLOYEE HOUSING BUILDING Existing Probdsgd Mechanical Area: GRFA Area: 1,070 1st Floor: 2,864 sq. ft. 1,568 sq. ft. Reduction: 1,296 sq. ft. 16 DUs Existing Proposed GRFA Area: 2nd Floor 16 2nd Floor 38 AUs at 12,333 s.f. No Change 3rd Floor 39 AUs at 12,657s.f. No Change 4th Floor 17 DUs at:18,447 s.f. No Change s.f. 6 AUs at 1 891 s.f. No Chancre DUs 83 AUs at 26,881 s.f. 12,896 s.f. 17 DUs at 18,447 s.f. Total: 45,328 s.f. No Change EMPLOYEE HOUSING BUILDING Common Area: Basement Existing ft. GRFA Area: 1,070 t ft. 2nd Floor 837 1st Floor 16 DUs at 4,'256 s. f. 2nd Floor 16 DUs at 4,256 s.f. 3rd Floor 8 DUs at 4,384 s.f. Total: 40 DUs at 12,896 s.f. Common Area: Basement 1,176'sq. ft. 1st Floor 1,070 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 837 sq. ft. 3rd Floor _ 837 sq. ft. Total: 3,920 sq. ft. NOTE: ALL NUMBERS ARE PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE FINALIZED V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Design of Employee Housing'Building. In order to break up the boxy appearance-of the ,proposed structure, would an L- shaped building' appropriate? 2. Is a transportation study warranted to show the impacts of the proposed employee housing and the proposed drive through bank facility on existing traffic patterns in the area? 3. Is an additional curb cut along Chamonix Road to alleviate traffic on the North Frontage Road desirable? 4. Relocation or screening of existing satellite dish. ■ 5. Pedestrian connection to the bus stop. 6. Materials to be used in constructing the employee housing building. 7. Adequacy of storage facilities for tenants of the employee housing facility. 8. Method to be used in processing redevelopment proposal. Is it appropriate to proceed.with creating an special Development District, or pursue variance? 9. Site screening. 10. Adequacy of site landscaping may be an issue. 11. Adequacy of site parking may be an issue. 12. A drainage study is needed. `�,/// IL J 0 • • OI w w r� ' V O x w w O° w' � � "tip+- R aad�3 t. ° k � ��`, l �: �u.L...w< r E! rw'■�( lu 0 0 • 0 • EMPLOYEE HOUSING BASEMENT PLAN 1/811 =y 1^011 p O p� N IM,I C Y W w � _ 1� u zz CIA wo Ow� wj;w O 4 fd. W w ' U O , i U a a N Q N . N J � °- o sa � . m o o A H i d ca G� D . � O i � a N . O p , p O p� N IM,I C Y W w � _ 1� u zz CIA wo Ow� wj;w O 4 fd. W w ' U O , i U a� r rl i • a W, 0 'M c a 0 a° a ,C O� v b0 I z 0 Jo �j :m O .s' ? � � �,`%1.' ice, •Fr.- ,4 J . ill o. o w Z boo r� xA wz W� A ozo a ZW o w�� �✓' ryCL 1�1 x-40 O 44 z 0 Jo �j :m O .s' ? � � �,`%1.' ice, •Fr.- ,4 J . ill o. o w Z boo r� xA wz W� A ozo a ZW o w�� • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a paving variance from Section 18.52.080(E) in order to construct an additional dwelling unit on Lot 3r Block 7, Vail Village First Filing /97 Rockledge °Road. Applicant: Clint Josey I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.52.080(E) -- Parking Standards -:Surfacing. This section requires that all off - street parking be paved. Under Section 18.64.050(D), if a property is requesting additional development, and there are deficiencies in the existing site development, the DRB and staff shall require request that all development standards be met. Currently, Lots 2 and 3 use this driveway as access from Rockledge Road. The applicant has requested approval of additional GRFA and a second dwelling unit for Lot 3 and will therefore be required to pave the driveway to Lots 2 and 3. A variance from this requirement is necessary because a portion of the driveway is on Forest Service property, and at this time the U.S.F.S. will not allow the applicant to pave the drive at this time. The applicant has agreed to post a letter of credit for such improvements and would proceed with paving the drive if and when approval from the Forest Service is received. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The proposed driveway meets standards in terms of width proposed at a maximum grade to be heated. 1 all zoning and development and slope. The drive is of Wand will not be required 0 III. CRITERIA AND PTNDINCP Upon review of Criteria and Findings, the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Department recommends approval of the based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Section 18.62.060 of Development requested variance 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff finds that the request to not immediately pave the driveway will not have an impact on any adjacent properties. If the U.S.F.S. denies the applicant approval to pave, the driveway would remain gravel. The visibility of the drive is such that the negative impact would only be on the owners of Lots 2 and 3. The driveway grade meets the required 8% grade, and is not required to be heated. The staff finds that, with the addition of a secondary unit to Lot 3, it is necessary to require the paving of the driveway. However, due to the pending Forest Service action, the applicant is unable -to commit to paving. The drive will be paved should the Forest Service approve the • request. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vieinity�or`to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff finds that the granting:of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. At the time that the driveway and Rockledge Road were constructed, the exact boundary of the National Forest was unknown. At this time, the exact location of the Forest Service boundary is being reviewed and verified. Rockledge Road and other driveways which encroach on Forest Service land have been paved without permission from the Forest Service. It has been only recently that the Forest Service has taken action on such requests. 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. j -E i i Ptaff finds that tho request will not have any innants on the above criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of:special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in—the same district. 2. 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:, a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in`practical` difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objective of this' s title. b. 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. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant!of' privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval'of the request. We find that the inability of the applicant to pave the existing driveway at this time, because it is,on Forest'Service land, to be a physical hardship and should not be considered a grant of special privilege. If the drive could be relocated onto the applicant's property, staff and DRB would require that the drive be paved at the time of development. However, since relocation is not possible, we find that the existing location and the requirement to pave in the zoning code to create a hardship. ; The applicant is willing to post a letter of credit faY th6 paving of the driveway. Should the applicant's request to the Forest Service to pave the driveway be denied, the letter of credit would be returned to the applicant and the driveway would remain unpaved. We acknowledge that the driveway may never be paved. However, we recognize that the owner is committed to paving the driveway if approval is received from the U.S.F.S. c: \pec \memos \Josey.408 • • N s. Gds I4 e� 0 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 18.52.160 - Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, Section 18.24.180 - Commercial Core I Parking and Loading, Section 18..26.150 - Commercial Core II Parking and Loading, and Section 18.22.140 - Public Accommodation Parking and Loading. Applicant: Town of Vail I. INTRODUCTION A. Background to the Amendment The pay in lieu parking program, in its present form, has been in place for approximately ten years. simply stated, the program requires payment into the parking fund to meet the parking requirements of new development "in lieu of" providing parking on -site. The existing program applies to areas of the Village and Lionshead, and is implemented the same way in both locations. The initiative for amending the pay in lieu program came from a situation that arose in Lionshead. As written, the program allowed a property owner (of property located a considerable distance from the pedestrianized area of the Mall) to pay into the parking program in order to remove existing structured parking spaces. The use of the program for this purpose was considered inconsistent with how the program was intended to be used. Evaluation of the program led to a number of other amendments designed to improve the manner in which the program is implemented. These amendments were reviewed by the PEC and Council last fall. However, prior to final approval of these amendments at the Council level, the staff requested that the ordinance be tabled to allow for more study of some of the proposed amendments which had been added to the ordinance during the PEC and Council review processes. * For information on an analysis of the number of parking spaces which may be ultimately satisfied by payment in • 1 F, - "I ­ lieu, please see the attached memo from Tom Braun dated January 30, 1991. B. Purpose of the Amendments The Zoning Code Task Force has spent a considerable amount of time discussing various amendment alternatives for the parking program. The following points reflect the fundamental objectives of this amendment process: 1) Lionshead and Vail Village are two distinct areas. The provisions of the parking program should be responsive to the differences between these two areas. 2) The ability of a property to utilize the parking program should be consistent with development objectives of the Town, as articulated in documents such as the Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, Urban Design Plans, the Streetscape Plan, etc. 3) The program should provide a mechanism for encouraging the development of specific uses that are most consistent with community goals. 4) The use of the program should provide community -wide benefits such as the reduction of vehicular traffic in pedestrianized areas. 5) Property w4th vehicular access that does not impact pedestrian areas, or property that otherwise has the potential to provide parking on- -site, should not be eligible for the parking program. Given these broad objectives, the Task Force has agreed on a number of changes to the program. These changes, along with hypothetical development scenarios designed to illustrate how the program would be implemented, are presented below. Except for one provision of the Task Force recommendation, the staff is in agreement with the amendments proposed in this memo. While generally supportive of this proposal, the staff has outlined one additional provision in the staff recommendation of this memo that it would like to see included in the amendment proposal passed along to the Town Council. C. Summary of the Current Program In order to evaluate proposed changes to the program, it is important to understand how the existing program works. The following summarizes the major points of the parking program. • 2 2) Provisions of the program are identical for the Village and Lionshead. 2) Boundaries of the program are defined by the CCI and CCII zone districts. 3) The program requires that for any addition, redevelopment or change of use that requires additional parking, said parking shall be provided by payment into the parking fund in lieu of providing parking on -site. 4) The program can be used to compensate for the removal of existing on -site surface or structured parking spaces. Most of the changes proposed to the program center around these major provisions. II. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PARKING PROGRAM A. Vail village 1) Change of Boundaries An overlay map (see attachment) , rather than the CCI zone district, is used to designate properties in the parking program. A number of significant changes are proposed to the boundary of the parking program area. The Lodge properties are deleted from the program. This change is recommended because vehicular access to the site does not impact the pedestrian area of the Village, and the site has some potential for increasing parking on -site. Notwithstanding the Vail Village Master Plan's recommendation for infill development on the Eaton Plaza side of the Lodge property, the staff and Task Force generally felt that the site has the potential to satisfy parking requirements through means other than the parking program. The Sonnenalp- Austria Haus has been incorporated into the parking program. This property was added because of the potential to improve pedestrian ization along Meadow Drive, as indicated in the Streetscape Plan. 2) CCI /Village Core (Area A on Overlay Ma There are essentially no changes to properties in the Village Core - new parking demand is required to pay in lieu and the program can be used to compensate for the removal of any existing on -site structured or surface parking space. . 3 t 9) Meadow Drive Area Area B on Overlay Ma The Sonnenalp- Austria Haus and Village Center are proposed to be included in the parking program, but will operate under a slightly different set of rules than the Village core. This distinction is made because, at the present time, Meadow Drive does not have the same "degree of pedestrianization ", or control over vehicular access, as the Village core. For these two parcels, the program may be used for new parking demand for accommodation units, retail stores, personal services, repair shops, eating and drinking establishments, theatres and meeting rooms, and quick service food /convenience stores. Parking demand from all other uses (i.e., condominium or office uses) must be provided on- -site. Utilization of the program is not mandatory because vehicular access to these sites does not have the same degree of impact on the pedestrian system as it does in the Village core. Further, the program can be used to compensate for the removal of existing surface parking spaces only. Currently, the Sonnenalp- Austria Haus is not in the pay in lieu program. ; This amendment would allow the Sonnenalp - Austria Haus to utilize the pay in lieu program to meet parking demand generated by the retail, restaurant and lodge development. On site parking for office and condominium development would be required. At the present time, the Village Center property is zoned CCII and is eligible to use the parking program for any parking demand created by new development, regardless of whether it is retail, lodge, office or condo expansion. Amendments described above would limit the utilization of the program from what is presently available. The two changes are that the! program could not be used to remove existing structured !Spaces, and the program could not be used for parking demand from condominium or office uses. The justification, or rationale for the distinction between these two properties and the Village core is found in the five general objectives of this amendment process as outlined above. In the Village core, the need to minimize vehicular impacts on the pedestrian areas require that the program be available for all uses. Along East Meadow Drive, there is less potential for impacting the pedestrian areas -- the program is made available as an incentive for those uses deemed most desirable, or consistent with the Town's development objectives for these two properties. 4 The Task Forco emphasi2od that if conditions along Moadow Drive change, i.e. a new "check point charlie" is constructed to control vehicular access, these properties could be given the same opportunities as in the Village core. B. Vail village Development Scenarios The following are hypothetical development scenarios to demonstrate how the parking program would be implemented in the Village area. 1) Mill Creek Court Building constructs a retail /office inf ill along Mill Creek - all parking demand is satisfied by payment into the program. 2) The Gasthof Gramshammer or the Sitzmark want to remove existing on -site spaces - the pay in lieu program can be used to compensate for these spaces. 3) The Sonnenalp- Austria Haus proposes to remove existing surface spaces and construct a retail addition -- both the loss of, parking andthe new requirement could be met by payment into the fund. 4) The Village Center proposes an office expansion -- parking would have to be provided on -site, the program could not be utilized to satisfy new parking demand from office expansion. 5) The Lodge at Vail constructs the International Wing, all new required parking would have to be provided on- site. C. Lionshead �) Change of Boundaries An overlay map (see attachment) , rather than the CCII zone district is used to designate properties in the parking program. Properties that do not have frontage on the Lionshead Mall would be eliminated from the program. Properties Proposed to___Stay In Program Lionshead Center Gondola Building /Sunbird Montaneros Concert Hall Plaza Landmark Lifthouse Lodge • 5 Properties Proposed to be Removed from Program Antlers L'Ostello (formerly called Enzian Lodge) Lionsquare Lodge and Lion's Square North Vail Glo Vail 21 /Li6nspride Vantage Point Lionshead Arcade Westwinds Lazier Parking Structure Treetops Enzian Condominiums 2) Removal of Existing Spaces Under no circumstances can the program be utilized to compensate for the removal of existing required on -site structured or surface parking spaces. Payment to remove existing spaces is not permitted because access to these parking structures does not impact the pedestrianized area of the Mall. Further, the removal of existing surface spaces is not permitted because these lots are generally not located in areas that are visually offensive from the Mall area. In both cases, there is no public benefit from °allowing the parking program to be used for removing existing surface or structured spaces. 3) Use Restrictions As with Area B in the Village, the program maY be used for any new parking demand generated from accommodation units, retail stores, personal services, repair shops, eating and drinking establishments, theatres and meeting rooms, and quick service food /convenience stores. New parking demand from all other uses (i.e., condominium or office uses) shall be provided on -site. The use of the program is not mandatory because parking structures in Lionshead generally have vehicular access that does not impact the Mall. As with the East Meadow Drive area, the program is designed to provide an incentive for retail, restaurant and lodging uses. D. Lionshead Development Scenarios The following are hypothetical development scenarios to demonstrate how the parking program would be implemented in Lionshead. 1) The Lifthouse Lodge constructs a retail expansion along the Mall - parking may be satisfied by payment into the parking fund if the developer desires to do so or may be provided on site. 2) The Landmark Building proposes 300 square feet of office expansion - parking would have to be provided on -site, the pay in lieu program could not be utilized. • 6 1) A retail and condo expansion at the Lionshead Cantor is constructed - retail parking demand could be satisfied by payment in lieu, any new condo parking demand would have to be satisfied with on -site parking. 4) The Gondola Building /Sunbird Lodge is demolished and replaced with a retail /office /condo complex. After factoring out any existing nonconforming parking situations, and the current building's parking demand, any new incremental increase in retail parking demand would be satisfied by payment in lieu, incremental increases in office uses would have to be provided on site, and any new parking required for condominium development would have to be provided on site. The process for requesting to be included in the pay in lieu program remains intact for any property owner to utilize, even with the amendments. This process is found in Section 18.52.150(A). III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is in basic agreement with this amendment proposal. Proposed amendments address the objectives stated at the beginning of this memo. However, the staff does not support the distinction made between office /condo uses and other uses. While it is recognized that the program is designed in part to encourage retail, restaurant and lodge uses, the provision requiring on -site parking for condo and office uses is a "black and white" solution for a "very gray issue ". As proposed, the program may put undue constraints on small office or condo expansions. For example, the impact on public parking from a small office expansion would be negligible, yet even an expansion requiring one additional space could not happen unless the site could physically add more parking. Even a potentially large redevelopment like the Gondola Building could be affected. Depending upon the design of this redevelopment, it may or may not be feasible to actually construct parking on -site. As proposed, this amendment may directly affect the feasibility of this redevelopment from ever occurring because parking for office and condo development would have to be provided on -site. The staff has two fundamental concerns with this provision. The first has to do with the examples cited above - requiring parking for office or condo uses could affect the feasibility of redevelopment in Lionshead. This is contrary to the Town's long standing goal of seeing redevelopment in this area. The second reason has to do with the mixed use nature of this area. From the perspective of tourism, retail and restaurant uses are very critical to the success of Lionshead. However, offices, and to a lesser degree condominiums, contribute to the mixed use character 0 . 7 of the area. People living and working in Lionshead add to the vitality of the area. Office uses play a particularly important role in the Lionshead economy during the shoulder seasons. For these reasons, it may be appropriate to use the parking program as an incentive for condo and office uses -- just as it is proposed to be used for lodging, retail and restaurant uses. The staff proposes a compromise to limits placed on condo and office uses that would establish a process for a property owner to request an exemption from these restrictions to utilize the program for office or condominium development. This compromise is proposed because certain office or condo developments should have the opportunity to use the program - either because they are so small that the impact on public parking is negligible, or because they are so significant that the benefits of the overall development outweigh any impact on public parking facilities. This judgement can best be made on a case by case basis. The following criteria could be used to evaluate the merits of the proposal: 1) The parking demand of the proposed development will not place an undue burden on public parking facilities. 2) The proposed development is consistent with the community's development objectives and planning documents. 3) Physical conditions, on the site or design constraints provide undue hardship for constructing parking on- -site. 4) 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. 5) Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This process would apply to properties in Lionshead or the Village Center and Sonnenalp- Austria Haus. It would allow applicants to request the right to pay in lieu. This right could be granted if circumstances surrounding the development warrant approval. The review process would be handled by the PEC. As with any PEC action, the Town Council would have the opportunity to review all PEC decisions. • 8 . With the incorporation of this prewigion, the staff supports amendments to the pay in lieu parking program as proposed in this memo. The staff and Task Force recognize that as times and conditions change, there may be a need to implement additional amendments to the parking program in the future. Like any zoning provision, the parking program should not be a static document, but rather one that responds to the conditions in the Village and Lionshead. c: \pec \tov \payinleu.4Q8 • 9 u • • :t i.A JI- � It a m w cis m 4) L. a a Q. C13 �a 00 cn E °' L M Im OO Z d. m V C cis . O li C C13a =� > d •— >Q CL f V 0 T` Q G CE W tQ� TW Z. 11� il� 1 m .. among* f u jti — \�J ry�`i� ♦lf♦'♦ +1+ Iii L' -�1 Q CL a O e a A m' a a h C O J m Z 1, +♦ 1 /1 _ t r 0 Obi logo CV) 0 0 Smin CO r Cc 1i f, ' '~mil •� 5 i `f ♦ ,Ir i'f/ j� �� - ' i '� +." J .� 1 1\ , � AD CL O ti m .... x y CL Oman MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Code Task Force Kristan Pritz FROM: Tom Braun DATE: January 30, 1991 SUBJECT: Pay in Lieu Parking Program :} }:iY?•::::r m- .•.v,:n rr; }: r }:!•:S^pgC.;. r.} }y ;•i•::::{•:;w. of ?Y.;:f{f` :;:; fq;+' •:. : ?.a:'?f•;':•iwN.•.••vi�:;i;:?r .F.. •. r::.r }a•. �?fr .,f • : t v• •v'. r,a;.:.sx• } } :2.w: ?::..rr..r. ::rrr :•,c'fr.:•:�f::rff: :f %•.•:`.•:.t:;: f } } }:•:.•..vn:...:L�:iti :S:w ..:rfff:� ��, . This memo is written in an effort to step back from the many alternatives offered for resolution of the parking pay in lieu program. We encourage the Task Force to consider the track record of the pay in lieu program, parking demand generated by possible future development, and all the comments from the public and boards in finalizing a recommended amendment. The accompanying spreadsheet is a build -out analysis for the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. It was done for the purpose of estimating the number of parking spaces that may ultimately be satisfied by payment "in lieu" of providing on -site parking.. Due to the large amount of data gathered for the Vail Village Plan, the statistical analysis for the Village is far more detailed than the Lionshead analysis. However, the unlimited retail development potential in CCI and CCII and the urban design plan review process essentially renders this a qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative assessment. While residential development can be quantified, retail development potential in these two areas is estimated by assessing the feasibility of a site satisfying urban design criteria. The impact of future development on the parking program essentially comes down to two large projects - the Lodge International Wing in the Village and the often discussed redevelopment of the Gondola Building /Sunbird Lodge complex in Lionshead. The following is a summary of these two projects and the overall redevelopment potential in these two areas. V IL VI GE This assessment includes all property in the Commercial Core I zone district and the Sonnenalp /Austrian Haus and Village Center. This study area represents all parcels under consideration for inclusion in the parking program. with the exception of the International Wing, the Village area is . basically built -out. Not counting the 36 accommodation units in the Lodge expansion, there are 27 additional dwelling units that could be built in the Village core. These 27 units are spread out among eleven different properties and the likelihood that all of them will be built is quiet low. For example, the Red Lion has the potential for 5 more D.U.'s, but deed restrictions on the property will probably prevent their construction. The potential for large commercial expansions is also unlikely. Twenty of the twenty -five properties surveyed are rated as having a low potential for commercial expansion. This determination is based on the likelihood of a site adding a significant amount of square footage ( >300 sq. ft.) in a way that would complying with urban design criteria. A low potential designation does not, however, preclude the possibility of a property receiving approval for small additions. However, even for small additions of less than 300 square feet, there are not many properties that would be able to satisfy urban design criteria. Two prominent exceptions to this are the Mill Creek Court Building (1,500 sq.ft.) and the Lodge (3,600 sq. ft.). These estimates are based on infill development identified in the Vail Village Master Plan. if all potential development were to be constructed, a total of • 96 parking spaces would be satisfied by payment into the parking program. Assuming only 50% of the potential dwelling units are constructed, this figure would drop to 69 additional spaces. • This estimate represents a 5% increase in the total number of parking spaces required to meet the overall parking requirement for all private development in the Village (based on total square footage of retail, restaurant, office and commercial uses, and dwelling and accommodation units, source: Vail Village Master Plan). LJONSHEAD The development potential for Lionshead was assessed for the ten parcels that front on the Lionshead Mall. These are the same parcels that are proposed to be included in the revised parking program in Lionshead. Unfortunately, data available for Lionshead is not as extensive as data for Vail Village. Based on the Town's Development Statistics, the ten parcels have residential development LionsPride Building, the Concert Hall Plaza Building. The remaining seven parcels have allowable residential density. rx 1990, only three of potential - the and the Gondola met or exceeded :1 f The size of the LionsPride site makes the potential for i residential development quite low. There is also some question of whether this is a legally subdivided parcel for zoning purposes. The Concert Hall Plaza proposed a residential addition in 1984, but withdrew the application because of neighborhood opposition. The Gondola Building is an unknown quantity. Because of the size of the building, it.is unlikely that a significant number of units could be added to the building. However, the conversion of existing space (i.e. the gondola terminal. or V.A. offices), or a demo /rebuild could result in a significant number of units. The redevelopment of the Gondola Building is a very complex situation. Not only is it difficult to speculate on the redevelopment potential for a space like the gondola terminal, the existing parking situation is also a bit dicey. Existing on -site parking at the Gondola Building is a fraction of what is actually required by the development on the site. This may possibly be considered a legal non - conforming situation. As such, if the building were demolished and rebuilt, the new parking demand would be based on the parking requirement of the new development minus the requirement of the original development. For example, if the existing requirement is 10 spaces, and the . new development would require 15 spaces, the new development would only have to provide 5 spaces because the original 10 are grandfathered - even though the spaces do not exist. Further complications may exist due to the relationship of this building and parking located at the North Day Lot. There is a fair amount of retail infill potential in Lionshead. Five infill developments encouraged in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan could result in just over 9,000 square feet of new development. Again, the big unknown is the Gondola Building, and to a lesser degree the Concert Hall Plaza. • A reasonable estimate of new parking demand in Lionshead from infill development is probably around 100 spaces. This assumes 30 spaces for retail infills and 14 spaces for the Concert Hall Plaza residential infill (seven units). This would leave 56 spaces for the redevelopment of the Gondola Building. As explained above, it is very difficult to estimate how much parking this redevelopment may require. Discounting any consideration of grandfathered parking demand, 56 spaces would satisfy parking requirements for 16,800 square feet of retail or 28 condominiums. 3 1 aJSUMMARY During discussions of amendments to the pay in lieu parking program, the main concern that has been raised is the long term impact on public parking facilities from new development paying "in lieu" of providing parking on -site. Can, or should, the Town's parking structures absorb the cumulative parking demand generated by private sector development? Based on this build -out analysis, it can be argued that this concern is unfounded. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of the development that will occur in the Village and Lionshead has already been constructed. Even when considering the International Wing and the Gondola Building,the infill/ redevelopment potential in these two areas is minor compared to existing development. Data from Vail Village demonstrates this point. The total parking requirement for all private development, as estimated from VVMP data, is as follows: Retail square footage 109,094 363 spaces Restaurant square footage 47,366 394 spaces Office square footage 39,267 157 spaces Commercial square footage 7,600 30 spaces accommodation units 170 136 spaces dwelling units 257 514 spaces 1,594 spaces 25% multi use credit - 398 total spaces required 3,196 The estimated build -out of the Village core would increase this total parking requirement by 5.7 %, or 69 spaces. Please remember assumptions were made to generate this estimate. Nonetheless, this analysis does provide a.clear indication that the relative impact of future development on the Village -wide parking situation is not great. While numbers are not available, it is assumed that a similar situation exists in Lionshead. Even with the estimate of I00 additional spaces being satisfied by payment in lieu, the overall impact on the public parking facilities is probably less in Lionshead than in the Village. This is because the vast majority of development in Lionshead has on -site parking. This is not the case in the Village. The Town has just spent a large amount of money to expand its • parking facilities, and having done so, concerns about the long term effect of the parking program are reasonable. The justification made in this memo for maintaining the parking 10 ■ rs program would fall apart if we were dealing with additional development potential that would increase parking demand by 50 %. However, we-are dealing with a relative increase of approximately 5 -10 %. Given the relatively small increase to the overall parking demand generated by private development in the Village and Lionshead, it is recommended that changes to the pay in lieu program be limited to amendments recommended in the November 4th memo to the Zoning Code Task Force. These changes are: Lionshead * Restrict the program to properties located on the Mall (as indicated on the Lionshead Parking Program Overlay Map). * Delete the existing provision that allows the program to be used to compensate for the removal of existing spaces. Based on the following premises: * Vail should encourage redevelopment in Lionshead * Most of the buildings are condominiumized, which will decrease the potential for demo -- rebuilds. * Parking on site should remain, as it does not affect mall and is necessary for the condominiums. . Vail Village * Maintain areas A and B as defined on the Vail Village Parking Program overlay Map. * Within area A, the Village core, allow the program to be used to compensate for the removal of existing spaces, Mill Creek Court would be included in Area A. * within area B delete the existing provision that allows the program to be used to compensate for the removal of existing spaces. This would apply to the Village Center, Sonnenalp (across from Village parking structure), and the Lodge. From previous discussions, it appears that the Task Force does not want the Lodge in most cases to utilize the pay in lieu program, because auto access and parking areas are available. If this position is still shared by the Task Force, the Lodge should be taken out of the program. All on site parking would be maintained. Any future parking demand would be provided on site. Based on the following premises: * The Gore Creek Drive /Bridge Street pedestrian areas need to be preserved. * The Streetscape Plan calls for increased pedestrianization of Meadow Drive. This plan supports the concept of keeping the Sonnenalp and Village Center in the pay in lieu program. On site parking should be maintained to service . condominiums. Those properties may request to be in Area A in the future. 5� c * The Lodge is removed from pay in lieu as the property has vehicular access that does not affect any existing or future . pedestrian areas. * Mill Creek Court should be in Area A. This is a highly congested area and additional vehicular traffic does not appear to be compatible with the goals of the Streetscape Plan. • n U The parking program has been in place many years, and it has served a valuable purpose. The program has facilitated the development of a number of projects that have improved the quality and character of the Village and Lionshead. While some changes are necessary, the basic framework of the program should remain in tact. wp:kppark 1/10/91 ,l 'ar,ir' "lieu Brian, prima 14 � a 0 15M 5 :Dr..e -t ft' -' rlua ? 0.0 0 0 0 7 low cir; ? C.0 JA`-: C c ? high RETAIL TOT k! 0.0 58 ALLOGAS -E ECS7.9 0 AETLX POTENTIAL iHFILL EST. SIZE PARKM 'AR:EL ACMGE D.U.s 1 DU t AU i DJ iEVITS . POTENTIAL OF WILL DEWC Bldg, -- -0.17 4 .2 ----0 ? - ----2 ----2 low.. -.. -- ... __ - - ©- - --- -- 4 3e-1 Tower 0.14 3' 3 0 3 0 low 0 0 >.s ,x 0.1E 4 3 0 3 1 low 0 2 ;OverE� Bridge 0.11 2 1 0 0 1 'loss 0 2 :reeiwidt 0.23 5 4 0 4 1 seCiux 500 4 0111 2 0 0 0 2 medium 2Cr 5 1'z1kQ; Scott Bldg. 0.03 1 0 0 0 1 Iow 0 2 ;a?lery 0.07 1 1 0 1 0 low 0 0 ;nitic! Grassi -Zaur 0.37 9 6 22 :7 0 se&Lm 851M 3 ;olden Peak House 0.16 4 20 6 23 0 low 0 0 ;ore Creel, Plaza 0.17 4 5 0 5 0 low 0 0 iill Bldg 0.20 4 1 0 1 3 low 0 6 -odo: at Vail 2.09 67 0 62 31 36 high 3600 35 sod:: K: :r`. h Apt.. 0.61 !! 59 59 D low 0 0 .o-dg_ South 0.34 8 42 0 42 0 low 0 0 ic8r id : 0.17 4 c 0 0 4 IN 0 8 C,'. Cre_,..c= : 0.:.2 5 13 0 13 0 hig. 150. 11 k>r [':::; a::::t 01.4E .. 5 0 5 6 let c 12 ;ec L let 0 0 19 C lcw 0 0 '0.07 1 C 0 0 low 0 2 742 0 72 0 lo» 0 0 -C.17 4 6 c 8 law 0 0 ---- --'- - °-- - -- - 7 AL -- - ----- 7.20 -- ------ -- 1S5 - --� -- 26: ------ 134 --- -- 3..6 ----- - --- ---------- 6650 ------ 96 tLtes. Vail Village MK*er Plan. is the scarce of this drte. Lo: rota :: poten.ia: reflects difficulty in satisfying U01r criteria t1ECix. reta:: pCtv.t :a: reflects sore pat:; tial for satin {Yin; . feria ratai: p:.c ;tia: , ..:e:ts p; tie: is :de ^tified in ursr or MNC: ,' 14 � a 0 15M 5 :Dr..e -t ft' -' rlua ? 0.0 0 0 0 7 low cir; ? C.0 0 C c ? high - ar.�'.rar,: ? 0.0 58 0 58 0 low ac. :..a: Arca:c ? 0.0 14 0 14 0 high ; ionsaend Center ? 0.0 25 0 25 0 high Pride ? 0.0 0 0 0 0 lot _ifth„u:: '4e ? 10 45 0 45 0 aediva K,ctarzro. 1.02 25.5 41 0 41 0 low �Aird Lodge 1.49 37.3 V. 0 50 0 high 7aii 21 ? 0.0 19 0 19 D high ? ? 252 0 252 ? Noes: Residential developsent potential based m TOV Develop *ent Statistics Ret.il sc„;:re footay'E estimates based on Lionshead MCP 0 14 � a 0 15M 5 3Q<",u 10 0 1500 5 0 _ 2200 7 1000 3 9200 44 ;1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department Tom Braun DATE: April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed amendments' to Section 18.22.140, Parking and Loading in the PA district; Section 18.24.180, Parking and Loading in the CCI district; and Section 18.26.150, Parking and Loading in the CCII district. Applicant: Town of Vail I. INTRODUCTION Proposed amendments to the pay in lieu parking program will require modifications to the parking and loading section of the PA, CCI and CCII zone districts. The existing pay in lieu program applies uniformly to all property in the CCI and CCII districts. As proposed, the amended program will apply only to certain properties in these zone districts, and to one property in the PA district. These amendments are necessary to recognize how the pay in lieu program may affect how certain properties in each of these zone districts satisfy their parking requirements. II. COMMERCIAL CORE I As stated above, the existing program applies to all properties in the CCI district. Currently, Section 18.24.180, Parking and Loading in CCI reads: 18.24.180 Parking and Loading Off - street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52; provided, that no parking shall be provided on -site. All parking requirements shall be met in accordance with the provisions of section 18.52.160 (B) . Loading requirements shall continue to be applicable to properties within commercial core I; provided, that no loading areas shall be located in any required front setback area. This language establishes that the program is mandatory for properties in CCI - no parking shall be provided on- -site. This aspect of the program would not change with the proposed amendments. What does change, however, is that not all CCI • 1 properties are eligible for the pay in liou program (the Lodge at Vail and the Lodge Tower Condominiums would be exempted, refer to Parking Program Overlay Map). These projects would now be required to provide on -site parking for any new development. Seventy -five percent of the required parking would have to be structured parking. In the existing ordinance, there is no percentage required for structured parking. Staff proposes 75% of required on -site spaces as we are also proposing this percentage for Lionshead. The provision prohibiting loading areas within front setback areas has been deleted because the CCI district has no required front setback. The location of any proposed loading area would be evaluated during the exterior alteration review. The proposed amendments to Section 18.24.180 are (all changes are in bold): 18.24.180 Parking and Loading Off -- street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52; provided however, that no on -site parking shall be provided on Commercial Core I zoned parcels located within the Vail Village' Parking Program Overlay Map. All parking requirements for Commercial Core I zoned parcels located within the Vail village Parking Program Overlay Map shall be met in accordance with the provisions of section 18.52.160 *. For Commercial Core 2 zoned parcels not located within the Vail Village Parking Program Overlay Map, at least seventy -five percent of all required on -site parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. Loading requirements shall be applicable to all properties within Commercial Core I. * 18.52.160 will refer to the parking pay in lieu program. COMMERCIAL CORE II Like CCI, the parking program currently applies uniformly to all CCII properties. However,, the CCII parking section reads differently than the CCI parking section: 18.26.150 Parking and Loading Off - street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. At least one -half the required parking shall be located within the main buildings or building. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. As written, the CCII zone district does not even acknowledge the parking program. One could "assume that this section was never amended to recognize the parking program when it was formally established in 1979. As proposed, the parking program in Lionshead would no longer apply to all CCII properties, and the program would 2 not always be mandatory for propgrti�s within the Lionshead Parking Program Overlay Map (i.e., certain types of uses will require on- site parking). The program is different from the Village because in Lionshead, properties generally have vehicular access that does not directly affect the Mall. In this case, it would be acceptable if a property could provide on -site parking for any new parking demand. The requirement for structured parking has been increased from 50% to 75% of required spaces. The 75% requirement is used in the Town's high density residential zone districts, High Density Multi - Family and Public Accommodation. Staff believes 75% should be applied to the community's two primary pedestrianized, mixed -use areas to avoid negative visual impacts of the parking as much as possible. We believe this percentage is in keeping with the design standards associated with the Village and Lionshead. The provision prohibiting loading areas in front setback areas has been deleted. The location of any proposed loading area would be evaluated during the exterior alteration review. Proposed revisions to the CCII parking section read: 18.26.150 Parking and Loading Off - street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52; provided however, that parking requirements for any Commercial Core 11 zoned parcel located within the Lionshead Parking Program Overlay Map or the Vail Village Parking Program Overlay map shall be met in accordance . with the provisions of section 18.52.160. For Commercial core II zoned parcels not located within the Lionshead Parking Program overlay Map or the Vail Village Parking Program Overlay Map, at least seventy -five percent of all required on- site parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. Loading requirements shall be applicable to all properties within Commercial Core II. IV. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT There are presently no PA zoned parcels eligible for the parking program. As such, the parking: section of the PA district does not acknowledge the parking program. Section 18.22.140 reads as follows: 18.22.140 Parking and Loading Off- street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. At least seventy five percent of the required parking shall bd located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be located in any front setback area. With the proposed amendments, one PA parcel (the Sonnenalp- Austria Haus) , may utilize the parking program. Amendments to the PA parking section are very similar to the CCII zone district. • 3 18.22.140 Parking and loading Off - street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52; provided however, that parking requirements for any Public Accommodation zoned parcel located within the Vail Village Parking overlay Map shall be met in accordance with the provisions of 18.52.160. At least seventy five percent of the required on -site parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be located in any front setback area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the amendments outlined in this memorandum. c : \pec \tov \parking.408 • • 4 n MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing /2920 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: J. Russell Pitto I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a side setback variance in order to expand their existing single family residence. A two story expansion is proposed to the south of the existing home. On the first floor, a family room, breakfast nook, bathroom and two --car garage are proposed to be added. The second floor will include an expanded master bedroom with master bath, walk -in closet, and an office /dressing area. Two smaller bedrooms with baths would be located a half level below the master bedroom, immediately to the north. This lot is located in the Two - Family Residential Zone District. With the exception of this request for a side setback variance, no additional variances are requested, nor is there a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance. The applicant is proposing an addition which will encroach 100'-611 into the required 15 foot side yard setback. This setback area is located on the south side of the lot, and parallels Gore Creek, located further to the south. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Two- Family Residential Lot Size: 17,315 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA: Existing GRFA: Proposed GRFA: Total GRFA: 4,831.5 sq. ft. 2,483 sq. ft. 1.916 sq._ ft. 4,399 sq. ft. Remaining GRFA After Proposed Expansion: 1 432.5 sq. ft. • The above CPPA calculations were determined using the "revised definition of GRFA", which went into effect as of January 1, 1991. Site Coverage: Total Allowable: 3,463 sq. ft. or 200 Existing: 2,419 sq. ft. Propose_d:. 1,044 sq. ft. Total: 3,463 sq. ft. or 20% Again, the above site coverage numbers were determined by using the" revised site coverage definition ", which was adopted and went into effect as of January 1, 1991. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On May 22, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed a similar request by Russ Pitto for a side setback variance. The request, at that time, was also for a 10' -6" encroachment into the required 15 foot side setback area. The staff recommendation for Mr. Pitto's request was for denial. The Planning and Environmental. Commission, by a vote of 6 --0--1 (Pam Hopkins abstaining), voted to approve the applicant's request, with findings that the addition, as proposed, would have less of an impact on the adjacent stream, as well as on neighboring properties. One condition of approval was that no part of the proposed addition be any higher than the existing ridge. (A copy of the meeting minutes is attached for your information.) IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff acknowledges that the applicant's requested encroachment will have little impact upon other existing residential uses in this area. We do feel, however, that the proposed addition will have a negative impact on the Gore Creek stream tract immediately to the south of Lot 3. Although the stream 0 2 tract is not owned by the Town of Vail (it is owned by Vail Associates), we believe this open space area should be maintained as much as possible for use by the general public. Further, we believe the sensitive environment of the stream tract should be protected from encroaching development, and should be preserved in its natural state. It is also recognized by staff that the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has constructed utility facilities (i.e., a pump station with concrete vaults) immediately adjacent to the creek and south of Lot 3, which certainly detract from the natural character of the stream corridor. However, the planning staff believes the encroachment of additional development into this natural area, adjacent to the stream tract, is not justified. 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. It is the staff's opinion that the applicant has some options to further develop this property without encroaching into any of the required setback areas. We believe the applicant could expand his home by pushing out to the north and west, as well as south of the existing garage. We feel it would be a grant of special privilege to allow the applicant to expand into the rear setback area on this property. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the proposed setback variance request, if approved, would have no significant impact upon any of the above criteria. B. Related Policies in the Vail Land Use Plan The Town of Vail Land Use Plan, in Section 1.13, states the following: "Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use." 40 3 This p6licy statement reiterates the concerns staff has expressed regarding maintaining the required setbacks adjacent to the Gore Creek corridor. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. 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. Is b. 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. c, The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a side setback variance. Again, staff believes that additional square footage could be added to the existing structure on other areas of the property which would not require setback variances. We believe that approval of this variance request would be a grant of special privilege. 0 4 . As in all variance requests, the finding must he made that them is a physical hardship, or a unique situation, specific to this property which would warrant approval of a variance. After review of this proposal, staff has been unable to identify any physical hardship which would warrant a setback variance approval.. More importantly, staff is of the belief that the proposed encroachments toward the stream tract would have a negative impact upon the public use of that area. Included in our recommendation for denial, staff believes that none of findings A, B, and C -1, 2 and 3 are applicable to this request. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission decide to approve Mr. Pitto's request for a setback variance, staff would recommend that as a condition of approval, additional, landscaping be required to be installed as a buffer along the south elevation of the proposed addition. We would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission pass this condition along to the Design Review Board for further analysis. c: \pec \memos \p1ttO.408 L • 5 0 s �rf; T : ty '� s + �s: % •�. if ">,` , "'lCilr ri 1! i k r 04 .lf ':rll.i t"i. ,. I l 'V '� 1 4: � I -: 1l. �L `• ^! yy ` • 1 }je 1 �I' M1� -i1-r �, ti� rt� A .. J � 1 5 � l.� •F. ��' �' µ � ' ■ 4 r 1 - I , i •1i�K!•:>�r ¢i�M!?."r -4s -�.rr. o: 4.. :r. ,L• ��.,�, IT �y1., �.a !�' '•, Sa ` -. #1. • � t��:;i 34k -.. _ _ r r 1� 'k .irk al iyv 6- 1 .!s i',r w y►aJ. � � a.'t a� W �',�.��f ,q, FS �.'�i �v ,•w= -:.k si t `ww..,�_._rlrf '� •b'k ° ?,�y, 4 pry, �• -'1 .. 1!�r. F,. ,��+'tr �[• � �T �} "k<. i ��� f � 5T ' ,.+i � °�. - c g kl - 4 Y,+1� # !v1*4 i�r' � Ts` us r�p`�.� 1 �`t A •'•; ...•� L Polio j. • '��, <r '1„y:' v -��. - � v.; � ..4 �< f �+ is 4 ;��� �' � 04l , ; .'� ` r t - s4 �''��'S�'f "� "4,�r _ �.�n•f1�r � �r ��R •L � 4 q i � 4 '.f4 .� � �y �Y i� 'fir ! - 'apt[ /� j. ,� k y t. �� -_ �' k f . � � �yl�, 1 : � r �' , . .G. I ♦ •i 1 ' � �„ {!� �{� �-vil i r; ,� r �'' •�' - rt-'[tl. j . -r r s r �[ Ir��'Z�r•�a°• ss�5,,,y�ast,�.' � : ' .* i �� A p 'Jt,� * 'iF�l./�(j� '!� �j; ,,.� "'� >{.,�.... �'� -'� w .. � " - ` jr �'• '> { „ ~'a fi' -,�lZ { �:4 ,1L.1 ,. s[+ i% vi i'Irt i'�' (� F _'i�'.i -i. ' ;l. \7n'',te'r � h'' r • ' > ' -� ri-. * i L +t,r1•''r> '� -Yk; ♦ - y�,'_• a 4*hrt,- ' �' fir' +a•` -iarp` Yiw>;., a t ' - `� 1 �. k,, -,� !' 1 . Sa �? ♦ 1 %i � +- 1 � t r'i�N1 '� .pI F { k r'- L: ' M f f - r t ,r.l�► r'yr +f}aR a' Y`A. V ".` ��' ..,r Y - M1 h r f _ i ,fi + !.� q , _ tIp }4.rISFa , tti -,4'a i• iF + '` a. �•., ,> > f .._� i, 1' x o +.. i_, { _k J .I �'- ts ' � � 'r. _'�� 1 •f'r ��'.��L. � r1t, fl: �, >i. it a,•'yr + ,t lL�i� +� li 4. , e � s • 'r5 5 = 7 - 1 ` s �i1'� ti Y r l t .� � t' f,y r. d• s1i 1.' •r' i .rK 1 . I e t -' v. ���arr.�i�- eT' �} - �' -� ti rf ." Iq r F J/ ; � -• 1`�, r.,�( `� r - f•. 1 1 k i!•; ;I T- �t./ r:W 1' wr��M�pF'�i� F1's -'� 1 • 'r� •� ,' " r ' 1 la :, � ! F r s t ; I • ,C �i i >f ` / L %' _ • 1- Zx' },,��,yp:S"b..• 1 'l�+ a` � r - r 1 '_ i• r -� � r+o,' r r< '�s_,tr `' >r Y, r ,: A- � I _ .. .- - 7�rS• +��FS�s" r •tip ^'.'...r�+�'�'rt �, r �� r f�` • __ � �i ,i + 7(t ±� Ja �!Zr+o�t y -io kw4 _ s, � 1• z. w f G -f / _ , r � r r ',+ hr a • , r � y.t' =� 'i t" 6. L- fir•. � -.sue+" «�"�, 1 : %4 r SS Ir •t 1 � r r;S'r ;.- k 'rs. rF -'� � T✓ .t a ''i iy: :� '� _�[i ! i •� 1. '} {:� s > � � r T x , +• r r Y44.a J�F= _ a YY 7t ip . �.'�LL.R. .�. � ��_y� t_. $. .. u. -C .• a ._�.. i � f . - - - � ���.� r� U • • { ' Plann -.,g and Environmental Commis on May 22, 1989 Minutes 4 1 1 PRESENT Jim Viele Diana Donovan Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Kathy Warren Pam Hopkins Chuck Crist 4 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack �'-J L The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Viele at 3:00 p.m. Item No. 1. Approval of minutes of May 8 1989. an motioned for approval Yathv Warren. Vote: 7 -0 on Item No. 2. A request to amend SDD_ 4 Area D in order to relocate_ a bus stop-and to void an SDD condition of approval requirinq the undergrounding of utilities. Applicant: Vail Brewery Company. The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained that the applicant was requesting several amendments to Ordinance No. 40 which was approved in 1988. The amendments would allow the applicant to void a requirement that utilities be undergrounded, relocate a bus stop, add a deceleration lane on South Frontage Road, achieve a minor subdivision, and add a stairwell. The staff recommendation was for approval of all the amendments except the request to void the requirement of undergrounded utilities. The staff felt that the condition of the undergrounding of utilities was an important trade -off in the original negotiations between the developer, staff and PEC and did not feel this condition should be voided. The staff recommended that if the PEC did decide to remove this requirement, the Commission should require the developer to escrow money for the undergrounding of utilities when an overall improvement project is initiated by Holy Cross. In respect to the other amendment requests, the staff recommended the following condition: The developer shall agree to construct the bus lane per Town of Vail standards in the area of the porte cochere. The specific design for the bus shelter shall be mutually agreed to by the Area D owner and /or the developer, Colorado Division of Highways, and the Town of Vail. The bus lane shall be "1 L 3. The Community Development Department and Town of Vail Attorney shall have the right to review and require changes in any "Agreements of tenants in common," "Conveyance of Easement and Party Wall Agreements," and any other easement or ownership agreements related to the development of parcels are developed per the approved development plan and SDD 4 Ordinance. 4. Any modifications or amendments to the minor subdivision conditions of approval agreement shall be reviewed as a major amendment under the procedures outlined in Section 18.40 of the Town of Vail zoning code. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing the wording of these agreements for review by the Planning staff and Town Attorney. The specific legal wording must be submitted before the minor subdivision is recorded with the County. The Town of Vail shall record the minor subdivision plat. However it will be the responsibility of the developer to cover any fees for recording the plat. Andy Norris representing the applicant, agreed with the conditions. Kathy motioned for approval of the request as per the staff memo. Chuck seconded the motion. Vote: 5 -0 -1, Jim abstaining. Item No. 4. A reg2est for an exterior alteration in order to construct an addition at the UR The Creek Restaurant Gore Creek Building_, Vail Village* Applicant: Up The Creek Bar and Grill, Inc. Because of an oversight that a Conditional Use Permit was necessary for this request, the item was tabled to the next meeting. Peggy motioned for tabling. Kathy seconded the motion. Vote: 7 -0 Item No. 5 A re guest fora side setback variance to expand a single family-residence on Lot 3 Block 1 Vail Village Eleventh Filing. Applicant: Russ Pitto The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained the applicant's request for a side setback variance in order to expand their single family residence. A two -story expansion was proposed which would include the addition of a breakfast nook and family room on the first floor, and a master bedroom on the second floor. The proposed addition would encroach 10 feet G inches into the required 15 foot setback. P. • Cl • 4 6 The staff recommends "'denial of this request. staff felt it was evident that the addition could be added to the east of the existing house without requiring a setback variance. Approving this request would be a grant of special privilege. The staff also believed that the addition would have a negative impact on the stream tract parcel to the south of Lot 3. "The'staff added that if the proposal was approved, the PEC should make a condition that the applicant submit a title report Schedule B to verify that there are no utility easements in the area of the encroachment. Jay Peterson was present to represent applicants. Craig Snowdon, architect for the project, was also present. He gave background on the project, explaining that the family had outgrown their house and wished to add on with the least impact on neighbors. He stated that an expansion in a different location than proposed would be inappropriate. He claimed there were physical hardships due to the location of the house and felt that the proposal would be consistent with adjacent properties. Regarding the staff recommendation that the addition be built onto the east of the house, Craig said the applicant would have to rebuild the eastern part of the house in order to build there. He conceded that other expansions were possible but that the design would be awkward, impacts on neighbors would be created, and that there would be a structural and physical hardship in trying to tie the design into the existing design. He presented 5 letters from adjacent property owners with no objections. Sid said he could see where it would be difficult to put the addition on the east and felt that adding on to any of the other sides didn't make sense. He could find a hardship with the existing location of the house. Peggy felt the the issue of compatibility was important. She also felt it was important to be sensitive to the neighbors' views and opinions. She asked what else the applicant would be willing to do to make additional improvements. Craig said the Pittos would have no problem with adding landscaping. Peggy said she would support the variance since the applicant was willing to landscape, the neighbors had no objections, and because other properties were close to the stream. Kathy had a problem with finding a hardship. She could see the practical sense, but did not see that anything excluded other possibilities. She felt supporting the proposal would be a grant of special privilege. Jay Peterson felt that the ordinance was being read too strictly and that it was more important to consider the neighbors' concerns. Jim stated that variances are created for the protection of neighbors and noted that since the neighbors are satisfied, he could support the request. Craig pointed out that all affected property owners were notified and that all points of view were discussed. M • ~ F Y Russ Pitto, the applicant, said his main concern was not impacting the neighbors. He felt that it would be more logical to deal with a R variance than with disturbing the neighbors. Diana motioned for approval of the recruest because it was felt that the addition as proposed would have less impact on the stream and on neighbors. A condition was added that no part of the addition could be higher than the existing-ridge. Chuck seconded the motion. Vote: 6 -0 -1 Pam abstaining. Item No. 6 A request for a setback variance and site coverage variance to construct an addition to a residence on r.e%t A- Rl nnk T]_ Vail. Ridae Subdivision. Betsy Rosolack made the staff presentation. She explained that the applicant was requesting rear setback and site coverage variances in order to add a second floor addition to an existing residence and to change the configuration of the existing garage. The staff recommended approval and felt that approving the request would not be a grant of special privilege. Kathv motioned for approval of the request per the staff memo. Pegg Vote: 7 -0 i Item No. 7 Preliminary review: Red Lion ma`or exterior it was decided that the Red Lion major exterior alteration would be reviewed on June 12, 1989. l • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in order to construction of a lobby addition, mechanical an addition to a third floor dwelling unit. Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston allow the space, and D, Block I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED A. East Side Setback Variance 3' The Public Accommodation (PA) zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on alllsides,of the property. Under PA zoning, architectural projections (eaves, roof overhangs, awnings etc.) may project not more than 41- 0" into a required setback. Unroofed balconies decks and terraces etc. projecting from a height of more than five ft. above the ground may project not more than 5'- 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. An existing legal, non- conforming east side setback of zero feet results from the'Christiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. In expanding the lobby and 3rd floor dwelling unit, additional square footage will be constructed within the setback. On the first floor the lobby expansion will add 271 sq. ft. of common area and 17 sq. ft. of airlock, while on the ground (basement) floor 535 sq. ft. of mechanical area will be added. The 3rd floor expansion will add 44 sq. ft. of GRFA to the eastern 'unit (Unit A). The roof overhang over the proposed lobby and third floor additions will also create a 0' side setback.' In this particular instance, because the addition will further encroach into the required side setback, a side setback variance must be obtained. The proposed addition will encroach a maximum of 20 feet into the required 20 foot side setback. Therefore, a 20 foot side setback variance is required. 1 The existing front setback ig.JS £ect due to tho encroachment of the,northwe.st 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. Currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to the 3' -0" encroachment of the southwest corner of the building into the 20 foot setback. The existing rear setback is 8' -6" as the existing Sarah's deck projects 11' -6" into the 20 foot rear setback (see attached site plan). II. 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 that time it was the opinion of Community Development Department staff that approval of an increase in density would be a grant of, special privilege and recommended 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 40 the 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, no construction has occurred. • In 1990, the Christiania Lodge redevelopment proposal went through several revisions. These redevelopment proposals were reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as worksession items on October '8, 1990, November 12, 1990, and November 26, 1990. At various times during this period the PEC discussed setback, density, parking and common area variances related to the Christiania Lodge. On March 6, 1991 a redevelopment proposal which did not require any variance /PEC approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Under the redevelopment proposal approved by the Design Review Board (DRB), Paul"and Sally Johnston, owners of the Christiania Lodge, propose to add a new third floor to the existing structure to accommodate 2 new dwelling units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill Creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscape the eastern half of the northern parking lot when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved, and to remove a portion of an existing asphalted area adjacent to the proposed Mill Creek walking path. 2 I i III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: Public Accommodation B. Site Area: 0.380 acres'or 16,553 sq. ft. C. Density: (25 d.u.s ,4llowed per acre, 1 d.0 = 2 a.u.) Allowed: 9 d.u.s Existing: 2 d.u.s and 25.a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.s DRB approved Plan: 2 d.u.'s & 14 a.u.s = 9 d.u.s Amount over allowed after remodel: 0 d.u.s D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of;GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area.`} Allowed: 13,242 sq. ft.; Existing: 7,397 sq. ft.. DRB Approved Plan: 12,;671 sq. ft. Proposed: 12,984 sq. ft.? GRFA Remaining after redevelopment: 258 sq. ft. E. Common Area: (20% of allowable GRFA) Allowed: 2,648 sq. ft. DRB Approved Plan: 3,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,271 sq. ft. or 25% of allowable GRFA (Includes 271 sq., ft. of new lobby area) Amount over al.l,owed of 623 sq. ft. has been added to GRFA. F. Accessory /restaurant (10% of Constructed GRFA): Allowed: 740 sq. ft. Existing: 756 sq. ft. Proposed: No Change G. Office: As Approved by Conditiorial Use Permit: 72 sq. ft. H. Mechanical: Proposed (no maximum): 1,336 sq. ft. 1. Airlock: 25-sq. ft. per allowable d.u. Allowed: 225 sq.i ft.' DRB Approved Plan 154 sq. ft. Proposed: 181 sq. ft.' Remaining: 44 sq. :ft. 3 • i J. Sethacks! 20 ft. r6quir6d All sides Existing:, Proposed Front 15 ft. No Change * East Side 0 ft. 0 ft. West Side 17 ft. No Change Rear 8' -6" No Change * Variance requested K. Site Coverage: (.55 of site area) Allowed: 9,104 sq. ft. DRB Approved Plan: 5,455 sq. ft. Proposed: 5,738 sq. ft. Remaining:3,366 sq. ft. L. Landscaping: (30% of site area) Required: 4,966:sq. ft. Existing: 7,490 sq. ft. Proposed: 5,943 sq. ft. M. Height: Allowed: 48 ft. sloping roof /45 ft. flat roof Existing: 36 ft'. sloping Proposed: 43 ft. flat N. Parking: Existing DRB Approved Use Spaces Required S aces Required Accommodation Units: 25 units = 16.4 14 units = 13.4 Dwelling Units: 2 units = 4 2 units = 5 Sarah's Lounge: 6 6 Realty office: 0;3 0.3 Christian Chateau Townhomes: 9 9 Total 35.7 or 36 33.7 or 34* *The Town currently recognizes the Christiania as having 3 parking spaces. Under the DRB approved plan there was a 2 space reduction in the required parking spaces. There is no increase in parking requirements under this proposal. Christiania currently provides 3 parking spaces in a small lot west of the existing building. The parking which occurs within the required setback at this location is a "grandfathered" situation. The applicant proposes to continue to provide 3 parking spaces at this location. 4 i �TV. DE90PIPTION OP TKE PROPOSED PRUVELOPMENT The applicant has since modified the March 6, 1991 DRB approval and is now seeking approval of an east side setback variance to allow the expansion of the existing lobby, mechanical room, and the addition of 44 sq. ft. of GRFA to the eastern third floor unit. This lobby also serves as the lobby for the Chateau Christian Townhomes. The following is a summary of the DRB approved development proposal and the modifications proposed under this setback variance request: A. Ground Floor (Garden Level) •3 accommodation units @ 2140 sq. ft. •Common area @ 1237 sq. ft.; -Chateau mechanical area@ 282 sq. ft. -Christiania Lodge mechanical area @ 1054 sq. ft. -Christiania Realty Office (conditional use permit has been obtained) @ 72 sq. ft.; -Airlock 33 sq. ft. B. First Floor •5 accommodation units @,2376 sq. ft. -Common area @ 1490 sq. ft. *Airlocks @ 148 sq. ft. -Restaurant @ 756 sq. ft: -Fireplaces: 2 C. Second Floor •6 accommodation units @ 3441 sq.'.ft. -Common area @ 412 sq. ft. -Fireplaces: 2 D. Third Floor (Condominium'Level) •2 dwelling units East unit (A) @ 2361 sq. ft. West Unit (B) @ 2.043 sq._ ft. Total , 4404 sq. ft. -Common area @ 132 sq. ft`. -Fireplaces; 3 E. Of the 7 fireplaces, 6 will be gas. The existing wood burning fireplace in Sarah's Bar.will remain wood burning. F. site Improvements -Construction of walking path along Mill Creek -Removal of 596 sq. ft. of asphalt from the northwest corner of site adjacent to the,stream walk -Removal of the Christiania'split rail fence from the Vail Associates (V.A.) owned property ,Emclagure of dumpster •Landscaping and paving of eastern half of northern parking lot G. Proposed Dwelling Unit & Accommodation Unit Summary 2 D.U.s at 4,404 sq. ft. GRFA = 2.0 D.U.s 14 A.U.s at 4,360 scr. ft.-"GRFA = 7 D.U.s Total 8,764 sq. ft. GRFA = 9 D.U.s H. Parking The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 parking spaces. All of these spaces are located on the Christiania Lodge site and are considered legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within required setbacks. Section 18.64.050 of the Municipal Code allows structures and sites which are nonconforming because of parking, to be expanded provided the enlargement does not increase the existing nonconformity. Under this redevelopment proposal no additional parking spaces will be required. V. CRITERIA Upon review of Criteria and Findings;' Section 18.62.060 of the Vaal Municipal Code, the Departmentzof Community Development recommends approval of the side setback V41riance request 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_ In general, the staff beli6ves the setback variance request does not negatively,impact the property or adjacent uses any more than does the existing structure. Under this redevelopment proposal 3 evergreen trees will have to be removed. To compensate for the removal of these trees, the applicant proposes to plant 3 aspen trees elsewhere on the site. The property most ir�pacted by the setback requests, the Christian Chateau Townhouse Association building, has agreed to the redevelopment as proposed. For this reason, the setback variances are considered to have no significant negative impacts on':adjacert: properties. 2. The degree to which'relief ''from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve - compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special 'privilege._ 6 • mhe gtaf£ believes it would not b2 a grant of special privilege to approve the setback variance as the remodel does not increase the setback encroachment beyond those that already exist for the east setback on the property. It is reasonable to allow relief from the eastern 20 ft. setback as this is the logical,location for an expansion of the lobby, and it appears that any expansion of the lobby, either on the north or south side of the,building, would require a setback variance. 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 setback variance request will have no negative impacts on any of the above criteria. The construction of the walking path adjacent to Mill Creek will enhance the Village pedestrian experience. The addition will have no impact on transportation or traffic facilities. As designed, the lobby and 3rd floor additions will not impact the proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor any more than does the DRB approved redevelopment proposal. VI. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE +MASTER PLAN It is staff's opinion the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges, the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open space. • This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by improving the existing lobby while complying with site development standards. As a condition of approval the DRB has required the applicant to landscape and pave the parking lot located north of the Christiania Lodge and presently used by the lodge, once ownership of the lot is resolved. This paving and landscaping will improve the appearance of this existing parking area in a highly visible portion of the Village. The pedestrian path will also enhance open space for pedestrians. The following is a list of the Val.l 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. 7 • x.2.1 Policy_ 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. 2.5 Objective• Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. GOAL A3 -- 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 Policy: 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. 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 45 - INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. VII. 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. 8 Ir further support of this goal, the.applicant has committed, as a part of the DRB approval, to remove 596 sq.1ft. of paved area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved area, which is 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. VIII.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 trie applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance. The setback variance can be supported by Findings A, B, C (1), and C (1), (2), (3), as the encroachments are not generally increased above those that presently exist on the site and the additions do not negatively impact adjacent properties. Further,' it is reasonable to allow the expansions given the existing configuration of development on the site. It would be difficult to locate the expansions on another area of the site • without requiring a setback variance and still have the additions logically, functionally and programmatically make sense. 9 Mr� n x 1� � � � r �, � � ' 4& F �t I�r�y{rr ��a�TL�� J�C y V q��>♦yr I IJ ou S.. �A. �t t �` 0 � 0 1! ki'l- • • lo � 0 4\ � 0 of e� 1.ltJG:. -C]F xtlli�! 'rL.4'N 3 &-�P /Zlaox . P /90. AppEN'�71SM -Ca VflR1�N�; _ 3 "= 12-11 A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL C6 MYSSYON April 22, 1991 AGENDA 1:00 Site Visits 2:15 Worksession 3:00 Public Hearing Site Visits Worksession 1. A request for a worksession to consider an application to rezone property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Agricultural and Open Space to Public Use District. The specific description of the property is as follows: That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46127 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23103 "W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of I -70; thence along the northerly ROW line of I -70 following two courses: 1) S75 28118 "E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38104" and a chord which bears N89 36134 "E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of I -70 N00 23103 "E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. ■ 4 . 9.✓ Approval of minutes from April 8, 1991 meeting. 10.-/'Reminder of joint PEC and Town Council air quality worksession, April 23, 1991,. 40'- The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46127 "W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Town of Vail Public Hearing 2. 1. A request for a setback variance, Forbes Residence, Texas Townhouses 4B and 5B, Lot 4B /5B, Vail Village Fourth Filing/ 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Walter Forbes TABLED TO MAY 13, 1991 1. 2. A request for a setback variance, MacCormick Residence, Texas Townhouses 6B, Lot 6B, Vail Village Fourth Filing/ 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Alexander MacCormick 3. A request to amend the Zoning Code, adding a section to identify all approved view corridors and to set forth details with regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail 4. Appeal of calculation of GRFA for Primary/ Secondary units under 1991 regulations. Appellant: Ned Gwathmey 5. Appeal of calculation of GRFA as it relates to substantially enclosed space, Looms Residence, Lot 7, Vail Potato Patch /800 Potato Patch Drive. Appellant: Peter Looms 6. Presentation of staff policy decision on calculating GRFA as it relates to residences in primary /secondary zone district. 7. Worksession on Master Transportation Plan Applicant: Town of Vail 8. ✓ Approval of Lifthouse Lodge portion of minutes from March 25, 1991 meeting. 9.✓ Approval of minutes from April 8, 1991 meeting. 10.-/'Reminder of joint PEC and Town Council air quality worksession, April 23, 1991,. 40'- E • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 22, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Jim Shearer Gena Whitten Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker The worksession was called to order at 2:17PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A request for a worksession to consider an application to rezone yMperty generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Agricultural and O en Space to Public Use District. The specific description of the property is as follows: That part of the North 1 2 of Section $ Township 5 South Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian Eagle County, Colorado lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8,-S89 46'27 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8 S00 23'03 "W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the norther) ROW line of I -70• thence along the northerly ROW line of I -70 following two courses: 1 S75 28'18 "E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature 2� 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580._00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34 "E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8, Thence departing said ROW line of I -70 N00 23'03 "E along the easterly_ line of said Section 8 a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. E u The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property Is described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing, for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27 "W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen stated the purpose of this worksession was to discuss the rezoning of the parcel from Agricultural /Open Space to Public Use District. The proposed zone has three permitted uses, consisting of public parks, playground and open space; pedestrian and bicycle paths; and seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities. Any other uses of the zone district are conditional uses, in which case the Planning and Environmental Commission sets the standards. Greg Hall explained the location of the stakes for a proposed snow dump which were seen on the site inspection and where the berm would be located. He also clarified what cuts would need to be made and what the elevations of the proposed' snow dump would be. Chuck Crist asked what the typical snow volume for the Town is, and Pete Burnett answered that it is averages 60,000 cubic yards. Jim Shearer asked why the height of the berm wasn't raised to increase the capacity of the dump, to which Greg answered that the project was still in the planning stages with the landscape architect, and the final berm slope had not yet been determined. A major constraint in this regard, however, was that the slope along the highway portion of the proposed dump could not exceed 2:1, with a 1 1/2:1 slope on the Town Shop side. Chuck inquired how much snow typically accumulates. Pete indicated that the high end was 120,000 cubic yards, which was plowed by the Town during the 1982 season. Chuck asked if the proposed dump would eliminate the other dumps around the Town. Greg replied that the intent was to do just that, and to remove the snow storage from the parks. Pete further explained that this dump would be for Town of Vail snow only. Connie Knight clarified that the proposed dump would eliminate dumping into Gore Creek. Kathy Langenwalter asked where the drainage from the proposed snow dump would be. Greg Hall said there is an existing culvert under I -70 which would be utilized. There would be a water quality pond, with a 40 hour retention period, constructed to filter suspended solids from the water. Jim asked if a sand filter would also be used, and Greg replied the baffels in the filtration system would filter out any oil contained in the water. He continued to say that the pond would not eliminate salts, though the Town does not use much salt in their sanding mixture. Greg stated that Aspen utilized the same type of pond. 0 2 • Chuck asked if the snow in the dump would be gone by June. Pete replied that the current snow dumps still show signs of snow and ice in August due to the use of cinders in sanding. Greg continued to say that every 2 -3 years, the cinders would be cleaned out of the dump to increase storage space. Kristan Pritz asked if the detention ponds would be underground. Greg answered they would be along the berm, with a pipe regulating the out flow rate. The Town was examining the soil permeability to determine what the specific site conditions were. Diana said that when the Transportation Task Force had examined the possibility of placing a highway off -ramp at this location, they had been told there was extremely unstable soil at this location and the hill should not be cut. Greg clarified for the Commissioners that the slope of a 1 112:1 berm would be less steep than the current berm in front of the Public Works shops, and aspen and pines would be placed on the berm. Diana asked if the road would have to be placed at the upper edge of the berm. Greg indicated the cost and the fact that the snow could only be worked on at certain times dictated the placement of the road. Mike Mollica wondered why the road could not be widened to accommodate two way traffic, but Pete stated there would be too great a volume loss in the dump itself. Greg explained to the Commission that after a load of snow was dumped, a night crew would then come in and move the snow around to an appropriate location. A one - way looped road would be more efficient, as that would allow the end loader drivers would is be able to dump the snow on the edge and drive forward, out of the dump. Providing a turnaround area for the large trucks instead of a looped road would reduce the capacity of the dump. Diana stated there was a great need for a new snow dump, as the current arrangements were a disgrace. The proposed dump would be a balancing act, as it was a huge project. She was concerned about the upper road being visible for some residents on the golf course. Mike asked if that road would be paved, and Greg clarified it would be gravel. Diana questioned if the dump and road would be lit, to which Greg answered the lighting would be similar to the current Town shop lights. Diana said that this was a very important concern. Pete explained the lights would not be on all the time, but that the shops are very busy, nearly on a 24 hour basis, and that lighting was important. Greg reiterated the lights would not be on continually. Andy asked if the lights on the loaders would be sufficient. Pete replied if all they were doing was pushing snow, they would be, but not if they were hauling the snow in. He thought it would be unusual for the lights to be on very often, as the night shift would only be working if there was a large quantity of snow, as in 1982. • 3 0 0 Greg said that one of the conditions for the conditional use could be the lights would only go on when the dump was in use. Pete continued that a system similar to the bus tunnel could be used where, when a bus entered the tunnel, a beam would be broken, turning on the lights. The lights would go off when the truck left. Diana said she had no problem with the location, but was concerned with the rezoning and subsequent conditional use that no building would be visible from the mountain. Greg stated the only building being considered would be a storage area built into the berm, and would not be noticeable. Diana was also concerned that the shop area not extend to Spraddle Creek. She also indicated the police use of an adjacent area for target practice was problematic. Pete told Diana the target range had recently been moved from that location permanently. Connie Knight wondered if the provision of a snow dump could be accommodated on this location without rezoning. Kristan answered that, unless the PEC wished to change the zoning code itself, it would not be possible. Kristan further recommended against proceeding, in that direction. Diana asked what the lease term on the property was with VA. Greg answered the current term was 3 years. Diana questioned if the PEC could make the rezoning contingent on a longer lease term. She also indicated she believed VA should be the applicant, as they were the owners of the land. Staff clarified that the Town was the entity requesting the rezoning, and as such, was the applicant, but that VA had signed the application as the owner. Further, Diana was concerned that VA would perhaps build seasonal structures on the site if it were rezoned and subsequently returned to VA. Connie stated her hesitance to rezone the property without a longer lease from VA. She said it would be nice to move the dump from the current creek location, but that she didn't want all the work to be returned to VA after only 3 years. Chuck Crist didn't think the rezoning would result in VA gaining a benefit, as the use on the site would be restricted. He thought of this land as "junk land" which could not be built upon without a further application to the Commission. Greg thought the only thing VA would want to build was, perhaps, employee housing. Diana wondered if there was legal access to this site. Greg answered there was a 50 foot right -of -way through the bus barn access. Chuck strongly encouraged a longer lease be negotiated. Greg responded by explaining the negotiation process. The Town had originally requested a 20 year lease term, or outright purchase. Due to VA's legal status, they were unable and/or unwilling to either remove property from their assets, or place property on a lease of that duration. However, VA had requested as a part of the lease that if the snow dump were removed from the land in the • 4 0 9 future, the property would revert back to an Agricultural /Open Space zoning. Unfortunately, ithat could not legally be placed in the lease agreement. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Diana and Chuck, and was concerned with the visibility of the high road. She preferred a 2 -way road along the top. She requested the roadline be staked for the next site visit, and to determine if the road would be visible from the golf course homes. She was very concerned with any proposed lighting of the dump, but would accept a condition that it would only be lit when work was being performed. She also stated her concern that the hillside be revegetated with sage. As a taxpayer, she was apprehensive about a 3 year lease. Pete indicated this was about the only suitable site for a snow dump which had adequate drainage. With the current concerns over air and water quality, he felt the move to this location was essential. Greg said the dump would not be cheap to develop, and he did not feet the Council would allow a $500,000 investment to be wasted. Ludwig Kurz commented he believed the rear road would be visible, and he asked that the impacts of this be mitigated in some way. Pete told the Commissioners the road had originally been designed at a higher elevation, and had been brought down to help the view impacts. Greg said they would further examine the view corridors to the proposed site and determine the visibility of the road. Jim Shearer stated the site was a definite need, and that the proposal, overall, appeared to be • good. However, he was also concerned about the views and the revegetation of the hillside. He asked if juniper, which the Post Office had used, would be an appropriate landscape material. Pete replied it would have to be re- planted every year, but they were planning on revegetating for erosion control. Jim continued that, even with the site difficulties, he was in favor of moving the snow dump from its present locations. Jim questioned the $500,000 for site development, and Greg explained most of the cost was for hauling the dirt, design and landscaping of the site. However, if it turned out there was good quality topsoil on the site, it would offset the cost. Jim said he would like to see an automatic extension in the lease term with a designated interest escalation (perhaps not more than 10 %). He asked staff to investigate if the rezoning could be made conditional on the reverting of the site if the snow dump were moved. Kristan agreed to check that provision with Larry Eskwith upon his return. She felt the rezoning should be considered on its own merits. Jim concluded he would like as little light as possible on the site without endangering the drivers. Greg noted they would be returning to the Commission on May 13 with a request for rezoning, but stated they would not have a final design for the snow dump at that time. He asked if the Commission would like to see anything else at the May 13 meeting. Diana replied she would like to see the road impacts determined more clearly, as well as investigating a longer lease term. She stated requiring a longer lease term as a condition of E 9 rezoning may not be the prerogative of the Commission, but that a rezoning for three years . may not be appropriate. Gena Whitten joined the meeting at this time, but had no comments as she had missed the site visit. Kristan reminded the Commissioners they needed to base their decision on the rezoning on whether a Public Use District zoning was appropriate on this site in general. The public hearing was called to order at 3:20PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. _A request for a setback variance, Forbes Residence, Texas Townhouses_ 4B and 5B, Lot 4B/513, Vail Village Fourth Filing/ 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Walter Forbes ^ Chuck Crist moved to table this item to the May 13, 1991 meeting. Connie Knight seconded that motion. The Commissioners voted unanimously, 7 -0, in favor of the table. 2. A request for a setback variance MacCormick Residence Texas Townhouses 6B Lot 6B, Vail Village Fourth Filing/483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Alexander MacCormick . Mike Mollica explained that this request was a straight forward variance request. The lot was zoned High Density Multi- Family, which meant there was a 20 foot side setback requirement. When the Texas Townhouses were originally subdivided, the lots were established as 25 feet wide, with a 0 side setback. Therefore, any changes to the buildings required a setback variance. There was no GRFA or site coverage increase with this request. The request consisted of raising the roof on the north side by 3 -4' in order to gain head room. Staff recommended approval of this request, as the property was a pre - existing non- conforming lot. There would be no impact on the neighbors from this request. Diana Donovan clarified that these were townhouses, not condos, and there was no property in common. Connie Knight moved that the request for a setback variance for the MacCormick Residence, Texas Townhouses 6B, Lot 6B, Vail Village Fourth Filing/483 Gore Creek Drive be approved per the staff memo, with the finding that the variance was warranted by the fact that the strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Chuck Crist seconded the above motion. The motion passed, 7 -0. • 6 • • 0 In the interests of time, item 3 was postponed to a later time in the meeting. 4. Appeal of calculation of GRFA for Primary1Secondary units under 1991 regulations. Appellant: Ned Gwathmey Kristan Pritz explained the staff would agree to calculate GRFA as requested by Mr. Gwathmey, and that this item was not actually an appeal, but more a clarification request from staff to the Commission on the direction to take with regard to requests such as this. She explained the reason the bonuses were calculated on a 60/40 basis was that this was how the original language in the code had divided up credits. The code allowed for credits to be allocated per unit or pooled into one unit. Ned had brought to the attention of staff that if the 850 sq. ft. was added to the total GRFA and then the 60/40 split was calculated, the second unit would not get the full benefit of the credits. An equal allotment of 425 sq. ft. seemed to be more fair to Ned. Staff was willing to calculate the GRFA by using the formula based on lot size and then add 425 sq. ft. per unit. However, staff did not want to be responsible for dividing the 850 sq. ft. of GRFA between two owners. The secondary unit would stipulate the GRFA cap of 40% + 425 sq. ft. The bottom line was that total GRFA + 850 sq. ft. shall not be exceeded under any circumstances, and Primary /Secondary lots will not be allowed to have a secondary unit that exceeds 40% of GRFA + 425 sq. ft. Staff wanted to ensure the PEC was clear on this decision. Chuck Crist asked if the primary unit would be eligible for all 850 sq. ft. ,if a secondary unit . was not built. Kristan replied it would. After discussions with Jay Peterson, Diana Donovan indicated she was agreement with the staff direction on this issue. Chuck Crist moved the Commission support the staff position outlined in their memo. Connie Knight seconded. The vote was a favorable 7 -0. 5. Appeal of calculation of GRFA as it relates to substantially enclosed space, Mindlin Residence, Lot 7, Vail Potato Patch /800 Potato Patch Drive. Appellant: Peter Looms Jill Kammerer clarified the bottom line on this appeal was there was a differing code interpretation between staff and appellant. The existing structure had a covered entrance with three floor -to- ceiling openings which were non - contiguous. The lineal openings of these areas totalled 26% of the space, and code only required a 25% lineal opening. However, the code specified the openings must be contiguous. Peter Looms, architect for the Mindlins, agreed that the openings did not meet the code requirement for contiguous openings, but that no one connected with the house had ever 0 7 0 0 considered the area as enclosed space. If it were counted in that manner, approximately 350 Ssq. ft. of GRFA would be lost and the expansion potential for the residence would be severely impacted. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with the staff interpretation of the code, stating this was a massing issue. The Zoning Code Task Force had specifically addressed this issue, with a great deal of time spent thinking and examining what the provisions should be. The Task Force had carefully looked at whether posts could be allowed, but had determined they could not. Chuck Crist agreed with Kathy's assessment. Connie Knight indicated this proposal was exactly what was to be eliminated. She asked Mr. Looms if the posts were structural supports. He indicated they were, but also stated they were solely architectural elements. Ludwig Kurz felt this question was a mass and bulk issue and agreed with the staff position. Gena Whitten also agreed. Jim Shearer agreed with staff's position, but questioned the interpretation if the space had turned a corner with a corner post. Kathy Langenwalter indicated the Task Force had specifically talked about that, and decided the space needed to be contiguous. Otherwise, support beams could become 4' posts. Chuck Crist moved to uphold staff's decision regarding the GRFA question for the Mindlin residence. Jim Shearer seconded the motion, and a unanimous, 7 -0, Commission upholding the decision. 6. Presentation of staff policy decision on calculating GRFA as it relates to residences in primary /secondary zone district. Kristan Pritz indicated to the Commissioners staff had been making interpretations of the new GRFA policy, and was making this presentation to ensure they were acting in accordance with the intent of the policy, and the direction the PEC wished staff to take. The Commissioners upheld all of the staff decisions presented. At this time, the Commission returned to Item 3. • 0 0 3. A request to amend the Zoning Code, adding a section to identify all approved view is corridors and to set forth details with regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen explained this as a reformatting of the previously given information. The information was better organized, and would be placed in the Design Review section of the zoning code. Kathy Langenwalter asked why the decision had been made to place the view corridor information in the Design Review section. Andy answered that the original thought had been to create a new chapter, but that staff decided it would be more useful in Design Review. If an applicant came in and asked for building requirements, they would be automatically given the Design Review criteria in their packet. The goal was to make the provisions as clear as possible and acceptable to the public. Kathy wondered if this actually would clarify the guidelines. She thought that perhaps placing the provisions in the Commercial Core I zone district would be more beneficial. Andy replied there were some view corridors which extended beyond CCI, and that future view corridors may be adopted which affect areas outside CCI. Kathy Langenwalter suggested the language under the amendment section of the proposed ordinance could be clarified. She proposed it read: "No proposed structure may encroach into an adopted corridor without an amendment to the established view corridor boundary." In addition, she said that Paragraph 8, dealing with rebuilding non - conforming structures, would be improved if the standard would allow destroyed structures to be rebuilt to the previous height, as well as size. A third revision she proposed would re -word Paragraph 6(C) so that it emphasized that the encroachments into the view corridor would be the proposed expansions, not existing buildings. Andy clarified that if a proposed building would encroach in a view corridor, a full view corridor amendment would be required, including PEC and Town Council reviews. Kristan stated that staff wanted a specific process set forth in the future so that if a project such as the Red Lion was proposed, there would be a clear procedure for amendments. She indicated Larry Eskwith would review the specifics of the ordinance before it was presented to Town Council. Kathy was also concerned that the language "no existing structure located in a view corridor shall be expanded or enlarged" would prohibit any Clock Tower expansion or remodel. Kristan said that the language applied more directly to buildings other than the Clock Tower, like the Golden Peak House. Diana wanted to clarify that the part in the view corridor could not be expanded, but a portion of the building which was not in the view corridor would not be limited. Chuck Crist asked for a clarification from page 6 regarding an existing structure within the view corridor. If it were torn down intentionally, would the Town allow it to be rebuilt • 0 0 exactly as it was. Mike explained the purpose of this language was to phase out non- . conforming structures when they came in for redevelopment. However, natural causes for a demolition (fire, etc.) would be exempted. Chuck asked about demolition because of an unsafe building due to deterioration over time. Mike indicated that the nonconforming clause would only pertain to destruction by natural causes. Jim Shearer wondered if the Clock Tower should be specifically excluded. Diana believed the CIock Tower, as an indicated focal point, was protected in both the old version of the ordinance and the proposed ordinance. Andy clarified it was a goal of the Town to preserve designated focal points, and that the Clock Tower was referenced as a focal point in the first part of the proposed ordinance. Chuck Crist asked if a "structure," as indicated in Paragraph 3, would include street lights or trees. Kristan answered that street lights and public utilities would not be included in that definition. Chuck responded that, eventually, trees could block the intended view. Shelly related that other communities around the nation had tried to deal with this issue, and it was a common question. Chuck clarified he was more concerned with artificial structures, such as street lights, but not vegetation. The suggestion made by Diana was to add language to this paragraph which would indicate man -made objects, such as street lights, top lights and utility poles, would not be allowed. Chuck also wondered if the Design Review Board would be the body to review the applications for a change to the view corridors. Kristan answered that the request would go to the PEC and Town Council on an ordinance amendment. Jim Shearer asked if stakes could be placed where the photos were taken. Diana replied there were survey points. Kristan clarified that staff would like to place brass caps in the pavement to designate the point of origin for the view corridors. Jim requested the legal description of the view corridor include not only the height at which the picture was taken, but also the type of lens used. Mike Mollica stated that would be indicated in the future. Kristan explained that there was no indication on the previous corridors adopted. Diana was positive Dan Corcoran had that information, and Kristan agreed to look into it. If Dan did not have the information, the corridors would be re- photographed for documentation. Kathy Langenwalter suggested displaying the corridors in a prominent location. Kristan proposed the planning office. Connie Knight wondered why there was no view corridor including the 4 -way stop. Kristan answered that, when the previous view corridor study was done, that particular view corridor was not approved. It was the intent, however, of the planning staff to do another study in the Village and Lionshead during the next budget year. 0 10 0 0 Kathy Langenwalter moved to recommend the Town Council amend the Zoning Code, adding . a section to identify all approved view corridors and to set forth details with regard thereto as per the proposed ordinance with the following changes and additions: 1. Designate the lens type and size for all view corridors. 2. Include objects, such as street lights, stop signs and utility poles as structures which should not be allowed to encroach into a view corridor. 3. Change the title of Paragraph 4. 4. Modify the last sentence in Paragraph 6(C) so that the encroachments into the view corridor which are discussed clearly called out "proposed encroachments." 5. Modify the last section of Paragraph 7 so that it reads: "No proposed structure may encroach into an adopted view corridor without an amendment to the established view corridor boundary." 6. Modify the section of the proposed ordinance dealing with nonconforming buildings so that a reconstruction of a building destroyed by natural causes would not be able to exceed the previous height or size. 7. Include a section in the proposed ordinance so that appeals would be brought to the i PEC. Jim Shearer seconded the above motion. The unanimous 7 -0 vote was in favor of the recommendation. Before proceeding to the worksession, the Commissioners dispatched the following items: 8. Approval of Lifthouse Lode portion of minutes from March 25 1991 meeting, Chuck Crist moved, and Connie Knight seconded, that the minutes be approved as written. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 9. Approval of minutes from April 8, 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved that the April 8, 1991 minutes be approved as presented with the deletion of the last sentence of the next to last paragraph, page 14. Gena Whitten seconded. The minutes were approved as changed 7 -0. • 11 0 • 7. Worksession on Master Transportation Plan. • Applicant: Town of Vail Greg Hall, Town Engineer, indicated this worksession was to learn what the concerns of the PEC were in a more relaxed atmosphere than the joint PEC /Council session. Kathy Langenwalter expressed her desire to see the changes since the previous worksession. Consultant Arnie Ullevig said the plan presented in March had been marked up with the changes requested. He was about to go for a final revision to incorporate those changes, but wanted to be clear on the PEC's direction. The first aspect of the plan reviewed was the portion relating to transit. Arnie stated the most significant alteration from the current system was the proposed opposing bus loops in West Vail. A concern which had been indicated was the difficulty in going from West Vail South to West Vail North. The opposing loops would help eliminate that problem. The difficulties still to be worked out for this proposal were the equipment and scheduling implications. The greatest user impact would be the rider would have to determine if the bus was inbound or outbound. The Sandstone route would continue as a separate route. Concerning the in -town shuttle, the people mover possibility was retained as a long term concept, but the more immediate proposal was to go to more of a shuttle vehicle than a bus. The difference was that the passengers would be standing for the most part, and there would be a lower step access to the vehicle. The fleet would be modified over time. Arnie showed that the carrying capacity would be significantly increased. In addition, passengers would carry their skis on the shuttle, and the shuttles would operate on the same route. Jim Shearer expressed concern over people carrying skis in such a confined space. Arnie said it was up to the Town, but racks could be placed outside the shuttles. Having passengers carry their own skis would lessen the entry and exit time for riders. Greg Hall stated they had gone to Copper Mountain to examine that issue and found it not to be a problem. Copper currently uses a similar vehicle to the one proposed. Arnie said they could talk with the manufacturers to devise a method of carrying the skis, but the ridership is so high, the vehicles needed to be maximized. The use of the shuttle bus option would give adequate service for approximately 10 -15 years before another method would need to be investigated. The wording in the Master Plan regarding people movers was the technology would have to be significantly improved. Regarding the routing of the in -town shuttle, Arnie strongly recommended not extending the route to the Frontage Road and mixing it with other vehicles. He said this was particularly important if a standing shuttle were utilized. He did not think the shuttle should be extended past the Lionshead parking structure. Chuck Crist asked if the shuttle could turn around at • 12 0 0 that point, and riders going further could use the current busses for beyond that point. Arnie • believed that to be a safer option. For the other end of the route, the turnaround at Gold Peak, Arnie's recommendation was to change the location of the turnaround to better keep the shuttle from mixing with traffic and delaying the system. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about the impacts the move would have on children as well as adults, since the relocated turnaround would be further from the day care facility, not to mention being an uphill hike from the stop. Diana thought the existing location was more convenient for people, but worse for traffic impacts. Arnie said the transportation recommendation is to untangle the bus from traffic as much as possible. Expressing her difficulty with the plan, Gena Whitten stated she was concerned with the connection to the golf course bus. Arnie said the connection stop would most likely also be moved to match the new location. Kathy wondered about the possibility of taking the shuttle through the Lionshead Mall. Arnie replied the structures in Lionshead would have to be modified, as there was currently no clean line for a route. Kathy said that, since this was at the master plan level, the Town should place the emphasis on gaining right -of -ways when buildings came up for remodel. Jim suggested polling Lionshead merchants, telling them there was a possibility of the in -town shuttle eliminating the Marriott loop, and determine their reaction. He believed that would help the process. . Diana was in favor of taking the shuttle off the Frontage Road to Marriott, but stated those passengers would need to be accommodated in another fashion. Greg indicated the West Vail South bus currently stops near the Marriott. Diana expressed her opinion the Marriott loop should be eliminated. Arnie directed the attention of the Commission to the east end of the route, and suggested changing Vail Valley Drive to a one -way street and operating a one -way shuttle along it, with the construction of a bridge back to the Frontage Road. He said there would be disadvantages, but felt more problems would be fixed than created. Greg explained the route could be landscaped, and could give exclusive bus, pedestrian and vehicle routes. Connie Knight objected to that portion of the plan from a personal standpoint, stating people at the east end of Hanson Ranch Road or Gore Creek Drive would have a much longer drive to Safeway. The next portion of the Master Plan to be reviewed was core area loading and delivery. Arnie said it was clear where the trucks should not go, but the problem was finding where they should park. Following an explanation of the proposal, Kathy asked if the street parking would be eliminated if a truck parking facility was constructed across from the Christiania. She was told it would be. 0 13 ! # Diana declared the loading and delivery time should be restricted to state the time when . trucks would have to leave the area, not come in. The current procedure only gave the latest time they could enter the core. Jim was not in favor of covering any portion of the creek to provide parking. The rest of the Commissioners echoed this sentiment. Diana said nothing in the plan would work without the provision of a central dock facility. The proposed Cushmans for delivery, the delivery times, etc., were all dependent on that construction. Greg Hall asked if the parking along Gore Creek Drive could be eliminated. The consensus among the Commissioners was it could. Greg said one option for the proposed parking area was to have car parking on the lower deck, trucks on the Hanson Ranch Road level, and then landscape a park or green area on top. The Commissioners expressed their approval of such a plan. Jim Shearer wanted a strong recommendation to go to the Town Council that Vail Village is a pedestrian village, and the dollars should be spent to retain that character. Diana further emphasized that the truck docking facility was the most important thing the Town could spend money on in the next few years. Turning back to the shuttle system, Kristan asked a statement be given that a people mover • system should not be located along Meadow Drive. She did not think the system would accomplish the goals of a pedestrian village, given present technology. She would like a check to be placed in the master plan to ensure future considerations of building such a system would examine those aspects. The Commission asked her to write verbiage expressing those concerns. Gena Whitten left the meeting at 5:50PM, and Connie Knight departed at 6:00. The final portion of the proposed Master Plan to be discussed was the medians. Arnie and Greg went over the recommendations with the Commissioners, with the PEC members giving input on individual aspects of the plan. The strongest recommendations from the Commissioners was to consolidate access points along the Frontage Road to decrease the amount of left turn lanes necessary. The PEC also recommended adding landscaping where ever possible, but not through the use of a center median when the sides of the road could be nicely landscaped. They were in favor of changing the access points at the West Vail interchange with 1 -70, but Kathy Langenwalter was troubled by the re- routing of the Frontage Road on the north side. Chuck Crist left the meeting at 6:35PM. • 14 0 0 When discussing the 4 -way stop, the Commissioners wanted the ideal access closures identified, and clearly stated their opinion no information booth should be placed on the Frontage Road. There was discussion around the road leading to Crossroads Mall, with Arnie and Greg noting the final recommendations. There was no consensus over relocating the main Vail exits from I -70. Many options were discussed, including resigning the highway to indicate the East Vail exit was for Vail Village, and the current main Vail exit was for Lionshead. Additional recommendations involved closing the main Vail exit from I -70W and the entrance to I -70E for a season to determine the impacts to the East Vail interchange, but some Commissioners expressed hesitance over this plan, stating they did not feel the Frontage Road should handle that volume of traffic. There was no final consensus to the direction the Master Plan should take with regard to this interchange. The meeting was adjourned at 6:58PM. r1 U • 15 . MEMdRANIDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to consider an application to rezone property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works Shops from Agriculture and Open Space to Public Use District. Applicant: Town of Vail INTRODUCTION The purpose of this worksession is to discuss the potential rezoning of a tract of land west of the Town shops. The parcel is approximately 500 feet wide and 1,400 feet long and is directly west of the Town of Vail Shops. The current zoning of the property is Agricultural and Open Space District. The owner of the property is Vail Associates (VA), with the Town of Vail being the leaseholder. The purpose of the request is to rezone the property from Agricultural Ah and Open Space to Public Use District zoning. The Public Use District allows "public service facilities" as a conditional use. If the rezoning is approved, the Town of Vail will apply for a conditional use permit for a snow dump. Development standards in the Public Use District are prescribed by the Planning Commission for individual proposals. Section 18.36.050 of the Public Use District states that: "The Planning Commission shall prescribe development standards for each particular development proposal or project in each of the following categories: A. Lot area and site dimensions; B. Setbacks; D. Height; E. Density Controls; G. Site Coverage; H. Landscaping and Site Development." Staff believes that each of these issues of site development should be analyzed closely at the time of the conditional use hearing. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST Below is the criteria the Town uses to evaluate rezoning requests. Staff would like comments on the first three. The fourth, concerning the Land Use Plan, includes a discussion by staff, as it involves details from the Land Use Plan. Staff will take the issues that the PEC raises and address them at the next hearing, following the work session. A. Sultablllty of Existing Zoning • 0 B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable Relationship with Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives? C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly, Viable Community? D. Land Use Plan This parcel is designated as Open Space in the Land Use Plan. Criteria for amending the Land Use Plan have been established. On page 62 of the plan, it states that in order "to change the plan ... it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have changed since the plan was adopted, how the plan was in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general." The goals and policies of any Land Use Plan are the fundamental basis on which such a plan is developed. Policy 6.1 of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan states that, "Services should keep pace with increased growth." Staff believes snow removal is a service which the Town provides and is included under this policy. In another section of the plan which discusses the facility and service standards of the Town, it states that the Public Works Town Shops "is of adequate size to accommodate future space needs." Staff believes that conditions have changed since that statement was put in the plan, and in order to maintain the service standard called for in Policy 6.1, rezoning this land to accommodate public service facilities is an appropriate action. In addition to the change in landscape designation, staff also suggests changing the Land Use Plan to reflect the need for expansion of the Town . Shop site. r 1 Ill. POTENTIAL CONCERNS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW As this is a worksession, staff thought it might be appropriate to discuss both the rezoning issue as well as potential concerns that may arise during the conditional use review. Clearly, the rezoning is the first step and must be approved prior to any conditional use approval. At this time, staff has identified some questions, which are listed below. If the PEC can add to this list, then Town staff and the consultant who has been hired can research the concerns the PEC may have. Water quality. Describe how drainage from the snow dump will be treated before entering Gore Creek. 2. Lighting. Provide information regarding night time operation and a lighting plan. 3. Appearance. Explain if debris and cinders will be visible from homes in the vicinity. 4. Screening. a. Document assumptions, such as the sight line from homes in the area, berm height, berm slope and height of trees to be planted on the berm. 2 . b. Identify enough elevations in the surrounding neighborhood, with corresponding site lines, so that the PEC can thoroughly understand where the visual impacts will be. 5. Excess fill. If excess fill will be generated, identify where it will be moved. 6. Access road. Identify if the access road will be visible from the neighborhood, if it will need retaining walls, and if those will be visible from homes in the area. 7. Capacity. Identify small, medium and large volumes in the snow dump, representing the amount of snow which will be in the dump for dry, average and heavy snowfall years. 8. Area. Show what area of the proposed rezoning will be used for the snow dump and what will remain undeveloped. If remaining land is to be used for other Public Works facilities in the future, identify the potential uses. IV. CONCLUSION Staff is not including a recommendation, as this is a worksession. • cApecltovlsnowdump.422 0 3 s 1 3N1'1�4gyYw • _ a!t la j 4t4 IN, kuA •11 411 : to e » Q � I z •E C j a ! H ,t 9 03 Sam I ^ ILI IA 0 N \ 'l \ "" ' ti r II I, 1il r� O I, P il. !{ }•!i+ jll il��jrl it I. `!I Ir lj . . j� -� '�I a �. � � �'' I'I j•i i ! 'I � � �I 11 i : ' I ' i � ;s 1 , ; 1 1' � � '� j��' 1 •� , ��'1 ;! j�j �l� I 11.�II:I� �1��I1 �,: �.: I.. �1 }I r{• j �'' II ��lili�i�' �!; f �i�j�l,.l 111; ;I;(��i .I� i.j� ����l.j1 ! If�' F;;�� �'- �I4I•� }jj{llII�.! I' ' , ICI' .f l •! , .I , �. i ! i � ; ' ! I ij l ' I j 7 !' 111 ,. '` � ! •, ' II!'I ;.l�i- ',t ':I -III I'! I � � ��'�I;'j• 3, •�'! L, I3; ,ICI '�� ;': 1 i'•ji,l ' .I 11 ';� I��l I'I'` {II, III ! ! I• ! I I 1 I f . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, MacCormick Residence, Texas Townhouses 6B, Lot 6B, Vail Village Fourth Filing/483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Alexander MacCormick o:.?rv''..y'"'.,:. •'Y.'�� . a��uK�s, v�:., R:.. �. 4: .:...r:�$.a[y:p:2o:;oca•.wflyl x3yyy.,i��'.,�I�154.'O pct'- °Fv.3:•+re:!•;�:�•t;• j:.d'>� <ojr "'fiw•'S'<°i."'�i �i�r��r} .'•.�"Na��p�y'.o:.:'•,'y3;,..,s ...;r ./`�5.,, .`�. Y f8-J:�/'i .s'�t,' �:' ::,��. !� f �.,.����•' 'v4 /f�/.�p':2:'ki�....f r:.,{f�. >�'•i�' �: r:sr �-s1 . ti ::o-: .h'`': '�::�.: -i`�'�!':E�. -,.,.-�,�.- ,:�'�rav,., .r:.r.:, - �r.�r•`:�r;r I .'����: ^�f- :.;vrs`�r,�4,Yv< • i,�F,`. ��: f::�,n: :w...r..�,.:r ..rr�:`�w�' ;., s, 6:: o" �'`;: i'° r.:" 26: e., o:,,:. i�r����? �: �fi:• .Sf�;xy!i�::�A��,�x?.rb:�l�oc m.. �r: Y:. �F3`: r�: �::,. �- �i`:: �% ��'_ �: t:, c:, ar. 3�n.. �;. �$> �v'.' �:! �:. �.: ��l: �N�r". �. G, :�:��E:fa��Jv�x.':i:.:.xm..c;:. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Alexander MacCormick, is the owner of Unit 6B of the Texas Townhouses, and is proposing a remodel of the upper level of the structure. The remodel includes adding a large dormer on the north elevation, of the third floor, of the townhouse. The proposal does not include a request for any additional GRFA over the allowable. The applicant is able to accomplish this by raising the roof on the north side of the ridge beam approximately 4 feet. This effectively increases the head height in this area of the structure from an existing 5'-0" to 8' -0 ". This does not add GRFA to the unit because areas which are less than 5' -0" in height, in attic areas, are excluded from the calculation of GRFA. The Texas Townhouses are zoned High Density Multiple Family, and as such the setbacks are 20 feet on all sides of the property. The Texas Townhouses were originally subdivided in a way which created non - conforming side setbacks. The lots, and individual units, are only 25' -0" in width, with each unit's side wall being right on the side property lines. This configuration results in a zero side setback. It is for this reason that a side setback variance is always required for any modifications to the Texas Townhouses. Although there is no proposed change to the building footprint of the existing structure, this request for a side setback encroachment is to accommodate the changes to the roof, on the north elevation of the structure, thereby allowing for the addition of a dormer. The maximum ridge height for this unit is not proposed to be increased, as the ridge beam of the structure will stay as it currently is. . II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: High Density Multiple Family Lot Area: 2,325 sq. ft. GRFA: No change to existing Site Coverage: No change to existing Height: No change to existing Setbacks (Required 20 feet on all sides of property: No change to existing, however, it should be noted that the existing side setbacks are 0' on both the east and west sides of the property. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on 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. 0 The requested side setback variances will have a minimal impact on both the east and west sides of the property, due to the slight increase in the height of the north facing roof. However, it should again be noted that the existing side setbacks are currently 0' on both the east and west sides. The proposed alteration to the roof form will create a slightly larger area of encroachment into the setbacks, as indicated on the attached drawings. The staff believes that said encroachments will not negatively impact adjoining or neighboring properties. Because there is no proposal to expand the existing building footprint, there is no encroachment into the 100 -year flood plain or into the 50' Gore Creek stream setback. As a result, the only possible impact the proposal could have would be on the Town's stream walk, located on the north side of Gore Creek. Staff believes that such an impact would be very minimal, in that the additional mass proposed for the top floor of the structure should not be perceived as a negative impact on any surrounding properties. 2 • 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The Texas Townhouses have lot configurations which make it almost impossible to modify the units without requiring variances. In fact, the existing units already encroach significantly into the required side yard setbacks. These encroachments are due to the fact that the lots are very narrow. The staff believes there are extraordinary circumstances due to the original lot layouts of the Texas Townhouses, and that approval of the variance request would not be a grant of special privilege. A similar situation exists at the Vail Rowhouses, and it should be noted that similar setback variance requests have been approved in the past for the Vail Rowhouses, as well as for the Texas Townhouses. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect upon • any of the above considerations. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. 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. b. 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. 0 3 IN • C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance request. We believe there are extraordinary circumstances on this site (i.e., lot layout) which do not generally apply to other properties in this same zone district. It is also felt that the granting of the setback variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or to properties or persons in the vicinity. For these reasons, staff believes it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the setback variances. The staff believes that findings III(B) 1, 2 and 3(a) apply to this variance request. C] ok — OP ZF it VNI IIJ H.UJI ILJZJ, --JZJVAL111% 9 10101 SNO11MIAGON. II as IR IL IL 70 IL fo I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend the zoning code, adding a section to identify all approved view corridors and to set forth details with regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail The staff proposal is to create a separate section of the zoning code, where the regulations for view corridors will be located. Staff believes that an appropriate location for these standards is in the Design Review section. At this time, the view corridors are referenced only in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff believes that development outside Vail Village can impact established view corridors, and that there should be a section of the code applicable to all development areas. Staff also believes that locating the standard in the Design Review section in the zoning code will bring more attention to the fact that the Town does have established view corridors which all development must comply with. Staff is not proposing to modify any of the recently proposed view corridor ordinance changes. The proposed view corridor over the Red Lion and Christiania has not changed and is included in the recommendations to Council. The new section is proposed to have subsections describing the views individually. Following those general descriptions, staff is planning to incorporate the legal descriptions for each view. Administrative responsibilities will be defined, describing who will regulate the view corridors, when new construction should be checked to ensure it does not encroach into view corridors, and a general statement establishing the legal basis for protecting the corridors and prohibiting new construction from encroaching into the view corridors. As discussed in previous PEC hearings, the new standards will prohibit encroachments, including mechanical equipment. The new ordinance will also clarify that the more restrictive height applies when comparing zoning district standards to the of the view corridor standards. The ordinance that will go to Council establishing this new section will also modify "Section G of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations" so that it is consistent with the new section of the zoning code. Because of the major changes in the organization of the proposed view corridor ordinance, staff thought it was appropriate to bring it to the PEC for preliminary review. At this time, the PEC will be voting on the proposal, giving a recommendation to the Council for their final approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Town Council that the proposed changes be approved. Staff believes that the clarity of the new ordinance, and the relocation of it in the zoning code, instead of the Urban Design Considerations, will increase the awareness of the regulations and clarify the standards for development. . c:lpeclviewcorrlviewcorr.422 El 1 • r -1 LJ • ORDINANCE NO. Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: Para ra h G Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been adopted as part of the Design Review standards in Section 18.54.050 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, • 0 by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in the Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Section 18.54.050(J) of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. 2. Section 18.54.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Paragraph F, to read as follows: F. To protect, perpetuate and preserve certain panoramic mountain views from various public places and rights -of -way within the Town. 3. Section 18.54.050 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Paragraph J to read as follows: J. Restrictions on structures within areas necessary to preserve mountain views. 1 - Purpose a. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various public ways within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; b. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; d. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic 2 - Adoption of View Corridor Legal-Descriptions and • Photographs The photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. a. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; View Point #1 Instrument - View Point #1 Backsight - Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet . Horizonal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 358 47' 76 41' A 358 47' 85 49' B 12 06' 89 14' C 15 00' 89 17' D 22 14' 86 54' E 35 18' 85 42' F 38 17' 76 21' G b. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between the Golden Peak Building and Hill Building; View Point #2 . Instrument - View Point #2 Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point 42 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo c. (Number 4) The northwest corner of 244 Wall Street • looking over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs toward the Gore Range. Legal description will be written after all proposed development has either been constructed or the approvals for such development has expired. This provision applies to all development projects which have received Design Review Board approval as of the date of second reading of this ordinance; d. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of the Mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 • Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Angle Zenith Angie Foresight Point On Photo 201 31' 81 24' A 206 53' 85 03' B 210 24' 85 11' C 213 09' 84 03' D 213 09' 83 00' E e. Looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between the Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building. 0 View Point #6 Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 356 55' 81 00' A 357 32' 81 19' B 00 46' 83 13' C 01 59' 85 26' D 12 43' 85 26' E 12 51' 80 10' F 12 12' 78 58' G 13 07' 73 06' H 3 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach above the black and white dine set forth on each of the adopted photographs. The black and white lines are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 2. Copies of the photographs and legal descriptions are on file with the Community Development Department. 4 -- Conflicting Height Regulations When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail view corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure which already encroaches into the same view corridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. 5 - View Corridor Height Control If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view corridor, the more restricted height as defined by the view corridor shall apply. . 6 -T Submittal Requirements The following information shall be submitted along with a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, or a different appropriate application, so that the Town staff and of the view corridor, and a graphic representation on the • photographs of how the proposed improvements will appear with relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from the same point used to define the corridor with the camera set 5.4 feet above the pavement. C. If necessary, the Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittals which show the impact of the structure upon the protected view corridor. 7 - Amendments Amendments to adopted view corridors or the adoption of additional view corridors shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall give a recommendation to Town Council. The Town Council shall hear the proposal twice and shall approve it by ordinance before the view corridor becomes officially adopted. Amendments to the established view corridor boundaries shall be required for any proposed building expansion, remodel or development which would encroach into an adopted corridor. Building expansions include, but are not limited to mechanical equipment, ducts, air vents and satellite dishes. 8 -- Exemptions Structures which are presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its current height. However, no existing structure located in a view corridor shall be expanded or enlarged. • 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 effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have nac<zarl Chic nrdinannp. and each part, section, subsection, 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor 9 ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Municipal Code, Chapter 18.13 - Primary /Secondary District (Please see attached March 9, 1991 letter from Ned Gwathmey) Appellant: Ned Gwathmey c ",�`•.. ' •' r. ';:' `- I�:'0i' ls1 s' �r'�r'cr. ?a•• r�ss� :�""�'a %..�'' �?r, :�s�•- rr?ri?:x�r• r a� ��• �; w •••w,�r' <�ieF::�:!�;xh.�r.�:r �'' •, ;D �. `'xf..°'•':c.?j,'�`J ''�',:��' ;fir" •:#,'�•+�. p5��..s'�"w;� :.,•�:��t.,�"�� ¢I:o;:�';'?r`.'';� ���. r��'.y[�US��'�jp'' ,, �:2. ;� � s� ,, oc, . � . • lF � . �� . � rh {pr�'�vI`i: � Y r�,f � 4�. ¢ �,.�t• . �r� 4 4 r �fi.,Lf 'f ''v44� 4.�r O f' cFI �`l'•Y 4•:i''ff a.ia�iif<Qf {d •:'i}''�> r:• ;', sS • ,o.o� � rFi,"� ur4'� „v aO �Efi3`�),.¢d a�C'�vr�' �rp��f 'r}'/:ii�.�r..?Fr�o'7F��'���i��.- el. r 'gi:° �r: f j7 "fri}T'+IOyy..;✓:,': f 4 < sy.• * � ���:. c�r�s�5r.5}.� ���`. ,;. s.a$''1`r .cn..,...sa�a;.r•.r:��•�& :a.�un. �u,' �. r'�Pr :a /,d�r.-��•4�s a{ Mfr,,, zs: :��rc?at�`a',r;.�s`:`.V,`:'`:.: ,�E,�rA4°"�ra'�r,R' .�r. N.. ��a�s,��.c•,3A:�rfw:o-'�s..s:a .�.�,r<���•:�•�r. armao.° �. �' �':'' t3��: oern ,;:;,���:��.x,�eECes,�:��%s�r `� Effective January 1, 1991, the Town of Vail modified the methodology used to calculate GRFA. These modifications included the elimination of the credit system for storage areas, mechanical areas, stairs/landings, void spaces, etc. Under the original method of calculating GRFA, in place prior to 1991, in the Primary /Secondary Zone District, the primary unit was eligible to utilize all the credits allowable for both the primary and secondary unit. 10 Under the 1991 methodology, to compensate for the elimination of credits, 425 sq. ft. of additional GRFA was allocated "per each allowable unit" on a lot. In order to ensure some continuity in calculating GRFA between the methodology used prior to the 1991 amendment and the methodology adopted in 1991, it was determined that, in the Primary/Secondary Zone District, the resulting 850 square feet of additional GRFA would be added to the allowable GRFA prior to calculating the 60 /40 primary /secondary split. As a result, of the 850 sq. ft. of additional GRFA allowed on a Primary /Secondary lot, 510 sq. ft. is allocated to the primary unit, and 340 sq. ft. is allocated to the secondary unit. Mr. Gwathmey believes the secondary unit usually has as much square footage in stairs, mechanical, etc. as does the primary unit. He believes the 850 sq. ft. of additional, allowable GRFA should be evenly split between the primary and secondary units, resulting in 425 sq. ft. of additional GRFA for each unit. Staff believes this issue was addressed during the discussions of the 1991 GRFA calculation modification. However, since Mr. Gwathmey has raised a question regarding the application of the additional 850 sq. ft. on the 60/40 split for Primary/Secondary lots, staff believes it is appropriate to address this issue with the PEC. Staff will agree to add the 425 sq. ft. per unit. The calculation will stipulate that the secondary unit cannot exceed 40% of the GRFA plus 425 sq. ft. The primary unit could propose to take all 850 sq. ft.. Staff will not regulate which owner gets the 425 sq. ft. unless two units are proposed to be built. • r � March 9, 1991 Ms. Kristen Pritz, Director Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Ordinance #37, Section 5 18.13.080 Density Control Allocation of 425 Square Feet per Unit Dear Kristen: In existing primary /secondary residences in calculating adjusted GRFA, we request you consider an addition of 425 square feet per unit instead of 850 per property. Needless to say, if the 40%/60% split is applied, the secondary unit has only 340 square feet of additional floor area. 3.?,` Usually the secondary has as much in stairs, mechanical, etc., as the primary. I don't recall that 60% or 40% of the 850 was ever discussed when the ordinance was in the "simplification" process. Please give this some thought. Sincerely, A OLD /GWATHMEY /PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. i Edward M. Gwathmey, AIA EMG /ad V • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Section 18.04.130(A)(4) - Floor Area, Gross Residential (GRFA) (Please see attached April 15, 1991 letter from Peter Looms) Appellant: Peter Looms .. b. ;'hk -f rfi , :��-0?��} 'orik e� o,. �f �.f e•°r r �rd�Ai`�+ �''»° �h' dk s �; '�i, .,. ' � 6-�t+��or � �s � C.o2. ~�'G "b "r , '.�fa �� $`k} �r'f� f`'f,. ��' rJ %,cyf�$:���� %�jJ.,f'�,.: ;�r'y.�'�' ;�?n �','tf3'i v�c;;,r�G $ �L''4'�Y•,�LP'x3:: {p n. �:.;.. .�$ �; �3n '!,�e&�i$�;�'��.���I�}�i'2"x 'air` "e'�,vc/�'��$�r�E�':g�� ; 47�vi; ��, �'• ��`` ��: � ?��3,o�s,{Yw.�!b��,kS`- .T.,': �:r ;.w:u .r .a` :rt-. /Fi.&..rc. ' .w. alw i �:o-�.;?..c¢..ro.�iS•.°ib°G6�i.. A.a1. .r.: ;...N..� _ a�.'G.f�'W'u mo., ,.ik.,A� a.Jra::r.�.vf g. �:� �.�"`.w":IGc.,,� Cc... Under Section 18.04.130(A)(4) of the Vail Municipal Code, "within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from GRFA calculations: Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or a similar feature /space with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25% of the lineal perimeter of area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio or similar feature/space provided the open space is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height." Mr. Looms is the architect on the Mindlin residence, located at 800 Potato Patch Drive. As currently constructed, there is a covered entrance which staff has concluded, under the current regulations, would now count as GRFA. The lineal perimeter footage of the space is 76.25 feet. 25% of 76.25 lineal feet is 19.06 lineal feet. To qualify as a substantially unenclosed space under the new regulations, and therefore not count as GRFA, there must be a minimum contiguous opening in the exterior walls of not less than 19.06 feet. As currently constructed, this covered entryway has three openings. The size of these lineal openings are 4, 8 and 7 lineal feet, respectively. However, these floor to ceiling openings are not contiguous, and therefore staff has determined the space does not qualify as being substantially unenclosed and, therefore, shall be included as GRFA. Mr. Looms is appealing the staff determination, and is requesting relief from the strict and literal interpretation of this section of the code. n U 04/15/1991 L2:02 FROM Radio Shack Dealer 22F'749 TO 13834792157 P.02f03 raw Looms y AP 1.5199f TMW, Sv Mniw 8757k . . /7 , - A TZA&L-4 _. d - air Ak4 -{ _ - L ko� 04/15/1991 12►03 JROM Radio 5haok Realer 22F749 TO 13934792157 P.03/03 i d TOTAL P.03 /93 3 �' 8" s,.�i �- �:. .. I I Sjjjj iy • A/ '75 75 2.3. 2- 6 76.00 76 (.2-6) IAI ",06 7Z) ­Z1,1174a- -A IS " N(T m i P�j • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 13, 1991 11:15 Worksession 12:00 Site Visits 2:00 Public Hearing Site Visits AGENDA Worksession 1. Update by Holy Cross Electric Association regarding an amendment to 1990 Master Plan to underground electrical lines. Applicant: Holy Cross Electric 2. Update on Municipal Complex, Phase I. Ken Hughey /Mike Mollica Public Hearing 4. 1. A request for an exterior alteration, Concert Hall Plaza, Lot 1, Lionshead 4th Filing /616 W. Lionshead Plaza. Applicant: Vail Investment Company. 2. 2. A request for a setback variance for the Stork Residence, Lot 23, Block B, Vail Ridge /2605 Davos Trail Applicant: Otto Stork 6. 3. A request for a minor subdivision for Lots A, B and C, Vail Village 7th Filing /595 E. Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail 3. 4. A request for wall height and front setback variances for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger TABLED TO MAY 20, 1991 1. 5. A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 1, Block A, Vail bas Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn TABLED TO MAY 20, 1991 r 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for construction of Stephens Park in the Greenbelt /Natural Open Space zone district. The park area is more specifically described as follows: Platted government lots 13, 23 and 24, Township 5 South, Range 1 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, NW 1/4 of Section 14, Eagle County, Colorado. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. 7. A request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Open Space to Semi- Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agricultural and Open Space to Public Use District. The property is described as follows: That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46127 11W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23103 "W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of I -70; thence along the northerly ROW line of I -70 following two courses: 1) S75 28118 11E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38104" and a chord which bears N89 36134 11E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of 1 -70 N00 23103 11E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. • The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46127 11W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Town of Vail 5. 8. Appeal of staff decision regarding Lund Residence walkway, Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing /443 Beaver Dam Road. Appellant: Jay Peterson 9. Appeal of a staff decision concerning a home occupation permit, 4594 East Meadow Drive/ Sunwood Condominiums Appellant: Ned Richard Harley, M.D. 10. Appeal of a staff decision regarding the allocation of GRFA for the Vail Village Inn, SDD #6. Appellant: Alejandro Rojas 11. A request to amend Sections 18.04.360 and 18.04.365 of the Municipal Code relating to the definitions of site coverage and slope. • Applicant: Town of Vail 12. A request to amend Section 18.04.130 of the Municipal Code - definition of Floor area, gross residential (GRFA), pertaining to buildings containing more than two allowable dwelling or accommodation units. Applicant: Town of Vail 13. A request to amend the following sections of the Municipal Code related to site coverage: Section 18.04.360 - definition of site coverage; 18.14.110 - Residential Cluster District; 18.16.110 - Low Density Residential District; 18.18.110 - Medium Density Residential; 18.20.110 - High Density Residential District; 18.22.110 - Public Accommodation District; 18.24.150 - Commercial Core I District; 18.26.120 - Commercial Core II District; 18.27.090 - Commercial Core III District; 18.28.120 - Commercial Service Center District; 18.29.090 - Arterial Business District; 18.30.110 - Heavy Service District; 18.32.110 - Agricultural and Open Space District; and 18.39.190 Ski Base /Recreation District. . Applicant: Town of Vail U • n U 14. A request to amend the following sections of the Municipal Code related to density control: Sections 18.14.090 - Residential Cluster District; 18.16.090 - Low Density Multiple - Family District; and 18.18.090 - Medium Density Multiple - Family District. Applicant: Town of Vail 15. ✓Approval of minutes from April 22, 1991 meeting. 16.V/Reminder of joint PEC and Town Council air quality worksession on May 14, 1991. it 11 lJ n L� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 13, 1991 Present Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Gena Whitten Absent Chuck Crist Connie Knight Kathy Langenwalter Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker The worksession was called to order at 11:45AM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. Update by Holy Cross Electric Association regarding an amendment to 1990 Master Plan to underground electrical lines. Applicant: Holy Cross Electric Winston Chapham from Holy Cross Electric presented the tentative plan for undergrounding electrical lines in the Bighorn area to the PEC. He indicated the reason for the change from the 1990 plan was the Bighorn circuit was completely overloaded, necessitating a change from using existing conduits in the area to a new plan. He explained the options for the new conduit to tie the area together, emphasizing the landscaping and road cut options. He stated Holy Cross would need to dig from Vail View Drive to the west side of Sandstone under the new proposal. They would dig ditches where applicable, and bore under new roads, to eliminate cutting pavement in those areas. He also stated he hoped to bring in a landscape contractor to help ensure the landscaping was preserved. Town Engineer Greg Hall clarified that the Town Council had passed an ordinance which prohibited cutting new roads. He also recommended that Holy Cross Electric inspect their underground lines before the Town resurfaced any roads in the future. Mr. Chapham said Holy Cross began inspecting their lines via the use of television last year, and hoped to expand that use. Greg Hall stated he was concerned with easements in the proposed plan. Mr. Chapham acknowledged easements might have to be obtained from Simba and the Potato Patch Club, among others. Diana Donovan said she believed Todd Oppenheimer and Greg Hall could work out any difficulties in the plan. If there was a problem which remained, Holy Cross could come back to the Commission. Mr. Chapham stated that, since there were environmental aspects to the plan, Holy Cross would need to file with the Commission when the plan was completed. In conclusion, Diana stated she would strongly suggest placing the "green boxes" on corners of sites, rather than in the middle. A planner or Todd will accompany Holy Cross to help determine such placements and appropriate landscape screening. 2. Update on Municipal Complex Phase I Ken HugheylMike Mollica Ken Hughey began the staff presentation by giving a brief background of the project. In 1989, the Town began looking for more space, specifically to house the Vail Police Department. Originally, they looked at the old Post Office, but it became apparent it would be too expensive to renovate that space for the needs of the police department. The decision was to find a long terra solution, rather than just a "band -aid" for the problem. A design/consulting team of Roth & Shepherd/Snowdon & Hopkins was chosen. The Town Council authorized approval of the consultant team and suggested a phased approach to the construction of a municipal complex, with the highest priority given to a new police facility. Ken Hughey went on to note that the next step in the process was to give the Town Council an engineering and technical plan, along with the alternative costs of not providing a new building. This data is due to the Council in June or July. When sites were examined by the Municipal Complex Task Force, the Lionshead Transportation Center was identified as the top choice due to its location, access, and ease of construction. The primary site analysis consisted of four sites. Phase I would consist of a new level above the existing upper level for the Police Department, as well as a new level on the Lionshead Circle (south) side for additional parking. Phase 11 would move the remainder of the municipal functions to a new fourth level on the Lionshead Circle side. Hughey stated that the current site decisions, such as when moves would take place, had not yet been determined. Mike Mollica clarified the planning process and stated that the proposal would go to the Town Council in June or July for authorization to proceed with the Lionshead location. The staff would come back to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council with a rezoning request so the site could be used for a municipal complex /police department, and in addition, a conditional use permit would also be necessary. Mike further indicated there would be no net loss of parking on the site. Pam Hopkins stated there would actually be a bit of an increase, including provisions for the additional parking generated by the municipal complex. Diana Donovan asked what were the reasons for this site. Ken indicated that one of the • benefits of this location would be "the establishment of a civic center and a tie -in between the Village and Lionshead." Pam said this was the only site, of the four which were examined, which really worked in terms of access and grades. She felt it would create a good urban village. Mike said that the consultants had keyed in on four sites, but the Task Force had examined the entire Town. The opinion of the Task Force was that the Police Department and municipal offices should be within walking distances to the villages. Diana expressed she did not think the Lionshead site worked at all, and that a limiting factor for this site would be parking. She also felt the site was in a prime tourist location. It would not provide the link between the Village and Lionshead which was a goal. Pam reminded the Commission that municipal employees go to lunch, shop, and bring people into an area. Those workers could help maintain the Village - Lionshead link in the off - seasons. Diana still believed the Lionshead Transportation Center location would do more harm than good, reiterating her belief that this location should be tourist oriented. She asked that the tourists not be locked out. Kristan related a possible plan which had been considered to place private sector, retail stores at the lowest level promenade of the structure to help further the tourist link. She also said that staff had no problems explaining the rationale behind the site selection process for the PEC. Ken stated a major concern for the Police Department was emergency access, and a police station away from the core areas would severely impact response capabilities. Diana responded that the police station could be separated from the municipal complex. However, she did not believe the police station should have the ambulance entrance between the station and the 4 -way stop. She also stated that the Mountain Bell site could also work. Pam indicated there were severe slope problems on that site. Ken indicated the Police Department alone needed approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Pam asked the Commissioners why they would suggest isolating a municipal complex from the Village cores. She stated this was part of becoming a town. Kristan said that, as a planner, she agreed with Pam that a Town Center is a good concept. Many communities found difficulties years later when their municipal centers were isolated from retail and commercial activities. Kristan also stated that this discussion was brought to the PEC in order to discern their concerns and stated that the staff will prepare a presentation based on the issues voiced. Diana said she believed it was a problem that no one from the Planning Commission was on the Municipal Complex Task Force to create the master plan. Kristan responded that there had been a lot of analysis on the site selection but that the process had not been completed yet. Diana said it may not be completed, but a direction had been decided upon. Mike stated no Council decision had been made yet. Diana said it was difficult to see how the Task Force had gotten to this point, and thought there would be a great deal of community dissent with the Council's decision. � 3 • Gena Whitten commented that the south retail area would be positive. Jim Shearer said he could see the plan redesigned with lots of green space to make it attractive. Ludwig Kurz believed there could be potential benefits from the site, but that the proposal had not been thought through enough. He asked who was on the rasx Force, and it the makeup or mat group served to drive the decisions made. Mike answered the staff members were himself, Gary Murrain, Ken Hughey, Steve Barwick, and Rob LeVine of the Town Council. Ludwig said there could be a potential for that group to have a narrow focus. He also saw the potential for the community to feel that the decision was made at the staff and Council level and then pushed through the process. Jim agreed with Ludwig, and said that this would be an issue which would be difficult to "sell." If it is determined that a new complex is needed, and the Lionshead location was best, then the Town should show the community why. Jim continued by saying that if this site were selected, and if a goal were to bring in employees from off -site parking, then the present bus system would need to be re- examined, and the current drop -off sites should be reconsidered. He was also concerned that this proposal would limit the future capability to add more parking at this location. He would like to see more tourist services in this location. If the complex were to hook up with the proposed Performing Arts Center, there would be an additional parking need which he was not sure could be met. A goal for any Performing Arts Center should be all -day use for the Center, and that would require more parking at peak times. He also suggested the police and emergency routes be considered to access directly off of Lionshead Circle. He was concerned what we would look like from I -70. Although not present at the meeting, Diana gave Kathy Langenwalter's opinion that a municipal complex should also be an architectural statement, and Kathy thought the Mountain Bell site would be a better location. Jim agreed, stating that the Town should spend twice the money to have a structure that looked good. Pam Hopkins believed that such an a use should be placed near the core areas, and that the Mountain Bell site was both physically and mentally isolated from the activity. Mike said he would bring the full consultant team of Roth and Shepard before the PEC to make a full presentation. Kristan elaborated that staff wanted to be sensitive to any perception they were trying to "ram" anything through. A discussion took place regarding placing a PEC member, as well as other community members, on the Task Force. It was decided that an appointment would take place at the next PEC meeting. The worksession was adjourned at 12 :45PM. After site visits, the public hearing was convened at 2:10PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. • 1. A request for an exterior alteration Concert Hall Plaza Lot 1 Lionshead 4th Filin 1616 W. Lionshead Plaza. Applicant: Vail Investment Company_ Shelly Mello stated the proposal was to enclose 53 sq. ft. along the walkway in the area of the restrooms, and 15 sq. ft. at the entrance to Lionshead Bar and Grill. There would be an additional parking requirement generated by the LBG enclosure of .125 parking space, or a fee of $1,000. Shelly also said there would be no patio space taken away under the proposal, and the accent elements would match the existing. Guideline D.9 of the Vail/Lionshead Design Considerations was applicable to this proposal. This guideline specifies that doorways and entrances should be recessed from the facade plane. The LBG proposal would not accomplish this goal. Staff recommended denial of the 15 sq. ft. enclosure to Lionshead Bar and Grill because it did not meet the Vail /Lionshead Design Considerations. Staff recommended approval of the 53 sq. ft. enclosure along the pedestrian way. Jim Morter, representing the applicant, stated that the Lionshead Bar and Grill portion of the proposal was being withdrawn. He also asked if, when space on a lower level was converted into storage space, if any parking credit had been given for monies already paid. Shelly stated staff would investigate the possibility. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve an exterior alteration, Concert Hall Plaza, Lot 1, Lionshead 4th Filing/616 W. Lionshead Plaza per the staff memo. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 4 -0. 2. A request for a setback variance for the Stork Residence, Lot 23, Lot B, Vail Ridgy 2605 Davos Trail. Applicant: Otto Stork Mike MolIica briefly explained the request. He stated the property was zoned Primary /Secondary, with 15' side setbacks. There is an existing garage which encroaches into the side setback, and is considered an existing, non - conforming use. The applicant wanted to raise the roof on the garage approximately 1' -6" in order to construct an employee unit. The site met site coverage, parking and GRFA requirements. Mike indicated there were two related policies in the Town's Land Use Plan. The first was policy 5.3, which recommended affordable housing be made available through private efforts, with the assistance of limited incentives by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Though it is possible that the unit may not be "affordable," the applicant had agreed to permanently restrict the unit for long -term rental by employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. Section 5.5 of the Land Use Plan suggested the existing employee housing base be preserved and upgraded, with additional needs accommodated in various sites. This provision would also be met through this proposal. Design Review Board approval had to be given for a secondary unit on this site, as the lot was less than 15,000 sq. ft. • 5 • Staff found a hardship existed on this site, as the garage was built in this location when the property was under Eagle County's jurisdiction. When the Town annexed this property, it became an existing, non- conforming Iot. Staff found no negative impacts of this proposal to the adjacent properties, and recommended approval of the variance. Michael Sanner, the applicant's representative, stated there would be no problem permanently restricting the unit for employee use. Jim Shearer moved to approve a setback variance for the Stork Residence, Lot 23, Block B, Vail Ridge /2605 Davos Trail per the staff memo, due to the hardships stated in the memo, and with the accompanying conditions. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. The vote was 4- 0 in favor of the motion. 3. A request for a minor subdivision for Lots A, B and C, Vail Village 7th Filing /595. E. Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Andy Knudtsen indicated this was a request to replat the properties in order to build over a property line. The underlying zoning of High Density Multi- Family would remain the same, and because of that, the site coverage, GRFA and development potential for the property would also remain the same. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the condition the plat reference a permanent pedestrian easement through the property to Ford Park. Ludwig Kurz moved the request for a minor subdivision to vacate two lot lines, thereby creating a single lot for the Manor Vail Development, Lots A, B and C, Vail Village 7th Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive be approved per the staff memo. Jim Shearer seconded. As there were no dissents, the motion passed unanimously, 4 -0. There was a brief recess, after which Ludwig Kurz moved to table the following items from the agenda: 4. A request for wall height and front setback variances for the Neuswan er Residence Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina L_ ane. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger 5. A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site 2211 N. Frontage _Road/Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Das Inn The motion to table these items to the May 20, 1991 meeting was seconded by Jim Shearer, and was approved unanimously, 4 -0. • 6 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for construction_ of Stephens Park in the Greenbelt/Natural Oven Space zone district. The park area is more specifically described as follows: Platted government lots 13 23 and 24 Townshi 5 South Range 1 West of the 6th Principal Meridian NW 1 4 of Section 14 Eagle County, Colorado. Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen explained that the plans for the park had been reviewed and approved by the PEC, Design Review Board and Town Council, and this was the last step in the approval process. The Greenbelt/Natural Open Space zone district is highly restrictive. The criteria for granting a conditional use is that the proposed use provide a recreational amenity, that it preserve the stream tract, that it help decrease demand on other facilities, that it met standards for access and parking, and it would have a positive impact on the character of the area. One concern the PEC raised in previous reviews was the issue of parking. The parking was increased to 18 spaces, which exceeded the standards for a neighborhood park of this size. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Jim Shearer examined the plans for the park, and indicated he did not remember a path in the center to the Frontage Road. Andy responded the Town Council had requested pedestrian access to the Frontage Road, and due to the steepness of grades elsewhere, this was the first location it could be placed. Jim was concerned this location would encourage parking along • the Frontage Road. Andy agreed to look at the possibility of including a stairway, and moving it to the east for better pedestrian access. Jim also inquired if the Town had entered into an agreement permanently restricting the area from soccer game play. Andy said the size was not large enough for league play, and that this issue would be clarified in the contract between the Town and the VRD. Diana Donovan inquired if avalanche and rockfall signs were also to be placed, and Andy responded they were. Diana stated her preference not to see a path in the current location to the Frontage Road. Ludwig Kurz agreed with Jim's statements. Kristan agreed to pass those comments onto Council. Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit to construct Stephens Park in a Greenbelt/Natural Open Space zone district, with the request that the Commission's comments regarding there being a practice field only with league play prohibited, be passed on to Council. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The motion was a unanimous 4 -0 in favor of the motion. 7. A request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Oven Space to Semi - Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agricultural and Open Space to Public Use District. The property-is described as follows: 0 7 That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 90 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being- more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section $ S00 23'03 "W a distance of 529.86 ft to a oint on the norther) ROW line of I -70; thence along the northerly ROW line of I -70 following two courses: L S75 28'18 "E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature• 2� 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 5580.00 ft a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34 "E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8• Thence departing said ROW line of I -70 N00 23'03 "E along the easterly line of said Section 8 a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containin 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above arcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27 "W as shown on said annexation plats. Apphcants: Town of Vail ail Associates Andy Knudtsen explained the request. The current zoning on the parcel is Agriculture /Open Space. The request was to rezone the property to Public Use in order to construct a snow dump on the site. The Town would be the leaseholder of the property. Andy explained the criteria for rezoning a parcel of land. The first criteria was the suitability of the land to the proposed zone district. Because the location of the parcel lies between Public Use and Agriculture /Open Space, staff believed both zones were compatible, and the Public Use zoning could be extended. The second criteria was the workable relationship between land uses. Both zone districts have low impact uses and are very restrictive. Therefore, staff believed they were workable. The third criteria was how the zoning related to municipal objectives. Since this would provide for better snow removal by the Town, it would be a positive municipal change. During the worksession, there had been concern expressed about the by -right uses in the Public Use zone district. Andy explained that under the definition of seasonal structures and uses, a conditional use permit was required in all zone districts. The only risk of a by -right 17J use if the land were to be rezoned was that a park or bicycle path being built. All other rises • would require a conditional use permit. Andy stated the proposed snow dump would provide for growth and better snow removal services by the Town. He explained that both the map and text of the code would need to be changed to indicate this was a good location for Public Works to expand. The request met the land use and rezoning criteria, and staff recommended approval of the rezoning. Kristan Pritz elaborated that the snow dump would be a conditional use, not a by -right use, and the Town would have to return to the PEC for approval on the snow dump. Mike Dungan of Muller Engineering, the consultant working on the snow dump, explained the proposal. He showed alternate views of the proposed dump, from different locations, both before and after. Ludwig Kurz asked what the elevation of the access road behind the dump would be. Mike indicated it would be approximately 5 -8 feet above the height of the berm. The new berm would extend to the ridge line, and the area of the dump would be revegetated, with an attempt to revegetate using sage. The planting height and type along the berm itself would be varied. Sherry Dorward, design consultant, said that there were two assumptions being made in the plan. The first was the trees on the berm shown in the illustrations were 15 feet tall, and that the cut slope revegetation was good, but not perfect. The intent was to fuzz and "finger" the cut line to make it less apparent. They would replace the dead sage until the new hopefully grew in below it. iMike Dungan stated there would be moderate view effects due to the existing location of the Public Works shops. The berm in front of the snow dump would be more natural, and at a lower slope. The maximum slope of anything exposed to view would be 2:1. Greg Hall, Town Engineer, added that the inside of the berm would be grassed. Jim Shearer wondered if there would be gravel accumulation inside the dump. Mike Dungan indicated the gravel would be cleaned out periodically, and it would look much better than the current dump. Sherry pointed out that, from the ski slopes, cinders would be able to be seen. Jim thought a positive aspect of the plan was there would be more vegetation along 1 -70, and asked if drip irrigation would be used. Greg said it would be drip. When Jim asked about the drainage system for the dump, Mike Dungan indicated the salt from the snow could not be filtered out, but that they would sample the water to determine what the salt content was. A culvert to the site is existing, and the system would consist of a water quality and sediment pond. Pete Burnett added that, since only Town of Vail snow would be permitted in the dump, the content of the snow would be easily determined. Mike Dungan stated that there would be both a regular, sediment drain and an emergency drain. During the process of developing the dump, the culverts along 1 -70 would be improved. He stated this was an excellent location for a dump. • 9 Jim asked if a filter could be installed later if a need were presented. Mike Dungan said it could be packaged with a pump after construction if necessary. He explained that the intent was to ground filter as much of the water as possible, and that was why no impervious barrier was being placed beneath the dump. With the system being designed, Vail would be in the forefront of monitoring the content of their meltwater. Regarding the lease terms, Jim questioned if the length had been determined, and if any automatic renewals had been negotiated. Kristan said Ron Phillips was requesting a 7 year lease period. Jim also stated he would like to see conditions in the lease avoiding liability if the ground were contaminated. Greg stated those conditions were in the lease. Jim Shearer moved to approve the request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Open Space to Semi - Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agriculture and Open Space to Public Use District per the staff memo. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously voted, 4 -0, to approve the request. 8. Appeal of a staff decision regarding Lund Residence walkway, Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filin 443 Beaver Dam Road. Appellant: Jay Peterson Andy Knudtsen explained that staff reviewed the request to enclose the walkway and turret of • the Lund residence, and determined that a GRFA or density variance would be necessary for the request. Because the request was made in 1990, the 1990 site coverage and GRFA policies applied. The basis for staff's decision in this matter was that they interpreted the code to mean that semi - enclosed spaces were not GRFA, but that the current structures were already semi - enclosed. Any further enclosure would generate square footage under the GRFA policies. They determined that glass walls, in this case, would constitute enclosing walls of a structure. In the building permit plans, staff had specifically "redlined" the plans to indicate the openings must remain "open air." Andy noted that there would be 2 windows and one door left open in the walkway to the garage under the proposal. Kristan Pritz clarified the distinction between the Chester spa and some previous deck enclosures. Staff reviewed this proposal with the question of when space is no longer unenclosed. Their judgment was that their past interpretations had been very generous, and in this case, they had been generous to determine the turret was not treated as GRFA in the original building. Jay Peterson, representing the Lunds, stated that staff accurately portrayed what had occurred during the planning and construction of the residence. Galen Aasland, the architect for the project, was aware at all times that the spaces were to remain open. The owner did not mind. He wanted the areas to be open, and non - habitable areas. Since the completion, however, it was found that the wind swirled through the area, and it was extremely difficult to keep the debris from collecting. The main doors to the home would remain the main doors. 9 10 When the Lunds came to Mr. Peterson, he reviewed past staff decisions, i.e., the Chester house and the Kravis pool area, and he believed that as long as some area remained open, it would not be considered GRFA. The intent behind other approvals of similar semi - enclosed spaces had been the same, to keep wind and debris out. At this point, Ludwig Kurz disqualified himself due to his association with the builder of the residence. Gena Whitten commented that this was a massive structure, and the plans specifically called for these spaces to be "open air." She believed enclosing the bridge area would go against the intent of the GRFA ordinance. Jim Shearer agreed that the bridge should not be enclosed, but indicated he had no problems with the turret windows being glass- enclosed. Jay asked for clarification regarding the entry gate to the turret. In the original plans, it showed an open air iron gate. Jay reiterated this request was a result of serious debris problems. Two days after the Lunds received the Certificate of Occupancy, the area was filthy. Jim stated that it goes with the terrain - a bridge area has wind problems. Kristan stated she had been the planner on the project. There had been a great deal of changes made to the plans to meet the GRFA allowances. The trouble she had with the request was that a lot of effort was made to ensure that the house exactly met the GRFA iallowed. Jay responded that it had been originally acceptable because the owners did not know the effect of the wind. Kristan said the Lunds had received the benefit of all the GRFA available on the site. To enclose the walkway was beyond the allowable. Diana Donovan asked if the house, since it was a demo /rebuild, had taken advantage of the 254 ordinance. Jay said that no, 500 sq. ft. had been available, but since it was not used at the time of construction, it was now not available for five years. Jim stated he could support glass windows and 1/2 glass front grating, but no glass on the bridge. If the plans had not been redlined early on, he might feel differently. Kristan felt that staff had been generous with the turret area already. Diana said that it seemed clear the front grate and bridge should remain open, but the turret windows were no problem. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, clarified that the PEC could modify staff's decision. Gena Whitten moved to modify staff's decision regarding the Lund Residence walkway, Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/443 Beaver Dam Road to allow glass windows in the turret and hallway to the garage only, but no windows in the bridge /walkway and the front gate must remain open air. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 3.0 -1 in favor, with Ludwig Kurz abstaining. 9. Appeal of a staff decision concerning a home occupation permit, 4594 East Meadow Drive /Sunwood Condominiums. Appellant: Ned Richard Harley, M.D. Betsy Rosolack stated that home occupation applications were reviewed by the Community Development Department. Staff had denied this application for the practice of psychiatry, based on code language which indicated clinics were not an allowable use. However, there had been no definition of clinic in the code. Based on Webster's definition of "clinic," staff had concluded the use requested could fall under that definition. Diana Donovan asked if there was any language regarding this concern in the purpose section of the home occupation section. Betsy replied that the home occupation regulations were contained in the supplemental regulations of the zoning code. Kristan indicated the concern with home occupations was that those allowed did not generate a large number of trips. Betsy agreed, and stated that Dr. Harley had agreed to allow only 4 patients per day in his practice. Diana Donovan was sympathetic to the request for a home occupation permit, but wanted reassurances regarding the impacts of a psychiatry practice in this location. She also was concerned that the patients' appointments be spaced out so there would not be overlapping parking. iDr. Harley indicated he would be only practicing psychiatry on a part -time basis. There would be no employees, no fuels or debris additional to the normal, family trash. Diana asked for an agreement that the numbers of patients would be limited, the clients would not be scheduled with overlapping appointments, and he would be the only doctor on the premises. Dr. Harley indicated that, for confidentiality, he would have to schedule the appointments so they would not overlap. Jim Shearer asked if he dispensed medications or used needles at this location. Dr. Harley stated he might give a prescription, but there was no dispensing of any drugs in his office. Jim asked if any patients would be delivered in restraints, or if he used any type of scream therapy in his practice. Dr. Harley said he did not use primal scream therapy. Gena Whitten felt that the impacts of the traffic would be less than if this were a short term rental. Jim Shearer moved to overturn staff's decision and grant the appeal to allow a home occupation permit at 4594 East Meadow Drive /Sunwood Condominiums with the conditions that the practice be limited to 4 hours per day, 20 hours per week, there would be no overlapping patients, no dispensing of prescriptions, and only one doctor would be allowed. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 4 -0. 0 12 After the vote, discussion took place regarding the direction staff should take in the future on similar requests. It was determined that if needles or any other "dirty" trash were generated, it would not he an acceptable use. This included the practice of dentistry. Group therapy was also cited as an area for denial, based on the traffic and parking impacts. 10. Appeal of a staff decision regarding the allocation of GRFA for the Vail Village Inn, SDD #6 Appellant: Alexander Rojas Shelly Mello explained that the basis of the appeal was the staff's denial of a request for a building permit to add 78 sq. ft. of GRFA for a dwelling unit in the VVI, Phase II, SDD #6. The DRB had approved the design, conditional upon the available GRFA for the project being verified. Staff subsequently performed an in -depth review of GRFA for the entire VVI project, and determined that there was, in fact, an actual deficit of GRFA for accommodation units in the total project. Shelly explained the basis of the analysis, and the fact that there were conditions applicable to the final unbuilt phase which required a specific amount of GRFA be used specifically for accommodation units. There was no GRFA available for any phase for DUs. Shelly explained Mr. Rojas' basis of appeal: 1. He had pursued approval in a reasonable manner, and had received approval in 1989 for a similar project. Response: Conditions were placed on the DRB approval requiring the verification of GRFA. Staff worked with the applicant's representative to achieve a final decision. The applicant was aware of the issues involved and proceeded with further work on the project at their own risk. 2. His addition would constitute less than A6% of the total GRFA in the project. Response: This may be true, but the staff feels that this margin of difference has no bearing on whether an approval is given. Staff considered a margin of error for calculations completed on Phase V. Assuming this margin still does not allow for any available GRFA. 3. The definition of an accommodation unit and that his unit could be considered an AU, if the kitchen was removed. Response: Staff's definition of A.U. is a living quarter without a kitchen. Even if this space were to be determined to be accommodation unit, there was no GRFA for AUs in Phase II. Lynn Fritzlen represented appellant, and indicated that Mr. Rojas was having difficulty understanding why approval could not be given, since an approval for a similar expansion had been given in 1989 and constructed. Lynn indicated she had looked into the history of the approval of SDD #6, and it appeared that there must have been an oversight in approving Phase V because there was a deficit of GRFA for proposed AUs in Phase IV. 0 13 • Mike MolIica asked if the condominium conversion section of the code had ever been executed. Lynn stated Josef Staufer had a warranty deed to that effect. Mike indicated the Town needed to be a party to that deed in order for the Town to recognize the restrictions. Kristan Pritz indicated an SDD amendment would probably be necessary to achieve the applicant's goal. At this point, a discussion was held regarding the SDD amendment process and applicant's concerns. Diana Donovan stated that the bottom line was that Phase II had no GRFA available for either AU or DU expansion. Kristan stated that the applicant's goal could possibly be achieved with a major amendment to the SDD. Lynn asked if there would be merit in doing that, to which Mike answered Josef Staufer, the owner of the remaining phase, had preferred to not make an amendment of this type with his current amendment request. However, Kristan explained Mr. Rojas could pursue it independently, with Mr. Staufer's consent. Diana also suggested that someone else in that phase could actually remove 78 sq. ft. and donate it to Mr. Rojas, though that option was unlikely. Mike Mollica stated there was no benefit to the Town which would lead them to approve an amendment for 78 sq. ft of GRFA to be built. Diana agreed. Ludwig Kurz moved to uphold the staff's decision regarding the allocation of GRFA for the Vail Village Inn, SDD #6. Gena Whitten seconded. The decision was unanimously upheld, 4 -0. ! The meeting was briefly recessed at 5:10PM, and reconvened at 5:20. 11. A request to amend Sections 18.04.360 and 18.04.365 of the Municipal Code relating to the definitions of site coverage and slope. slope_ Applicant: Town of Vail 12. A request to amend Section 18.04.130 of the Municipal Code - definition of Floor area, gross residential (GRFA), pertaining to buildings containing more than two allowable dwellin or accommodation units. Applicant: Town of Vail 13. A request to amend the following sections of the Municipal Code related to site coverage: Section 18.04.360 - definition of site coverage; 18.14.110 - Residential Cluster District; 18.16.110 - Low Density Residential District; 18.18.110 - Medium Density Residential; 18.20.110 - High-Density Residential District; 18.22.110 - Public Accommodation District; 18.24.150 - Commercial Core I District; 18.26.120 - Commercial Core II District-, 18.27.090 - Commercial Core III District; 18.28.120 - Commercial Service Center District; 18.29.090 - Arterial Business District; 18.30.110 - Heavy Service District' 18.32.110 - Agljcultural and Open Space District; and 18.39.190 Ski Base /Recreation District. Applicant: Town of Vail 0 14 . 14. A request to amend the following sections of the Municipal Code related to density control: Sections 18.14.090 - Residential Cluster District: 18.16.090 - Low Densit Multi2le- Family District-, and 18.18.090 - Medium Density Multiple- Family District. ApplicantTown of Vail Kristan Pritz asked to address the above items together. She indicated the GRFA amendments for multi- family units had been devised. The Task Force and staff had examined many options, including credits and flat "bonuses." It was decided to increase the allowances for common areas from 20% to 35 %. The GRFA for a lot would remain the same, with credits for airlocks and an allowance for enclosed garages. The process for making this determination resulted from the difficulty in examining so many different types of projects. Some had limited common area, but they found the 20% common area allowance to be too limiting. The definition of GRFA for the higher density zone districts would remain the same as in the Single Family zone districts. Kristan went on to explain the exclusions and implications of the changes, stating that one shortcoming is the elimination of the overlapping stair credit within individual multi - family AUs or DUs. She then went on to explain changes in the GRFA calculations for a single family or duplex residence on a Residential Cluster -zoned property. There would be no compensation for the common space, nor would there be a 425 sq. ft. allowance given, as is done on low - density zoned lots. Instead, 225 sq. ft. would be given per constructed unit, and a garage credit would also be given. Diana Donovan stated to the Commission that the Zoning Code Task Force had worked extensively on this project. Kristan indicated the overlapping inside stairway was still a problem and concern which should to be addressed. Jack Snow addressed a specific project he is developing on a Residential Cluster lot. He felt there should be an overlapping inside stair credit, as he is constructing a 4 -plex and a single - family residence on a RC lot. The 4 -plex was planned to be interior multi- storied, and he felt he would lose square footage by the lack of an allowance for interior stairways. Kristan stated her preference to add a credit for overlapping stairs, rather than adding GRFA. Andy Knudtsen explained that if GRFA were added to the calculations, rather than an overlapping stair credit, many large developments in East Vail in the LDMF and MDMF zone districts would be able to enclose decks. Kristan added that staff could handle the computations necessary for a stair credit. They would be willing to put back the old wording indicating that if there were more than two units in a building, stairs would only be counted at the lowest floor inside individual dwelling units or accommodation units in multi- family buildings. 15 Diana asked if the Task Force hadn't accommodated for that instance. Kristan replied they had taken into account common stairs, but not interior stairways within multi - family units. Kristan clarified that if a single family or duplex were built on RC, LDMF or MDMF lots, a 225 sq. ft. bonus would be given. Jim Shearer and Diana Donovan were both concerned that a stairway could be used by more than one unit. Gena Whitten suggested only giving the credit when no common stairway existed. Kristan explained that common stairs would still be counted at each level, but private stairs would be contained entirely within a private residence, and would be given a credit. Ludwig Kurz felt that, since staff felt the lack of an interior stairway credit was a shortcoming, the PEC should change the proposal to allow for interior stairway credit, if it would not be too complicated for staff to administer. Diana asked for clarification of what a single family dwelling on these lots would receive. Kristan said they would still only get a 225 sq. ft. credit, and not an additional stair credit, as that feature had already been taken into consideration with the 225 sq. ft. Kristan also reminded the Commissioners that garages would remain as a credit in all cases. Diana asked if the garages could only be to provide the required parking. Kristan explained that if storage were open to the garage, it was acceptable. Discussion took place to clarify what was open, what was given in the zone districts, and how it was to be counted. At the conclusion, Kristan asked to clarify that airlocks would also be credited in multi- family units. i Ludwig Kurz recommended approval of the changes in GRFA per the two staff memos with the change that, in multi- family units, individual, private stairways would only be counted at the lowest level. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 -0. Regarding the site coverage memos, Kristan explained the Task Force recommended keeping the same definitions, as bulk continued to be the same concern as in the lower - density districts. The existing definition worked and could be readily applied to multi- family developments. Jim Shearer moved to approve the site coverage recommendations per the staff memos. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. There was no opposition, and it passed 4 -0. 15. Approval of minutes from April 22 1991 meeting. Ludwig Kurz asked there to be one change on page 8 from "this" to "the." He then moved for approval of the minutes with that change. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, 4 -0. It was clarified that Gena Whitten would be the PEC member of the Design Review Board on May 15 and June 5, and Ludwig Kurz would attend the DRB meeting on June 19. 0 16 Regarding the municipal complex, Diana asked that Kathy Langenwalter be asked if she was interested in participating. Diana brought up a concern about trees, which had been stipulated to be moved or retained, being cut down on developments. The Commission asked that a recommendation be given to Town Council that a minimum of $2,500 fine per tree be assessed, such fine to be placed in the Town landscape fund. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40PM. • 17 • :7 0 MEMORANDUM TO: I Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration, Concert Hall Plaza, Lot 1, Lionshead 4th Filing /616 W. Lionshead Plaza. Applicant: Vail Investment Company ¢?.Y+o- F ft "N' r"3"?%' <<48`�F. rr�� -,+rat`eg /.;,..C4C,a;�!F.�;p�r �.:y4yfr�•r.,�,r��'- r •r %�i5.jf�� a:: frr.- 1y�23','4,`!J'o'S?r,'�;�G:J°i/ ?: �o�rf �:'s��hu,S�''F3oo'f�.;�`��:? � v '� . f�W414: 9 ' �#'' 3.< F 2 t 3 e js,.: h yG • y r •. /�� F s ¢f# s �Fa . yr.. +j.� .r�2� Ss�7 Ir a & ?i i $. � .''A 8. ,� '.��c; .g�•����v�, -`FF F � :Fr.8 u�3,1 n.y : �F� b* s a}�j; 1.,..y. F / � •. �y, i f v J,� ti8: x ..x�.�; .. �•. � �::�: ♦.,�,�x;�.�. s�:�, r, ��..<«. �:.¢: :�- ::;•:�rri�.�:�s:r:��� -FA.:� :�:�i r��r.�2:s��.�.. a.�r:�.�,. :�.{�,� .a:s�::�r i' f I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Approval of an exterior alteration is required for any addition of enclosed floor area to structures in the Commercial Core II zone district. The proposal includes a commercial common area addition of 53 sq. ft., and the enclosure of the entry at the Lionshead Bar and Grill which will be 15 sq. ft. Both additions will match the existing exterior detailing. Neither addition will generate any additional site coverage. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Zone District: Commercial Core It Lot Area: .2592 acres or 11,289 sq. ft. Site Coverage: Allowed: 7902.3 sq-ft. Existing: 8293 sq.ft Proposed: No Change Parking: Proposed: .125 parking spaces will be required for the Lionshead Bar & Grill addition; there is no parking requirement for common area in CCII. GRFA /Residential: Allowed: 9031 sq. ft. of GRFA (80% of allowable) Existing: None Proposed: None Common Area: Allowed: 1806.2 sq. ft (20% of allowable GRFA) Existing: None Proposed: None; Common area requirements only apply to buildings with 2 or more dwelling units. There is no maximum sq. footage for common area generated by commercial uses 1 M. Ill. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II 18.26. 010 Purpose: "The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 11 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." In general, we find that the request is in compliance with the purpose of Commercial Core 11. We find that neither request will compromise the uses or qualities of the district. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD There are no specific sub -area concepts relevant to this proposal. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD. A. Height and Massing There will be no significant change to the height or massing. • B. Roofs • No change. C. Facades - Walls /Structures No change. D. Facades - Transparency "Guideline: D.9. - Doorways and entrances should be recessed from the facade plane. Recesses deeper than 2 feet should also be highly transparent." The purpose of this guideline is to give entries a stronger sense of identity and a sense of "sheltered welcome." The existing Lionshead Bar and Grill entry accomplishes this objective. The proposed entry will lack the desired entry qualities because there will be no architectural element which signifies the place of entry. In addition, we feel that the angle of the proposed entry will be awkward and will further detract from the entry's lack of identity. Guideline D.9 does not apply to the common area addition because it is not an entry to a retail business. Also, the doorway will still be recessed, given the enclosure. The staff finds that there will be no impact to the pedestrian area by this addition. 2 E. Decks and Patios The areas to be enclosed will not remove any areas which are currently used as deck or patio. F. Accent Elements Accent elements are proposed to match the existing building. There are no accent elements proposed which would create a sense of identity for the proposed Lionshead Bar and Grill entrance. G. Landscape Elements No change. H. Service and Delivery No change. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the request to enclose the retail common area near the bathroom. We find that this part of the proposal will have no impacts. The staff • recommends denial of the request to enclose the 15 sq. ft. Lionshead Bar and Grill entry. We feel that the existing entry is fairly successful and that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations. The applicant will be required to pay $1000 into the parking fund should the request to enclose 15 sq. ft. at Lionshead Bar and Grill be approved. c Ap a clm em o s%con ca rt, 513 • 3 • i, I ih,,�� •'Y. ' st Iy1 s-�;rs i��Ir rt .S 5 .+ � d i i `. + S, a •,r� j pti•+ r � � y - •i k' v F r rs �Sr � -1 y � ` 'n t • -h tl��a i °k"`� � �1 ^x {b 1L.r d� 'f 5 �' -' F r �i � ,' ��ui3ss e°. iri>..^ s1Six�s.'. i+ SSs�n+ a�rTldrf. l5y+° rra ;$.,u,rf,...; ^yi:v,.',fV„ -. >' e F • 0 � 0 ,•. r - till { i r, ' [ � r "" � ;' 1 S �� •il'�If- '41 ;Y' TITITF I ` 1 11, 1,I 1. ., MEMORANDUM • TO_ Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance for the Stork Residence, Lot 23, Block B, Vail Ridge /2605 Davos Trail Applicant: Otto Stork I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant and owner of Lot 23, Block B, Vail Ridge, is requesting a side setback variance in order to add a small studio apartment above an existing, detached garage. Currently, the attic area above the garage is used as storage, and if this variance is approved, the applicant would raise the roof approximately 1.1/2 feet to provide an acceptable head height and to meet the building code requirements for conversion into a dwelling unit. . This lot is located within the Primary/Secondary residential zone district and has an existing single family residence located on it. The Primary /Secondary zone district requires a minimum side setback of 15' -0 ". The existing garage on the site currently encroaches into the required side yard setback. Said encroachment is 4.5 feet at the northwest corner of the garage, and 2.0 feet at the southwest corner of the garage. This garage is considered by the Town to be a legal, nonconforming use, as the garage was built in 1979. A building permit was issued for the construction of the garage on April 30, 1979 by the Eagle County Building Division. Although the applicant is not proposing to expand the footprint of the garage, the request to raise the roof 1 -1/2 feet is considered an expansion of a pre - existing, nonconforming use. With the exception of this request for a side setback variance, no additional variances are requested, nor is there a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Primary /Secondary Residential Lot Size: 12,117 sq. ft. • GRFA . Allowable GRFA: 3,029 sq. ft. Existing GRFA: 2,265 sq, ft. Proposed GRFA: 423 sa. ft. Remaining GRFA: 341 sq. ft. Note: The above GRFA calculations were determined by using the "revised" definition of GRFA, which went into effect as of January 1, 1991. Site Coverage Total Allowable: Existing: 2,423 sq. ft. or 20% 1,663 sq. ft. or 13.7% Note: Site coverage for this lot will be unchanged as a result of this proposal, due to the fact that the garage footprint is not to be modified. Parking: The parking requirement for this property, including the proposed studio apartment, is four parking spaces. The existing garage and parking area is more than adequate to meet this demand. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY • The existing, single family residence on this property was constructed in 1967, and in 1981 an addition was constructed on the north side of the structure. The garage was constructed in 1979 through the issuance of Eagle County Building Permit No. 1,347. It should be noted that Eagle County does not have any regulations regarding the separation of garages and/or dwelling units on a Primary/Secondary lot. Regarding the separation issue, it is the Town's opinion that the existing, detached garage is considered a legal, nonconforming use. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the applicant's requested expansion of a legal, nonconforming setback encroachment will have an insignificant impact upon any other existing or potential residential uses in the area. The property immediately to the west, 0 2 Lot 22, is currently vacant. This property owner, as well as all other adjacent property owners, have been notified of the applicant's request, and the Town has not received any comments to date. The existing mansard -style roof of the garage will be retained with the addition of this studio apartment. However, the roof will be raised approximately 1.5 feet. Again, it is the staff's opinion that this increase in roof height will be negligible, and residents in the area will have a difficult time discerning the modification. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes it would be a hardship upon the applicant if the Town required the strict and literal interpretation of the setback standards to be enforced. Given the location of the existing garage, and the fact that this garage was legally permitted by Eagle County, staff finds that the location of the garage provides the physical hardship required for the approval of a variance. We also believe the provision of a restricted studio apartment, which would require only slight modifications to the garage structure, will be a . positive addition to the neighborhood and the community in general. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the proposed setback variance request, if approved, will have no significant impact on any of the above criteria. All required parking can be accommodated on site. B. Related Policies in the Vail Land Use Plan The Town of Vail Land Use Plan, in Chapter 2, Sections 5.3 and 5.5, states the following: Section 5.3 states, "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions." Section 5.5 reads, "The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at 0 3 various sites in the community." C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before gEanting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. 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. b. 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. • C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a side setback variance. To summarize, staff believes the applicant does, indeed, have a physical hardship, given the location of the existing garage on the lot. Staff recommends the following findings, should the PEC decide to grant approval of the variance: Findings IV Cl, C2, C3(a and b). Should the PEC decide to grant approval of this variance request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. That the applicant agree to permanently restrict the proposed studio apartment, per the requirements as specified in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.13.080(B)(10). 2. That the applicant receive DRB approval for the "secondary unit on a lot of less than 15,000 square feet, in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District." c:1ecknemos\stork.513 • 4 btk: (COQ} iovabjoj luoAV' /.99 -o*d ul 71' A � a5 jf A T k .P. 7t, IT I F • n U • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to vacate two lot lines, thereby creating a single lot for the Manor Vail Development. Lots A, B and C, Vail Village 7th Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail oar !r .{.,y SKI" :�!¢'f�yra.•' .;•���sMy,w:� �`: GG'F•4:u�4�•�;Ki �4fr�} fd�°ff ' ';��tF:v. %'d�A�`'�'�'G��"�'``F fr"�,��°}�¢9"•$��4�'r& �. rp � '�. 'A4 }'� f :r f ' h�. 'S} 4 O!•wl`.` �T f+C$' f$'e } Sb. x • fi,: � 'f� ��/ $' �i'[: rGC�.. `ri`�� � ,�q; f,& f r. ca��°fF' +oci,} .. 9r &�f,:,''/�:i?..`s' �+„�:�5� y .5.�4 ..�fvr .l. 4.�•p o-•�G' fg'o'� 'J �'' a: w p"�"�Cr fi A:.��!�4 r:6 . S 4 .C�: �D�.1 °. q '�fi?:ifa� ' [.: ?;T =,4� �v �p.:r :'4.�'fl .r�� •''i' 4�fb'rG t'Y Gtf,^f �,f ,�+o . �u fii,`�F'! ii.�'�:3, fJ�'s7f�{� {.�pi%�F.:�rf Fr' I � C' .i��E���?n°d..et bu�r�:�SN�'�,K, Eft. �l;. c, 4Sfoxf4k. ��P.: anv..<::,. t: ���:, c4wXc: �t!. s?' �.} a' >:a4,va!fa�rrr,:A?tv:,'�Gf.4,�. rya' �. e�6eAr�...�.,ra�An•_d}:,n::..: .,ff'r�•,�.:ia:,�.uf' r.,c,_f4.4 BACKGROUND Manor Vail has submitted a Design Review Board application for a lobby expansion to the existing main building. The expansion would be located over the lot lines separating Lot A from Lot B. Because the Town cannot approve "by- right" development constructed over a lot line, the applicant has applied for a minor subdivision to remove the line. (For SDD proposals, the Town may approve development proposals which cross property lines.) The proposed replat would also remove the property line between Lots B and C. Though not required to allow the proposed expansion, the applicant would like to combine all of the lots into one. The lot sizes are as follows: Existing Lot A: 116,492.4 Lot B: 70,486.0 Lot C: 50,092.0 Proposed Lot A: 237,070.4 sq. ft. This proposal is scheduled for final DRB review on May 15, pending approval of this request. The zoning for the site is HDMF and, as such, the allowable GRFA is determined at 60% of the buildable area. Changing the number of lots or the size of the lots does not affect the GRFA. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request, finding it meets the requirements of the minor subdivision section of the Municipal Code, Section 17.20. In that section, the code states that the Planning and Environmental Commission is the reviewing authority and, if the Commission approves the request, the Chairman of the PEC must sign the plat. I'I 466-�� i Sig-3 I ISv }� � Ihl W I° I -------------- I lu I�I . I r a at,gal z i it. W oil ^H13A a ilk I 1r ! Q L, S Oro ._ S S O Q Q LT'z -__ --J � V Q 41S6Cisw m • e�a J p y �. h Q O —_ -- -- Q 'uwMito 111E ' Q I'I 466-�� i Sig-3 I ISv }� � Ihl W I° I -------------- I lu I�I . I v Q RE 1 � ti I I I 1 1 I r' 4 ` �I � I r a at,gal 4 i it. II oil ^H13A a ilk I 1r ! w v Q RE 1 � ti I I I 1 1 I r' 4 ` �I � I i ,04y h W v Iflllrr Jill r at,gal O 1111 I I I 1r ! w S Oro ._ C �r r LT'z -__ --J i.s89Lt 41S6Cisw i ,04y h W v Iflllrr Jill r at,gal O n lit, a I I I O Y4 I I I 1r ! I �r r LT'z -__ --J i.s89Lt 41S6Cisw �. --- —awan -- --- -_— —_ -- -- 'uwMito 111E ' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct Stephens Park in a Greenbelt/Natural Open Space zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND On February 11, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended that the Town Council adopt the Stephens Park Master Plan. The Town Council subsequently adopted the plan on February 19, 1991. The last step in the review process of the proposed park, is to secure a conditional use permit approval to construct the adopted plan. The Greenbelt/Natural Open Space zone district is a highly restricted zone, allowing only igreenbelt and open space and bicycle /pedestrian paths as "by- right" uses. Public parks are allowed, but only with conditional use approval. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The purpose section of this zone district, as well as the zoning title of the Municipal Code, Section 18.02.020(B, 9 and 10), call for the Town to "conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features," and to "assure adequate open space recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters." Staff believes this development plan will be a recreational amenity that preserves the stream tract and other natural features. In addition, it meets the purpose section of the zoning title as it is adjacent to the Intermountain neighborhood, is which will provide recreation opportunities for the residents of that neighborhood, as well as visitors and other Town of Vail residents. Concerning the purpose section of the zoning district, staff believes that since a majority of the park will remain natural, it is a use which is appropriate in this zone district. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed park will have a positive impact on the above referenced criteria. By adding this facility, the demands on other Town parks and recreation facilities will be reduced. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed use will impact the Frontage Road traffic circulation by adding trips to the South Frontage Road. Staff believes that the trip generation will not be significant enough to require any turning lanes, however. Concerning parking, staff believes the parking lot design is a safe one, as the curb cut exceeds the minimum distance from adjacent streets entering the South Frontage Road. The parking requirement was determined using national standards for neighborhood park design. The parking lot has been expanded by three spaces since the Planning and Environmental Commission last reviewed the plan. National standards call for a park of this size to have sixteen parking spaces, according to the following equations: 12.9 acres total 5 spaces for first 2 acres - 1 space for each additional acre Total: 16 required spaces 18 spaces provided When staff was looking for options to expand the parking lot to meet these standards, the location which worked best allowed for three additional spaces. As a result, the lot was expanded to a total of eighteen spaces. 0 2 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. Staff believes the park will 'improve the quality of the neighborhood. The design includes a path network that ties into the Intermountain neighborhood and provides pedestrian circulation separated from the South Frontage Road. The appearance of the structures on the site, including the play structure, the picnic structure and the restrooms, will be natural in style. Lighting for the park will be limited to 7 light poles. Staff believed this was the minimum amount needed to make the park safe at night without being overly obtrusive to the surrounding residential neighborhood. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the proposed park is an appropriate use in this zone district. We believe the park design addresses the concerns, such as parking and traffic adequately. Comments the PEC had during earlier reviews centered on the geologic hazards. The play structure has been completely removed from the debris flow hazard, and additional information will be added to the avalanche warning signs to also describe the rockfall hazard. In conclusion, staff believes that the park master plan meets criteria one, as it fulfills the development objectives of the Town, listed in the purpose section of the zoning code. It meets criteria two as it has a positive effect on the need for public facilities. It meets criteria three as the impacts on traffic are reasonable. Lastly, it meets criteria four because the character of the park itself is high quality, and because the park will improve the overall character of the neighborhood. c \pec4ov\stcphens.5 E 3 • 3 Aft I* r • o Ti • �� �, � Err ��` ��•_ ".� `,�'� • '� � ,,� � ��. ���� � � x''•11 � K t h 10 PQ MCMOgANDUM • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Open Space to Semi - Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agricultural and Open Space to Public Use District. The property is described as follows: That part of the North 112 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27 "W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03 "W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of 1 -70; thence along the northerly ROW line of 1 -70 following two courses: 1) S75 28'18 "E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; • 2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34 "E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of 1 -70 N00 23'03 "E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27 "W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Town of Vail /Vail Associates .;r. <r;.rr .: . h'�k}i:. �'•rsu.+F /F"'c'- ;- ^'..,'.?'l. :ld:.'.tt��:v '?Y.:�1.�`4S .;7rx;:./- .•.�+,;F. -: �i� ;;•�,r�fn'rr o•= �+r 7' mir,+. a-•:.; �rS.•: �;` g: �:... ��u,•., �q.• rf�t l: xF:.,: S;.r$f;�a`!a�;,r.,�rr;•rFrx�rof a ::r�-+,r:�'+�.:�:F :}:'i:�i�CS ��f'�. Yf»pr�F.G.. f":. �.,G-'r'd%j... W `•F'3C• "' Y'�SS .:.5�' X� l /F'l; .�iG$At :r r�yYOr �:�• 1.1 �.��:�` �J•iiG�h: ��iC 'GiG`�R:?.. .4i.p: G :4''�'': +:� }�GY r•. 4G. C;\ v; �: r�` p` 4. r: rl�nf: G} :Jii..!COL� +v':i:�.- l�•{.O +G: ik•F.}��+7.5 . L�+.��,., }iG`:y�,ryl: 0y�.hJ i..;u��: ir'�r.' j�'e �CC�..'. 'F4 .faa `l��f.:f� G�� f : Y �r��:,fa,.,4 -F: ��.:��•�. n�'.¢.t'�.•°6:::v:�1'i }< : s; ?". y('; ./:.:�s:.��f..?�S- ' ?:;v.`.:�%G �?fs`}f:•:rrx::�,� -f� ,em�i�'?''s.:i�!.�F'U . �: ir, G: �(, �r, :•G`�°i;I'•G'�'�`%.'�.`'�i1-. �..�' ��f.�T.`¢,?fc � l.'+iA:4.`r4G:i'J: " +.•.+f �f' +i�F. f'G'�h' i. �:.�:f:S44.r F• i ��.fmLS f1 4'[ � :{•. (+r 1+.. n.+ f G 3$ � *7 ir. �irr: !:7 l frclm.4r:K +v. + /•�:..: $:l .'v.i:�ri,C�ii:•.`... �:' r� :rnr }�iii++�•iY- :.i1$::t'�: -. - FNfiG:MLU S:.: `f }.:rr: rmr: ?r: rn FAY• �' �. G..: r'. v: fl nf% V. SG: ri:•:.: r:: q. dr.'�rr }:l..r�tihn'F•$}+hx.:.... .J.:::.L l:r::. G.4rJA. :.Or•.G INTRODUCTION The Town of Vail is requesting a rezoning of a tract of land west of the Town Public Works Department shops. The parcel is approximately 600 feet wide and 1,500 feet long and is directly west of the Town of Vail Shops. The current zoning of the property is Agricultural and • Open Space District, and the applicant is proposing Public Use District zoning. The owner of the property is Vail Associates (VA), and the Town of Vail will be the leaseholder. The ournose of the request to rezone the property is to allow "public service facilities" as conditional uses. If the rezoning is approved, the Town of Vail will apply for a conditional use permit for a "public service facility," or more specifically, a Town snow dump. Development standards in the Public Use District are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for individual proposals. In Section 18.36.050 of the Public Use District, the PEC is given the authority to: "Prescribe development standards for each particular development proposal or project in each of the following categories: A. Lot area and site dimensions; B. Setbacks; D. Height; E. Density Controls; G. Site Coverage; H. Landscaping .and Site Development." Note: C &F have been deleted since the original adoption. Because the PEC has the authority to set development standards for each specific use, staff believes that each should be analyzed closely at the time of the conditional use hearing. II. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The tract of land under consideration is zoned Agricultural and Open Space District, and is located between land zoned Public Use District to the east and Agriculture and • Open Space District to the west. Because the parcel under consideration is adjacent to existing Public Use District zoning, staff believes it is reasonable to expand this zone district. In addition, staff believes the two zones are compatible with each other. B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable Relationship with Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives? Staff believes the relationship of land uses in the area is workable, as both the Agricultural and Open Space District and the Public Use District allow only low intensity uses. Both zone districts have a very limited number of permitted uses, which are listed below, and both allow larger, more intense uses only through conditional use review. Because of the manner in which the zoning code is written for regulating the Public Use District, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be able to set the development standards for any conditional use, such as a snow dump, to ensure that it is compatible with adjacent uses. Staff believes that the rezoning will help achieve a municipal objective of providing snow removal. The area the Town currently uses to dump snow is the north bank of Gore Creek in Ford Park, just east of the tennis courts. Town Council has requested that the Public Works Department find a new location to dump snow, as the current use of the Gore Creek bank is not environmentally sensitive to Gore Creek or Ford Park. • 2 During a previous PEC worksession on this issue, the PEC's primary concern centered on potential land uses which the rezoning would allow. "By- Right" uses of both districts are listed below, Public Use District (Proposed Zoning) A. Public parks, playgrounds, and open space B. Pedestrian and bicycle paths C. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities Agriculture and Open Space (Existing Zoning) A. Single family residential dwellings B. Plant and tree nurseries and raising of field, row and tree crops C. Public parks, recreation areas and open spaces During the worksession, the one use the PEC was concerned about was letter C -- seasonal structures or uses. Research done since the worksession shows that the definition of seasonal structure requires conditional use approval in every zone district. Though this conflicts with the use being listed as a permitted use in the Public Use District, whenever the zoning code applies more than one standard to a development regulation, staff practice has been to consistently use the more restrictive standard. The definition of a seasonal structure is a: "temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their use to the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven consecutive months of any twelve -month period.... Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.60" Because of this definition, the only by right uses allowed in the Public Use zone district are parks and bicycle paths. C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly, Viable Community? If approved, the rezoning will provide the conditional use process for the Town of Vail to request approval of a snow dump. Staff believes that providing a snow dump for the community will improve snow removal services, reduce environmental impacts, make the community more enjoyable for guests and residents during the winter, and help the Town function more efficiently. The conditional use criteria will allow for a thorough review of the request to insure community concerns are addressed. A part of any conditional use review will be an analysis of the rockfall hazard. This is the only hazard affecting the site, and any proposed use will have to incorporate any mitigation recommended in a hazard study. 0 3 D. Land Use Plan This arcel is designated as Open Space in the Land Use Plan. Criteria for amending the Land Use Plan have been established. On page 62 of the Plan, it states that in order: "to change the Plan ... it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan was in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general." The goals and policies of any Land Use Plan are the fundamental basis on which such a plan is developed. Policy 6.1 of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan states that, "Services should keep pace with increased growth." Staff believes snow removal is a service which the Town provides and is included under this policy. In another section of the Plan, which discusses the facility and service standards of the Town, it states that the Public Works' Town Shops "is of adequate size to accommodate future space needs." Staff believes that conditions have changed since that statement was put in the Plan, and in order to maintain the service standard called for in Policy 6.1, rezoning this land to accommodate public service facilities would be an appropriate action. In addition to the change in land use designation from Open Space to Semi - Public Use, staff also suggests changing the Land Use Plan to reflect that there is a need for expansion of the services the Town Shop site provides. • III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Staff finds that the suitability of the existing zoning is not adequate to accommodate the interests of the public, and that the proposed rezoning would provide a convenient, workable relationship with the land uses on either side of the parcel, and that the rezoning would be consistent with municipal objectives. In addition, staff believes that the rezoning, which would allow public service facilities, via the conditional use process, would provide for a more orderly and viable community. Lastly, staff believes that the Land Use Plan policies and amendment criteria are such that a rezoning to Public Use District is consistent with the plan in general. Regarding the Land Use Plan, staff recommends that the two changes discussed be approved. First, the Land Use designation shown on the maps should be changed from Open Space to Public Use. Secondly, the text referring to the Public Works Shop site should be modified to read "the Public Works Town Shops may need to be expanded to accommodate future space needs and to allow for additional services to be located at the Shops." Staff believes that these changes are consistent with the criteria established to modify the Plan as well as Policy 6.1 of the goals and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend to Town Council that the Land Use Plan be changed and that the parcel generally west of the Town Shops be rezoned to Public Use District. c:lpecltovlsnowdum p.513 • 4 �� 3Nll .. � Z } a • .F Ld i4 Ld a $ ti � a =e _J O q \ 1 i s .E =r _J �E ��E z • n t� �r� r e 9�d� " � awa*•� W J -. Wit-" _J �E • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of a staff interpretation regarding site coverage for the Lund residence, 443 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. Appellant: Jay Peterson . �9,r` • f' `��`a ti y.. wCA' "'�`"�`Cf �?F".+vY �f oil^' M iYf .,�,}S�'r �A y;`}i'.,,,�.•�,• !d' �' ,boy$'' �;' 'i � 6& H•r! 1: 4ca�ru�-v�`G,�''' fir' G '4`'4 • fr,c f �, G .o i�r o G 'y a'�G�`i-{}y"QY} '�v tr . r ��'` Gs'�������Sa�,`�. - •5?r.`�x�``��y :�u. ,s'��r�k��°.''�:� : ���' '�'�' #;y�;s`s,'� ;+ Gf 6 4 . $ O . ' G . t, -•+?r G .� fiyypN `4 3? � �F�i �%�vG' '�•EY r� f o f r ,1 ' :u: : v. 7,a. `"ar.� ' : .'scw�:'h�:�LG:fiS1a-. .�F,���rF:f�:fdw,�•.n 6:56.2✓�it:�r�rrk�4��.io-r uSRStar iGrLv'i�.::Flr..:. 3.:�e..Fi:�'.wi ✓ .bG .'r. G.Gf?ff�ari,.:ru..4 ;u3..$. .s;:: Mr. Lund, the owner of the residence at 443 Beaver Dam Road, has requested to enclose the turret and bridge which lead to the front door of his home. (Please see attached site plan.) At this time, both parts of the structure are covered, but do not count as GRFA because they are 'open." The bridge has approximately 3 foot high walls running along the sides, with the rest of the area being open air. The turret is currently semi - enclosed with several window openings, approximately 2'x 3', in the walls and an open doorway. The applicant submitted a DRB application to enclose these spaces on December 28, 1990; therefore the 1990 site coverage and GRFA calculation methods apply. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the structure was issued December 11, 1990. There is no available GRFA on this site. Staff has made the determination that the proposal to enclose these areas should count as GRFA, since most, though not all, of the openings would be sealed off. The doorway on the turret would remain open, as well as two window openings on a side hall that leads to the garage. All other openings in the turret and the two sides of the bridge would be sealed off. if the proposed construction is counted as GRFA, as staff has determined, the application cannot be approved without a GRFA (density) variance since the existing house has used all the allowable GRFA on the site. The basis for the staff determination is that the existing turret and bridge spaces already benefit from a general interpretation of the previous GRFA code standards. Staff acknowledges that, in the past, individuals have been able to build semi- enclosed spaces without them counting as GRFA. Staff believes that the current structure already is semi - enclosed (the turret and hallway to the garage) and that scaling off the remaining openings and enclosing the bridge would make the resulting spaces "enclosed." Section 18.04.130 of the previous code stated that "GRFA is defined as the total area within the enclosing walls of a structure ..." Even if two of the windows in the side hall and the front door to the turret are to be left open, staff believes that enclosing the turret and the bridge would create "enclosing walls of a structure." In addition to the code standards, staff "redlined" the building permit drawings to reinforce the fact that these spaces must remain open to keep from counting as GRFA. Before the building permit was issued, staff spoke with Galen Aasland, the local architect working on the project, and told him these areas must remain open. When staff "redlined" the building permit, the words "open air" were written over the openings. Copies of the building permit plans with the notes are attached to this memo. Staff believes the code language and the notes on the building permit plans clearly state that these areas must remain open to keep from counting as GRFA. We also believe the applicant has already received the same benefits as other property owners concerning the interpretation of enclosed space, as the turret and hallway to the garage were not counted as GRFA. They were not counted because the doorways and windows remained unenclosed or e open air. To now request to completely enclose the bridge, and enclose all but three of the openings in the turret and hall, is in direct conflict with the previous definition of GRFA and previous staff interpretations. For these reasons, staff has denied the applicant's request. KI • • ti 1--v 1 0 • y k t \ • f K s C. • 0 4 9 ■ FILE COPY IOWA of V81 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 475 -2138 (303) 479 -2139 April 23, 1991 Mr. Jay Peterson Vail National Bank Building 108 S. Frontage Road West Suite 307 Vail, CO 81657 office of community development Re: The Lund Residence, Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing 0 Dear Jay: The planning staff made a site visit to the Lund residence on April 16, 1991 to consider your proposal to enclose the turret and the walkway leading to the front door. Staff understands that you made the application to enclose this area in 1990 and are using the 1990 (versus 1991) GRFA and site coverage regulations. We understand you beiieve the former regulations were not as restrictive regarding spaces such as these, and that it could be construed that they could be enclosed yet not count as site coverage. We understand this position, however, Section 18.04.130 (in the 1990 regulations) stated that: "GRFA is defined as the total area within the enclosing walls of a structure ..." Staff believes that sealing off all the open spaces in the turret and walkway constitutes an enclosure, even if you leave two windows and the front door open. Before the building permit was issued, staff was concerned that this issue would arise, and stated specifically to Galen Aasland, the local architect working on the project, that these areas could not be enclosed. The spaces are noted as being "open air" on the building permit plans. Because staff addressed the situation prior to construction and made it clear that the space must remain unenclosed, we cannot support your request to enclose the space. • Mr. Jay Peterson April 23, 1991 Page 2 I am sure you understand the process for appealing staff interpretations. if you would like the PEC to review this decisions please write a letter stating your desire to appeal the staff decision. We will. schedule this item for a PEC hearing as soon as possible after we receive your letter. Sincerely, Andy Kn sen Town Planner lab • I n LJ 0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJ: An appeal.of a staff decision concerning an application for a home occupation permit at the Sunwood Condominiums located at 4594 East Meadow Drive, Unplatted Parcel, Bighorn 4th Addition. Appellant: Ned Richard Harley, M.D. On April 23, 1991, the Community Development planning staff denied Dr. Ned Richard Harley's application for a home occupation permit for the practice of psychiatry at his residence. Section 18.58.170 B of the Vail zoning code states: "A home occupation shall not include: a clinic, funeral home, nursing home, tea room, restaurant, antique shop, veterinarian's office or any similar use." (Emphasis added by Community Development Department.) The Vail zoning code does not specifically include a definition for "CLINIC ". When this situation occurs, the staff consults the dictionary. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, defines "CLINIC" as: "l. a class of medical instruction in which patients are examined and discussed 2. a group meeting devoted to the analysis and solution of concrete problems or to the acquiring of specific skills or knowledge in a particular field.. 3. a. a facility (as of a hospital) for diagnosis and treatment of outpatients b. a group practice in which several physicians work cooperatively." The staff concluded the practice of psychiatry in a home would fall under the definition of "CLINIC" as set forth in paragraph 3.a., above. This interpretation would be consistent with past staff interpre- tations of similar home occupation requests. Dr. Harley's application and related letters are attached to this memo. 0 LJ TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Application for Home Occupation Permit Required by VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE, Section 18.58.130, a supplemental form to the Business and Sales Tax License. NAME OF BUSINESS: �//� �L f° s G 4?"/'O\ PHYSICAL LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: ` U tS O >r 7 71 NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: N �- � { C Applicant's Statements 0 Answer the f^11 -owing Ves±'.ions in- detail on a saparat shac4, and attach to application for Business and Sales Tax License. 1. Fully describe the type and nature of the business. 2. Number of employees. 3. Hours of operation. 4. Equipment /machinery to be used. 5. Anticipated number of customers, clients, or students. . 6. Anticipated number of vehicle trips generated to and from the business location on a daily and weekly.basis. 7. Parking provisions for customers, clients, or students. s. If residing in townhouse /condo, attach letter of approval from association. If residing in rented house/ duplex, attach letter of approval from landlord. APPLICATION IS: Approved • Conditions of approval /reasons for denial: Zoning Administrator Date . Denied J �O r G d tj v G 2 s (ro ZE, n4 114 f°L0 y C-E-S' PA ,z--r � e7 ffo v fEr':�SnN CDA)�-v7'C1�, ('53 O/cE np�Z_ —7-4v vc T 0 -FL /,( %aC 'O� 0 0 U OT c fy C- rloqm E- C-- PAS (CIAO) I 1 . 0 �,OKF 1 O q i E tA0 . 13 C-)3-696-6636 Mr. Richard Ned Harley 695 11th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Subject: 4594 East Meadow Drive, Unit A•3 May 4,90 11 :49 No ,007 F.0 C(DPY May 4, 1990 Dear Mr. Harley: .Let this letter serve as written permission for you to run a General Psychiatry Practice from Unit A -3 in the Sunwood Condominium Complex, Restrictions would be that you have no signage attached to buildings or on premises. Second, that no employees are worldng out of unit A -3 and last that the Town of 'Vail approves of your business in a residential zoned improvement. Sinccrely, J. C. "Sandy" Salmons U APP I . i991 NED RICKARD HARLEY, M.D. UNIT A -3 SUN WOOD CONDOMINIUMS 4594 EAST MEADOW DRIVE VAILa CO. 81657 (303) 470-1521 MAILING ADDRES�'.. P.0, BOX 4577 'CAI L. CO. 81 658 COIvIMUN I TY LSE V'E Lt_►F'MENT TOWN OF VA I L I understand there may be some kind of co ifusion about m U pr' A, Of },ychiatry and how I intR1 E t. {� F���; Ii _I use my coiidominiu.Iii as are office. I know that tl1e Tvxrd "clinic" often refers to ti-1E., office setting for a group of doctors tfagetiler tr.'itli nursen- and at lest a receptioni st. My practice con Of otie E;ii onr riieeting- . I do riot have � �e, �_� my �., a nurse, I receptionist. I do all of r!i y� • o,'n paper'h;orl.. M7 b0l) keeper has her office in Fort Collins. I use her i -se I am av,'are that. there may t:��; confidentiality.' issue, in a. strnall A May have couple or faMil7 sessions, but this would k,e itifreqcent. I thiril� that the use of the word "clinic" tcf denote rny' office Iii�� ;f loo a si friific:arit _giver st }atement of viiat I am about. I think that a teacher arid student description is a more accurate physical depiction of my actural ,ase- I un&,rstand that a teacher /student- mode, of operation does fit into 70 tir 1t rtiY occupation liscenSing model. I intend to have a part time practice of psychiatry. Indeed, my malpractice coverage onl covers me for 20 hours per week of practice. This limitation, was at my request. I could commit to having a mai:irnum of 4 hours. of psychiatric work a da yr together with a matmurr, of 20 hours per week. As far as the parking situation goes, I am situated in a complex vhjiere there is a huge parking lot. %Bich is often ernpty except for niy car. The lot. vYas pretty full over the Christmas Holiday period. I would riot. be practicing during that time (e.%cept for emergencies) because I am committed to teaching skiing every' day' during that period. Nhile I am intenciing to have a part time practice, it still must bc- cost. effective for rrie to he Vail 's "resident" psychiatrist. Lased on the small • response I have had to MY advertising so far, I am worider'ing if this effort will he cost effective even without the cost of renting a space. I to plan to stop advertising and to start meeting with the doctors, taking a more grass • roots approach to developing a part time practice. It does seem to me, taking a public: health perspective, that =Fail Would profit from having a resident p57chiatrist, eSpecia.11y one Mlo has special e :-;pertise in anabulatory depression, chemical dependency and eating disorders. Thank you for your attention and .:c3nsideration, Please feel free t contact me if you have an7 questions. Respectt W11yel, i Ned Rig hard Harley, hI.D. f in p,_vc ,-:i+ 7 • ■ M f CURRICULUM VITAE FOR NED RICHARD HARLEY, M.D. P.O. BOX 4577, VAIL (303) 476 CO. 81658 -1521 AGE: 48 CHILDREN: Ben 19 (at Yale) and Alicia 6 CURRENT: Private Practice of Psychiatry in Vail COLLEGE: Dartmouth 1963 MEDICAL SCHOOL: Harvard 1966 INTERNSHIP: Mt. Zion, San Francisco 1967 RESIDENCY: Harvard (Mass. Mental Health) 1970 BOARD CERTIFIED: Psychiatry and Neurology 1975 EXPERIENCE: Twenty plus years of practice in Boulder and Denver i INTERESTING: Masters of Architecture 1983 University of Colorado INTERESTS: Ski Instructor for Vail Assoc. 1991 Lionshead Pod Painting (active with Vail Art Coalition) ■ 0 0 town of uai 75 south frontage road vall, colorado 81657 (303) 479 -2138 (303) 479 -2139 April 23, 1991 Dr. Ned Richard Harley, M.D. P.O. Box 4577 Vail, Colorado 81658 Re: Home Occupation Permit Dear Dr. Harley: office of community development • The planning staff reviewed your application for a home occupation permit at their weekly meeting today. Their conclusion was that a practice of psychiatry was out - patient treatment (a clinic) and as such, was not allowable as a home occupation. If you wish to appeal this interpretation, you must write a letter of appeal within 10 days to the above address. Please feel free to call if you have any further questions. z Si erely, Betsy Fosolack Planning Technician U F ■ M APP n 1991 • NED RICHARD HARLEM, M.D. SUNWOOD A -3 April 29,1991 4594 EAST MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, CO. 81657 MAILING ADDRESS: A.O. BOX 4377 VAIL, CO. 81638 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF VAIL I wish to appeal the decision of April 23 denying me a home occupation liscense for my psychiatry practice. The decision appears to be based on describing my practice as taking place in a "clinic." My dictionary (Macmillan Contemporary Dictionary) defines CLINIC as: noun 1. institution or building, often connected with a hospital or medical school, where outpatients are treated often for a reduced fee. 41 2. institution or part of an institution where specialists cooperate in the study, diagnosis and treatment of certain types of patients or certain diseases: to cancer clinic, a maternity clinic). 3, organization or institution offering advice, remedial work, repair, or instruction in some specific field: (a massage clinic, a reading clinic, a doll clinic). 4. instruction given by doctors to medical students in the presence of a patient in which patient is examined, his illness discussed and treatment recommended. 5. meeting in which such instruction takes place. Using this definition (which fits my understanding of a "clinic" based on 25 years of experience) my practice does not fit the definition. My condominium is not an institution. It is connected neither to a hospital nor a medical school. I will not be practicing with other specialists in this condominium nor will I be giving instructions to medical students. I do not have an organization of any type. I could go on about how my part time practice in a very non - institutional setting would benefit the patients I see and the community as a whole. However, I guess this is not the point. The point is that I am not now nor • will I be using my condominium as a "clinic," as defined by the dictionary. M As 1 said in my previous communication, what I will be doing at an activity level fits the teacher /student model, which apparently is allowed to have a home occupation status under the zoning. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Respectf ully, Ned Richard Harley, M.D. • MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of staff decision regarding the allocation of GRFA for the Vail Village Inn, Special Development District No. 6. Appellant: Alejandro Rojas WE"Imm OEM, 113MINNE Ism =�=-=/ ��� - M01 BACKGROUND The appellant is appealing the staff decision to deny the applicant's request for a building permit for the construction of a dormer on dwelling units 331 and 333, located in Phase II of the Vail Village Inn (VVI), Special Development District No. 6. On January 31, 1991, the applicant received an approval from the Design Review Board to construct a dormer which would add 78 sq. ft. of GRFA. The approval was conditional upon the verification of available GRFA for the project. Currently, four of the five proposed phases for the project are built per the SDD development plan. Phases I, II, and III consist of dwelling units (D.U.) and commercial square footage. These phases are completely built out and have no GRFA available. Phase IV has not yet been redeveloped as per the SDD plan. It is proposed to be located both east and south of the Gateway building where the Pancake House, Deli and Deli parking lot are now located. When it is constructed, this phase will consist of all accommodation units (A.U). Phase V consists of a combination of D.U.s and A.U.s, and is located on the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. When the proposed Phase IV is constructed and the project is built out, 57,164 sq. ft. of GRFA will be dedicated to D.U.s in Phases 1, II, III, and V and 67,367 sq. ft of GRFA will be dedicated to A.U.s in Phases IV and V. The staff's decision to deny the building permit request to use 78 sq. ft. of GRFA is because no GRFA dedicated to dwelling units is available for Phase II, the Phase in which the proposed expansion is located. After staff investigation, it was discovered that all of this GRFA must be dedicated to the provision of additional A.U.s in the redeveloped Phase IV. (Please see attached exhibits.) II. BASIS OF APPEAL The following responds to the appellant's specific basis for appeal outlined below In bold print. (Please see attached exhibits): 0 The applicant pursued approval In a reasonable manner based on experience with prior approvals. 0 Upon review of the application, the staff discovered that there were insufficient GRFA records for the VVI project and that further documentation of existing GRFA would be required prior to the final DRB approval of the project. The applicant received a Design Review Board approval on January 31, 1991, subject to the condition "Building permit not be released until available GRFA is verified." Fortunately, there was in -depth research being done at this time by the staff because of a possible proposal to construct Phase IV and the necessary GRFA information was obtained within a number of weeks. The preliminary finding, indicating that there was a lack of GRFA for this project, was conveyed to the applicant during the week of March 10, 1991. The following chronology details the sequence of events related to the appeal: January 14 - Application received. January 31 - Approval given by DRB with condition that, "Building permit not to be released until GRFA verified." Updated Condominium Association letter of approval also needed prior to building permit. February 13 - (Staff memo) Preliminary GRFA review indicates that there is no GRFA available for D.U.s and a deficit of GRFA for proposed A.U.s Staff determines there is 10,755 sq. ft. of existing GRFA for Phase V. This number was taken from file notes and not measured. Applicant's representative was notified and received r a copy of the draft/preliminary findings. March 10 - (Phone conversation) Status of project conveyed to applicant's representative again. March 18 - (Letter) Applicant's representative responds to staff findings and requests unit to be considered as A.U. March 21 - (Letter) Staff responds to applicant's representative stating that, at this time, no GRFA was available and if it were discovered that GRFA is available, a building permit could be released. March 25 - (Letter) Applicant's representative supplies GRFA analysis to staff which indicates 10,177 sq. ft. of GRFA for Phase V. The applicant's GRFA calculation Is lower than staff's original (February 13) number of 10,755 sq. ft. However, this number is not low enough to alleviate deficit of GRFA on final buildout of project for A.U.s. March 29 - (Meeting) Staff met with applicant and representative and. reviewed applicant's representative's GRFA calculations. Staff indicated that there is a deficit of GRFA of between 1,400 and 2,400 sq. ft. of GRFA for A.U.s for final buildout of project. April 1 - Staff finalizes calculation for Phase V from drawings supplied by applicant's representative. Final GRFA for Phase V is 9,888 sq. ft. of GRFA with 3,951 sq. ft. of it dedicated to A.U. GRFA. There will be a deficit of 1,438 sq. ft. of GRFA dedicated to A.U.s 2 • at final buildout of the project. There Is no GRFA available for • D.U. or A.U. expansions not specified in the SDD ordinance in Phase 11, or any other phase. April 3 - (Letter) Letter sent to applicant with final staff decision. In May of 1989, a DRB approval was given to the applicant for a similar addition to the same units. A building permit was issued and the project has been built. 2. GRFA inventory - The 78 sq. ft. being requested represents .06% of the total SDD. Staff feels that the GRFA calculations for the project are complete and accurate. The staff's calculations are based on scaled drawings, versus actual dimensions. Because the staff feels that this method of calculation is accurate, it is consistently used for review of all projects. If there is a discrepancy between the staff and applicant's figures, the numbers are reviewed by the staff and applicant together to resolve the discrepancy. In this case, the applicant's "dimension- based" calculation of 10,177 sq. ft of GRFA is actually greater than the staffs "scale- based" calculation of 9,868 sq. ft. of GRFA for Phase V. We believe that any discrepancy which may have occurred as a result of using a "scale- based" calculation versus a "dimension- based" is not an issue in this project due to the staff's lower GRFA calculation. Staff recognizes the requested 78 sq. ft represents only .06% of the total SDD's GRFA. However, the staff's decision is based on the fact that there is no GRFA remaining for D.U.s. The staff has determined that all other Phases have been built out and have used all the GRFA allocated to them. If one assumed a 1.25% margin of error as the appellant suggests, and applied it to the staff's existing Phase V A.U. GRFA calculation of 3,951 sq. ft., the error would be +/- 49.38 sq. ft. Assuming this error, there would still be a shortage of 1,386.62 sq. ft. of GRFA to be dedicated to A.U.s in Phases IV and V. 3. Accommodation Unit - the 78 sq. ft. of transferred GRFA is located within "Accommodation Unit ". At this time, the unit in question does not qualify as an A.U. Even if this Phase li unit were to be converted and qualified as an A.U., the denial is based on the lack of GRFA to be dedicated to A.U.s in Phases IV and V. This GRFA is not available for A.U. expansion in other phases of the project. GRFA for A.U.s is only available for the final phase, Phase IV. Ill. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the PEC uphold the staff decision, based on the lack of GRFA available for an Accommodation Unit or Dwelling Unit in Phase II. c: Ipe6memosVojas.513 0 3 it • • Ma M. ►��' 2 3 ' € frltzlen, pierce, briner arehitecture, - planning, interiors p.o. box 57 Mr . ' Mike Mol l is a 1000 Honsridge loop suite '1 /d Department of . Community bevelopment veil, colorado '8;1658 Town of Vail 303 -476 -6342 fax :303 -476 -4901 Vail Colorado $165$ RE: Vail Village Inn Phase II Revisions to Unit 331 and 333 Dormer Addition Applicant: Red Sands Corporation Applicant Rep.: Alejandro Rojas Dear Mike, Mr. Rojas of Red Sands Corporation has requested me to file an appeal of the staff decision, on his.behalf. This appeal is in response to your letter of April 31 1991 stating that the application was denied due to the lack of available GRFA. As you stated in your letter this situation has been confusing for both sides so please bear with me while I try to put forth the basis of appeal. Basis of Appeal: The applicant pursued approval_in a reasonable manner based on experience with prior approvals. The applicant did not have reason to suspect that there may be a problem with the approval process until after the application had been reviewed by the planning de- partment and the Design Review Board application ac- cepted. Design Review Board approval was applied for January 14, 1991 and received on January 31, 1991. Approval was con.. tingent upon verification of available GRFA. Final resolution of the availability of GRFA was not :achieved until April 3, 1991. It was the applicant's understanding that verification of approval, meant written verification from Vail Vil- lage Inn Incorporated. Our office received a letter February 27, 1991, signed by Mr.'._ JoeStaufer stating that the Vail Village Inn would allow Mr. Alejandro ' Rojas a total of 287 sq. ft. Our records indicate that' a copy of this letter was hand delivered-to the - .Depart -.. went of Community Development the same day.: Written ap- proval from the condominium association was I received February 14, 1991. .1. 04179046.DOC In light of the previous approval of 209.sq. ft. of GRFA transfer in May of 1989 the applicant. feels. that it was reasonable to assume that the application was in conformance with current policy. Significant time and: expense was incurred prior to final denial on April 3, 1991. GRFA INVENTORY The 78 sq. ft. being requested represents .06% of the total SDD. It appears that current inventories of SDD #6 are incom- plete although the total allowable GRFA of 124,527 has been determined by ordinance. Current methods of calcu- lating GRFA are based on scaled rather than actual di- mensions making some discrepancy between actual and in- ventoried GRFA dimensions inevitable. A discrepancy of 3% over a total allowable of 124,527 GRFA would be 3,736 sq. ft. The current calculated shortage is 1,436 sq. ft. GRFA. Even a 1.25 error in the total SDD #6 inventory could alter the current sta- tus of available GRFA. ACCOMMODATION USE The 78 sq. ft. of transferred GRFA is located within an "accommodation unit ". This application is in accordance with the Town of Vail requirement to provide a minimum square footage of ac- commodation use as required by ordinance in SDD #6.The shortage of GRFA in SDD #6, available to transfer is re- lated to the lack of accommodation unit GRFA and not to an overall lack of GRFA. Town of Vail ordinance Number 14, Series of 1987, Sec- tion 11, item 6 states "Restrictions on any use of Phase IV or V, "which would be condominiumized shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Vail Municipal Code and any amendments thereto. 2 0417 9 0 4 6 . DOC Pierce, fritzlen, architects, Inc., d.b.a. fritzlen, pierce, briner formerly intratect design group • #zlen, :pierce, br, ner architecture, planning, interiors p.o ' bos 57 1000 - lionsridge loop suite 1/d wail, Colorado 81658 • - 303 - 476 -6342 fax 303- 476 -4901 Section 17.25.075 clearly addresses overnight' use of condominiums, available to members of the general pub- lic. It seems likely that this restriction was imposed in order to insure that the entirety of' Phase .V, would.. be used for overnight accomodations available to the general public. if the entirety of Phase V were consid- ered accomodation GRFA there would be no. deficit, of available GRFA. The area where the additional GRFA is located conforms to the Town of Vail definition of an accommodation unit. Unit 331 and 333 have separate entrances and an inter- locking door. The kitchen was removed from the western unit, converting it into a lockoff for the eastern unit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lynn Fritzlen Architect Fritzlen Pierce Briner cc: Joe Staufer Vail Village Inn Alejandro Rojas Red Sands Corporation .r 3 04179046.DOc r VVIF VAIL VILLAGE INN Village Inn Plaza Condominiums February 27, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: eW'-P APR Vail Village Inn Inc, has agreed to allow Mr. Alexandro Rojas to add 287 square feet of GRFA to his unit. This square footage may be deducted and counted against the allowable square footage yet to be built under Special Development District #6. Sincerely yours, VAI� VILLAGE INN, INC. , I� 3 elf r i Pr4ident �t i i 100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5622 FAX ( 303) 476 --4661 • KI rat purr IN 75 south frontage road rail, colorsdo 81657 (303) 479 -2138 (303) 479 -2139 April 3, 1991 Ms. Lynn Fritzlen Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner P.O. Box 57 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Vail Village Inn GRFA Analysis Dear Lynn: office of community development In response to your letter dated March 25, 1991, and as a follow • up to our meeting on March 29, 1991, I have now completed an entire GRFA analysis for the Vail Village Inn project and have determined the following: 1. The total allowable GRFA for the entire Vail Village Inn project is 124,527 sq. ft. 2. The Phase V GRFA equals 9,868 sq. ft. 3. Phase V GRFA, which is specifically allocated to accommodation units and /or lockoffs, equals 3,951 sq. ft. 4. The allowable GRFA remaining (to be constructed) for the VVI equals 45,395 sq. ft. This figure is based on the subtraction of all the existing GRFA at the Vail Village Inn (Phases I, II, III, IV and V) from the total allowable GRFA. 5. Assuming that the existing Phase IV would be demolished when Phase IV is redeveloped, 16,585 sq. ft. of GRFA can be added to the total remaining GRFA of 45,396 sq. ft., for a "Potential available GRFA't figure of 61,980 sq. ft. � � 1 Ms. Lynn Fritzlen April 3, 1991 Page 2 6. The last Town of Vail approved ordinance for the VVI, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989, maintained that "a minimum of 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA shall be devoted to accommodation units in Phases IV and V.1' Given that the existing accommodation unit GRFA for Phase V is 3,951 sq. ft., this leaves a requirement for the construction of 63,416 sq. ft. of GRFA specifically dedicated to accommodation units in Phases IV and V. I realize that all of this may sound a little confusing to you, however the end result is that there is not enough available GRFA to fulfill the Town's requirement to construct the minimum of 67,367 sq. ft. of accommodation unit GRFA in Phases IV and V. There is a shortage of 1.436 sa. ft. of GRFA for the urolect. Based on the above calculations, the Town cannot approve the request of your client, Mr. Rojas, to add an additional 78 sq. ft. of GRFA to his dwelling unit, which is located in Phase II. Given the complexity of the GRFA calculations for the Vail. Village Inn, I would be more than happy to meet with you to further discuss this issue. Sincerely, Mike Mollica Senior Planner /ab cc: Kristan Pritz Shelly Mello Josef Staufer i fikLzlen, pierce, briner" March 25 19ad - architecture, planning, interiors - - -- - -- - - Mr. Mike Mollica, Ms .. Shelly Mello P.o._box 57 - - ~ Department of Community Development 1000 lionsridge loop suite 1/d -- - .. Town of Vail _ vail, colaradv 81658 Vail Colorado 91658 303- 476 -6342 fax 303-476-4901 RE: Vail Village Inn Phase II _;._: _r_.__• :_ :. . Revisions to Unit 331 and 333 --- ._- __.._ -- Dormer Addition ___:__ .:..... .... ...._. Applicant: Red Sands Co - ____ - PP Corporation Applicant Rep.: Alejandro Rojas - Dear Ms. Mello and Mr. Mollica, Thank you for your letter of March 25, 1991. We under-. - - stand the departments need to undertake a more complete _ . -.. review of all phases of the VVI. The current application is for an additional 78 sq.ft: .. of GRFA. The applicant has pursued finishing contract . J ' r. mml -' documents and structural engineering based on the Aj' Review Board consent approval of November , 1990. ready to submit for a building permit as soon as this 201 matter can be resolved. We had hoped to initiate con- struction April 25, 1991 in order to minimize the impact on the other residential and commercial condominium own - -' - -' ers during the tourist season. Our office has prepared a GRFA analysis of existing Phase V of the Vail Village Inn. This analysis is based - on the previously approved definition of Gross Residen- tial Floor Area which exempted fireplace and mechanical chases. We are providing you with copies of marked up - blueprints of floors two, three, four and five of the - - -- - -_ -- approved architectural plans prepared by Gordon Pierce - - Architect. The first floor and the basement have not `_- been included because they are restricted to parking and commercial use. Our GRFA summary shown on the second level plan, high -- lighted in yellow in the right hand corner, indicates - __ that there is a total of 10,177 sq. ft. of GRFA in Phase V. Approximately,50% of the. 30,177 GRFA would fall un- - � -- -- .der .. th nition of lock off or ac dation unit. - w- - -- - This i 578 sq. ft. less than the 0755 q. ft. GRFA---,.-- -" -" that i ted in Mike Mollica's research of Assuming that our calculations are .correct, -we are questing the unused GRFA of Phase V be credited to the 4u g _ Rojas dormer addition. Thank you for your consideration. We look - forward to - -- meeting with you Friday March 29, 1991 at 9:00 am. - 03259046 .DOC pierce, fritzlen, architects, Inc. d.b.a. fritzlen,,pierce, briner formerly intratect design group - r� czXe p re _ architecture. plane inters ng, ors +al I 1 `P,o -.bog 57 - ,- r--- , - --�- - -- • - -� �.. -- -. - - 1000 lionsridge loop suite 1 d ...... _ _ ..... ; . -_ . _.._� ... - _.:_. _ail,. Colorado 81658 •-303 476 -6342 fax 303-476-4919 _... _... ... . - --- _ Sincerely-,,-_ . 1 - - Lynn Fritzlen Architect Fritzlen Pierce Briner - cc: Joe Staufer - Vail Village Inn _... _.. .- Alejandro Rojas - Red Sands Corporation 1 .. r I ' i I1 - ' i f ._ -_._. _- - •- ._._..�.... -._.mow _ _........r_.. .. _ ... _. _ _ ...._... _. __ - - f I - - _ I - 7--t—'. , _ 0325906.DOC _... pierce, fritzlen,.architeots, inc, d.b a_irttalen, pierce, hriner. -.formerly intratect design group 0 fowl R 75 south frontage road vall, colorado 81657 (303) 479 -2138 (303) 479 -2139 March 21, 1991 Lynn Fritzlen Fritzlen, Pierce,'Briner 1000 Lionsridge Loop, Suite L/D P.O. Box 57 Vail, Colorado 81658 RE: Vail Village Inn Phase II Dormer Addition to Unit 331 & 333 FILE COPY office of community development Dear Lynn: As we discussed today, due to a lack of Gross Residential Floor • Area (GRFA) available for all phases of the Vail Village Inn project excluding future Phase IV, the Town is at this time unable to issue a building permit for the dormer addition to Unit 331 & 333. As you are aware, there is GRFA available for Accommodation Units (A.U's) however, this GRFA must be used for the provision of A.U.'s in Phase IV. At this time further review of the project is taking place. Upon completion of this review, if it is found that there is GRFA available for the completion of the dormer addition, a building permit will be released for the project. If it is found that there is no GRFA available, the applicant may request a Major Amendment to the SDD in order to obtain the GRFA necessary. Please call me if you have any questions. 'ncerely, Shelly Mel o Town Plann r 0 cc: Alejandro Rojas 0 L:--xt+( sir 9 L� . r: en, bn Pierce, ner March 18, 1990 architecture, planning, interiors p.o. box 57 Ms. Shelly Mello 1000 lionsridge loop suite 1/d Department of Community Development wail, colorado ;8165$ Town of Vail -- 303 - 476 -6342 fax 303 -476 -4901 Vail Colorado 83658 Re: Unit RE: Vail Village Inn Phase.TT Revisions to Unit 331 and 333 Dormer Addition Applicant: Red Sands Corporation Applicant Rep.: Alejandro Rojas Dear Ms. Mello, As a follow up to last week's conversation,. I spoke to Mike Mollica in regards to this matter this morning. Mike suggested that I write a letter explaining my re- quest in order that it could be discussed at Tuesday's staff meeting. As you know this application includes a request to use 78 sq. ft. of GRFA from the Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District (SDD #6) in conjunction with an additional dormer. This application has received consent approval by the DRB and has been reviewed and approved by the condominium association. In May of 1989, 209 sq, ft. of GRFA from Phase IV was approved for use by the same applicant and in the same location, with Mr. Staufer's approval. Construction was completed in December of 1989. Since that time a ques- tion has come up as to whether there was or is adequate GRFA in Phase IV to allocate to unit 331.. SDD #6 differentiates GRFA for accommodation use and non - accommodation use. It appears that there may not be any "non- accomodation use" GRFA left in the SDD #6 ap- proval. Without a complete inventory of the project it is difficult to tell what the numbers are. It does ap- pear though that there is ample "accommodation use" GRFA left in the SDD #6 approval. The area where the additional GRFA is located conforms to the Town of Vail definition of an accommodation unit. Unit 331 and 333 have separate entrances and an inter- locking door. The kitchen was removed from the western unit, converting it into a lockoff for the eastern unit. The area where the SDD #6 GRFA was and is proposed to be added is within the lockoff unit. 03189046 , DOC pierce, fritzlen, architects, inc. d.b.a. fritzlen, pierce, briner formerly intratect design group'. .a architecture, planning, interiors p.o., box 57. 1000 lionsridge loop suite 1 /d Vail, aolorado 81,658 303- 476 -6342 fax 303- 476 -49* Given that the GRFA being added does fall within the definition of "accommodation unit" and that there ap- pears to be ample GRFA of this type available, we would request that the Town of Vail consider it in this light and allow us to proceed with obtaining a building per- mit. We are aware that this interpretation would limit the owner from converting the unit back into two dwelling units with separate kitchens. Thank you for your consideration. Since elty,_? On' ritzlen chitect Fritzlen Pierce Briner cc: Joe Staufer Vail Village Inn Alejandro Rojas Red Sands Corporation 2 0 3 1 6 9 0 4 6. DOC pierce, fritzlen, architects, inc. d.b.a. fritzlen,;pierce, briner formerly intratect design group u1 , E vail villa a inn DD #6 File Research: 2/13/91 by Mike Mollica 4/01/91 updated A) Ord. 7 of 1976 originally established SDD #6• B) Ord. 1 of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 120,600 sq. ft. of GRFA to SDD #6. It also required a minimum of 175 accommodation units (A.U.'s) and 72,400 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to the A.U.'s, in Phase IV. The Ordinance lists six conditions of approval. C) According to the staff memo, dated December 22, 1986, if construction is not commenced within the 18 month period following final approval, or if it is not extended by the Council, then the SDD approval becomes invalid. Resolution 2 of 1987 (Jan. 1987) extended approval of Ord. 1 of 1985 for a period of 18 months. Approved on January 6, 1987, this would have extended approval until July of 1988. D) Ord. 14 of 1987 (May 1987) amended Phase IV of SDD #6. . It allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. It also set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. It required a minimum of 148 A.U.'s and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA devoted to A.U.'s in Phases IV and V. The Ordinance lists eight conditions of approval. n E) Ord. 24 of 1989 (November 1989) amended the density section of SDD #6. This Ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the allowable GRFA to a total of 124,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit #30 in the Vail Village Plaza Condos. to be converted from commercial use to residential use. This space consisted of 3,927 sq. ft. of GRFA. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a minimum of 148 A.U.'s and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to A.U.'s, in Phases IV and Phase V of SDD 6.+1 F) A staff memo to the VVI file notes that the building at the corner of Meadow Dr. and Vail Rd. is called Phase V on the condo. plat, however, it should have been referred to as Phase IV on the plat. The final phase of the Vail Village Inn will now be called Phase IV. t�Xkh br -F-- S . u G) Section 18.40.140 - EXISTING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - of the zoning code clears up the question of timing /phasing for the VVI SDD. It reads as follows: "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 21. The town council specifically finds that said special development districts No.'s 2 through 21 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 18.40.120, time requirements. (Ord.21(1988))." It is the staff's position (and the Town Attorney also concurs) that since the VVI (SDD 6) has commenced construction of their approved development plan (phases I -III and V have been constructed), that the above section of the zoning code allows for the approved SDD to remain in full force, without the Time Requirements (Section 18.40.120) being applicable to this project. Additionally, there is some question as to whether the approval of Ordinance 24 of 1989 reaffirmed the original SDD approvals, either the 1985 or 1987 Ordinances. This however, is a moot point, given the provisions of the above paragraphs. • All H} Town records indicate the following, regarding GRFA for the Vail Village Inn: a) 9/88 - 430 sq. ft. used for condo plat amendment. b) 5/89 - 177 sq. ft. used for Unit No. 26 dormer addition, located in Phase II. c) GRFA analysis: • Allowable GRFA-., Unit No. 30: Total of a & b above: Phase I: Phase II: Phase III: *Phase V: * *Existina Phase IV: Total GRFA remaining: 124.527 ..sc(... ft.. - 3,927 sq. ft. -- 607 sq. ft. - 0 sq. ft. - 3,315 sq. ft. - 44,830 sq. ft. - 9,868 sq. ft. - 16.585 sa.ft. 45,395 sq. ft. ., *Phase V is the building at the corner of Vail Rd. and E. Meadow Dr. Fireplaces were not included in the calculation of GRFA. Lock -offs and AU's were all counted as AU GRFA. * *Includes the old hotel, Pancake House and Food & Deli. If existing Phase IV is demolished: 16,585 sq. ft. Total Remaining GRFA: ± 45.395 sca. ft. Potential GRFA available: 61,980 sq. ft. Required AU GRFA (Phases IV & V): 67,367 sq. ft. Existing Phase V AU GRFA: 3,951 _sq. ft. Remaining AU GRFA Required: 63,416 sq. ft. Summary: There is not enough available GRFA to fulfill the requirement to construct a minimum of 67,367 sq. ft. of AU GRFA in Phases IV & V. There is a shortage of 1,436 sq. ft. of GRFA. ■ . • Project Name: Pr6iac! Descrld Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: f Project Application Date . . Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot ,Block ,Filing 1 / ,Zone Comments: . Design Review Board Date Motion by: �. Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL (1 01 ('V Planner Date: MEMORANDUM T0. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Amendments to GRFA for single family and duplex development in the RC, LDMF and MDMF zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail /�:[,.a'" -'.�. `.r„�,,- � / �ypr.• ��.fo:� `^'f�.• - g1} rr< c: p::�;:a?Tf�71;?`w'�`�;'l,`�o"%` Sidi,`°- t.`•°: o-'l 6. iy�. G-;% F��o-����% f.` F��' sv�: b' �{• �i�+ r�r.°.. pGy�. �.!{ r§ a•��vfi�FU;, ar4T�, �G,- �a�f'!✓ l• ,`�{f,�,f}'.�ryE;ja &$`;.�i.ti.�; `..°fa�zy,'{�i'�'�'Af< 7• "` J'vFedb�o�ylArN�'. ib3Cfzu . ?�aY[92:.'� �W;Yr gy�if+°L�k A�:;- a'£a�:p�Ff 2 , x; ��dYrf.;.elk,:�.:y ?.,�f+FS:.��4 �< f' o-} aY�-} Of�y, C4s�;;f.3�i.9'�fi.•:'�a�a'�.,�' s � .�r�s <L ,%fns' a: :i�;�}.:n.�2nac..N9.�.°.�A.,.'. 3RD$ 2:' saS:: 2-° rf7,','�?!�':'�:¢rwa %yS#,af9.:° r:"�CG4:•r;,;,JR. r�b<(&•,> aiG,. R! sx: a:• A}.°. ot3, c,.( Y: ir:' a` f44i- yxb '%,��`aY:L:SR'�.c�.'��.si6 /.ik PROBLEM STATEMENT An underlying goal of amendments to the definition of GRFA has been to treat all properties equitably. For example, GRFA was added to the density control section of certain zone districts to compensate for the elimination of credits, and allowable common area for multi- family buildings will be increased to make up for changes to how common area is defined. There is one remaining issue relative to GRFA that warrants consideration by the PEC. Over the • past five years, the development of single family and duplex homes on lots zoned for multi - family development has become very common. Single family and duplex homes are permitted in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential districts. However, such development "falls through the cracks" with regard to GRFA credits. II. CHANGES TO THE GRFA DEFINITION Prior to amending the GRFA definition, this type of development did not qualify for single family and duplex credits (garages, storage, mechanical and airlocks) because these credits were available to properties in the Single Family, 2- Family and P/S zone districts only (Hillside Residential has been added to this list). In order to qualify for multi - family credits (mechanical, airlocks, common area and garages), two or more units must be in a building. As a result, the development of single family and duplex structures on multi - family zoned lots does not qualify for multi - family credits. Recently approved amendments to GRFA solved part of this problem by "awarding" credits based on development type and not by zone district. As a result, a single family or duplex structure on a RC, LDMF or MDMF lot does qualify for the garage credit. However, these units do not benefit from the 425 square feet of GRFA built back into the system to compensate for how stairways are measured (150), and the elimination of other credits (200- storage, 50- mechanical, 25- airlock), because this square footage was added directly to the density control section of the SF, 2 -Fam, PIS and Hillside districts. r] Ill. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES • Clearly, the development of single family and duplex structures on multi- family zoned lots have been impacted by changes made to the definition of GRFA. The key questions are how much square footage have these changes "cost" this type of development, how can the situation be remedied, and should changes be made across the board to the RC, LDMF and MDMF districts? Impact of GRFA Changes From a technical standpoint, the only material change (i.e., loss of square footage) to this type of development is from the change to calculating stairways. Under the old definition, stairways were counted once at the lowest level. With the new definition, all levels of a stairway are counted as GRFA. 150 square feet was determined to be the amount of square footage needed to compensate for this change. All other changes to the GRFA credits system are not relevant - simply because this type of development never qualified for these credits in the first place. One may argue, however, that the storage, mechanical and airlock credits were always intended for single family and duplex development regardless of what zone district the home is built in - the old GRFA definition allocated the credits based on zone districts simply because nobody envisioned single family or duplex development on multi - family lots. If one accepts this argument, 425 square feet should be built back into the system. Depending upon ones perspective, anywhere from 150 to 425 additional square feet of GRFA should be made available to single family and duplex structures in the RC, LDMF and MDMF districts. Alternatives for Building GRFA Back Into System Previously approved amendments to GRFA built square footage back into the system by adding GRFA to the density control section of the Single Family, 2- Family, Primary/secondary and Hillside Residential districts. In this case, allowable GRFA is 25 square feet for every 100 square feet of site area plus 425 square feet per allowable unit. The easiest alternative for building square footage back into the system for this type of development would be to amend the density control section of the RC, LDMF and MDMF districts with a clause that adds X square feet of additional GRFA per unit for single family or duplex development. Difference Between Zone Districts Before increasing GRFA for single family or duplex development in these three zone districts, it is important to understand the level of development permitted by each of them. These densities are based on "buildable acres ". Residential Cluster - .25 GRFA/6 units per acres Low Density Multi- Family - .30 GRFA/9 units per acre Medium Density Multi- Family - .35 GRFA /18 units per acre The Single family, 2- Family and Primary/secondary districts each permit .25 GRFA, while Hillside Residential is at .2 GRFA. Each of the three multi- family districts allow more units than would be permitted on a single family or duplex lot, and two of the three multi - family districts permit more GRFA than is allowed in the SF, 2 -Fam, P/S or Hillside districts. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that 225 square feet of GRFA be added to the density control section of the RC, LDMF and MDMF zone districts. This square footage would compensate for the change in how stairways are calculated, and would be available to single family or duplex development only. It also compensates for the 25 sq. ft. for the airlock and 50 sq. ft. for mechanical. Counting stairways at each level is the only change to the.GRFA system that directly impacts this type of development. Single family and duplex development in these three zone districts were never eligible for other credits. However, staff believes some additional compensation is justified as the properties do not normally use typical common area benefits. One may argue that this type of development warrants the same 425 square foot of GRFA that was built back into the system in the SF, 2 -Fam, P/S and Hillside zone districts. However, the level of development permitted in the three multi - family zone districts must be considered. The LDMF and MDMF zone districts permit far more units and GRFA than the single family or duplex districts. While one acre of single family or duplex zoned land will permit more GRFA than a one acre RC site, the same one acre RC site permits six units, a one acre P/S site five units, and a one acre SF site three units. 225 square feet is an equitable increase to compensate for the new definition of GRFA. cApecltovlgrfa.513 0 3 MEMORANDUM 10 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to GRFA regulations for multi - family and lodge development Applicant: Town of Vail r;• �g}�+n;ur. �: � 2::"x`.2x:Yb.` `H'Y°%+�/.,�F.'tE. :fir., .Lyy:�:°ov •r�r°r�Oyrsy f ^rSJC�''i.L`Cr'1{:��Ff %�+� yye�9 /,�s/ r� :v ,�' . % ".�f u ,�tF,,` ?,/o`�a'rggy,.+°S� L"f' ;q�[;�:r.A.r:P�c•:o. �. .;{�POA� < >'o ?a�;j.;rj3,�arrr r3'�r�'Y' �cyF y�r . °)°.. oc 4 io` °Y�' +y�4rGyo'#'?rr""'•orhd "pr', {.�ri.$'f,.S Civ:iiOr �{ }' 44Y2�$C4:r^n'+��44r�^'•#'`4 f . r. ��rW� a,`:o- <rF'`rt::N:}';��:$:4 s' �[. F�' rR!' �i�s. E' ��` G�.:'$.«'<.' �ir.:< i�. �. ?n.' �ak�rfr�: 4:! d.`:• �. #k'�.aF�o%°%�.°✓r;:�'.�#:.�.so-� ;e9', !, .;ii ,cc'°rn °� A�.�.:f� err° Amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed single family and duplex residential development only, although the new GRFA definition applies to higher density residential development. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage regulations is to address multi - family and commercial development. This memo outlines the issues and recommendations for amending GRFA. The recommendations outlined in this memo have been discussed and agreed upon by the staff and Zoning Code Task Force. The PEC's action on this proposal is advisory. The Town Council has the final authority to approve, deny or modify these proposed amendments. 1. GOAL OF THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS Amendments approved in December resolved many long - standing problems with the definition of GRFA. However, these amendments addressed single family and duplex development in the SF, 2 -Fam, PIS and Hillside Residential zone districts only. The focus of this amendment process is GRFA in multi - family developments. Any building containing more than two units is considered a multi- family development, including housing types such as lodges, condominiums and townhomes. There are two fundamental issues that must be resolved by this amendment process: 1. The new definition of GRFA changes the way residential square footage is measured. This "loss of square footage" was compensated by increasing allowable GRFA in the SF, 2 -Fam, PIS and Hillside districts. To date, no changes have been made to multi - family zone districts. As a result, the new GRFA definition penalizes the higher density zone district because there has been no compensation for the change in how GRFA is calculated. 2. Five credits or allowances are made for different types of space in multi - family development. These credits typically refer to "common areas" and are generally poorly defined. Each of these credits should be evaluated and amended as required. • The goal of this effort is not unlike our initial GRFA amendment process: it To Gran up any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the existing GRFA system. In doing so, the primary objective should be to treat property as equitably as possible. Changes to the system should not "take away" any significant development potential (square footage) that a property currently has. A secondary objective is to utilize one definition for GRFA and deal with any differences between single family /duplex and multi- family development with credits and allowances. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES There are many way to address these issues. The initial approach studied by the Task Force was to amend multi- family GRFA to be consistent with amendments to single family and duplex development - delete all or as many credits as possible. However, to do so creates many problems, particularly when trying to treat properties equitably. It was fairly easy to determine how much GRFA to add back to single family and duplex lots after storage credits, overlapping stairways, etc. were eliminated or changed. However, to conduct the same process for multi- family development is far more complicated (if not impossible), because of the different characteristics of lodges, condos and townhomes. For this reason, it is recommended that credits for multi- family development be retained. While this approach is different than what was done for single family and duplex development, one should not abandon logic for the sake of consistency - equitable treatment is more important. The greatest drawback for maintaining a credit system is that it has the potential to create difficulties for applicants and the staff. However, from the viewpoint of the staff, problems over the past five years have been exclusively with single family and duplex development. This is in large part due to the fact that there is not a great deal of multi- family development. In fact, multi - family dwelling units (condos and townhomes) are 88% built out and lodge units are 85% built out. In summary, the staff feels confident in its ability to deal with a "simplified" credit system. The direction of the staff and Task Force recommendation is to essentially maintain existing GRFA credits for mufti - family development, but consolidate as many credits and allowances as possible into the "common area" credit. This approach represents a significant step toward establishing a clearly defined cap on the total amount of floor area that can be developed on a site. With two exceptions, (garages and airlocks) maximum floor area on a site would be determined by GRFA plus allowable common area. III. EVALUATING THE COMMON AREA CREDIT The key question to resolve in evaluating this amendment is to determine an appropriate percentage for the common area credit. Changes to this percentage will have to consider not only the spaces calculated in the existing common area credit, but also the new areas to be incorporated into the common area credit. • 2 Currently, common area is calculated -W takin 20% of allowable GRFA and allocating that square footage to common areas. The following uses, or spaces are included in the existing definition of common area; 20% Common Area Credit Common hallways Common closets Lobby areas Stairways Common recreation facilities There are no conditions on how this square footage may be utilized. The use and design of a project ultimately dictates how much common area is used and how it is allocated. With the proposed amendment, the following uses or spaces will be added to the common area credits listed above. These uses or spaces are presently "credited" through some other means - i.e., mechanical space is an existing credit and overlapping stairways were credited by the definition of GRFA. The allowable percentage of common area will have to be revised in order to account for the square footage needed for these uses. 1) Common stairways and elevator shafts Stairways are listed as a common area credit in the existing GRFA system. However, this was considered a mute point because overlapping stairs were discounted in the old definition of GRFA. The new definition of GRFA counts each level of a stairway, so some compensation in common area square footage is necessary. 3) Common meeting facilities Meeting rooms are presently not listed as a common area credit, they will now be accounted for by the common area credit. 4) Common mechanical areas At the present time, "mechanical space" is an unquantified credit independent of the common area credit. It will be added to the common area allowance. 5) Management/support space This type of space is not specifically addressed in the GRFA system. It will include "back of the house" space for management and operational services necessary for a lodge or a condominium that is operated as a lodge. The objective of modifying the common area credit is to ensure that the common area percentage provides ample flexibility for the development of common spaces. IV. DIFFERENT TYPES OF MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT In all likelihood, most multi - family development will not come close to using all of the allowable common area credit. However, for lodges and properties managed for short-term rental, common area is critical because it permits the development of important guest services. • 3 The greatest difficulty in estimating the square footage necessary to accommodate the uses listed . above is that the design, use and operation of multi - family development varies dramatically. As a result, the need for square footage to accommodate these uses also varies. Another factor complicating this effort is that 85 -88% of multi- family development is built -out, and many of these properties exceed development permitted by existing zoning. These non- conforming developments raise the question of whether the common area percentage should be determined based on the level of development that has been constructed, or the level of development permitted by exist zoning regulations. This analysis assumes that allowable common area should be based on allowable development as per existing zoning. Consider the following types of multi - family development: 1) Golf Course T.H. Timber Falls Vail Racquet Club All Seasons Vail Row Homes 770 Potato Patch Coldstream Condominiums While the operation of these properties vary, they share similar design characteristics. Virtually all units have individual access, meaning no common hallways or stairways. By and large, there are no lobbies, meeting rooms, and very little enclosed recreation space • (with the exception of the Racquet Club). Common area utilized by these properties is limited to mechanical, storage and garages. As a result, these type of properties have used a small fraction of allowable common area. 2) Villa Cortina Edelweiss Lodge Tower Riva Ridge North and South Fall Line Villa Valhalla These condominiums are either operated as hotels or are actively short - termed. They all have interior hallways and stairs, but have little in the way of meeting rooms, lobbies or indoor recreation facilities. A number of these properties also exceed allowable GRFA and, as a result, exceed allowable common area. 3) Tivoli Vail Run Sitzmark Days Inn Holiday Inn Sonnenalp • 4 These developments are traditional lodges or hotels, or are operated as hotels. Most of these properties utilize each of the different types of common area listed above. Of the three types of multi - family development, these properties are the most intense users of common space. As such, this type of development represents our "target group ", the revised common area percentage should be designed to accommodate this type of development. V. ESTIMATES FOR INCREASING ALLOWABLE COMMON AREA The following is an assessment of the existing 20% common area allowance and an estimation of how this percentage would have to be amended to accommodate the five "new common areas" listed above. These estimates are based on prototypical developments that include a number of assumptions regarding the use of common space. Keep in mind that this is not a science! Every property will be different in design and operation - and have different needs for common area. This analysis is an attempt to quantify these uses in a very general sense. The question of whether 20% is adequate for common area has been raised in the past. The accompanying spread sheet was developed with data gathered during the Vail Village Master Plan. During the development of this plan, square footage calculations were done for all properties in the study area. It is unknown exactly how common area was measured, so there is some question of this data's validity. Nonetheless, it provides a relative indication of how 12 properties compare to the existing common area allowance. The data indicates a direct relationship between properties that exceed allowable common area and properties that exceed allowable GRFA - they tend to be the same. However, for property developed within allowable GRFA, 20% common area may be inadequate if full guest services are provided. The following statistical analysis, for an example of a typical lodge, supports this contention. LODGE "X" DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT .5 ACRE SITE - 21,780 SQ. FT. UNITS - 25 a.u.'s GRFA - 17,424 20% COMMON AREA - 3,484 This prototypical hotel consists of a lobby level, two full levels of lodge rooms a partial third level of lodge rooms - a total of four levels. The building has a footprint of approximately 80' X 60' (4,800 square feet). Lodge rooms are 400 square feet (16' X 25). The following uses would have to be accommodated in the 20% common area allowance: Hallways 4 levels at 5' wide times 100' long. total: 2,000 square feet Storage /closets /common laundry Maid closets, storage for linen, quest ski storage, winter storage for lawn chairs, etc. total: 500 square feet • 5 Lobby areas Includes common airlock entry, front desk, sitting area, etc. total: 500 s uare feet Recreation facility While facilities vary widely, examples of recreation facilities may include hot tub, sauna, rec room, etc. total: 600 square feet These estimates total 3,600 square feet, 116 square feet more than the allowable common area for this site (3,484). While the use of these spaces will vary widely between developments, it appears that the 20% allowance is too restrictive with respect to common area if all types of common area are actually provided. The following is an estimation of space required for the four new areas to be added to the common area credit. Stairways 50 square feet per level for an elevator and 240 square feet per level (8' x 15' = 90 sq. ft. x 2) for the two required emergency stairways. total: 1,160 square feet Meeting Rooms Based on Uniform Building Code occupancy levels, a 570 square foot meeting room could accommodate 38 people (25 units X 1.5 people per unit). The calculation takes average number of people per allowable unit and allows adequate square footage for that type of meeting space to meet the people demand. total: 570 square feet Mechanical Mechanical rooms vary dramatically depending upon the type of system that is used. The Vail Building Department indicated that 500 square feet is a reasonable figure that would accommodate most mechanical systems in a lodge this size. total: 500 square feet Office /management A lodge of this size would not require a great deal of space for management and operation. Assume office space for a manager, bookkeeper and reservations. total: 200 square feet Maintenance equipment for building This space could be used for lawn mowers, tools, etc. total: 100 square feet What does this information tell us? For this prototypical development, 2,530 square feet of building would be calculated as common area. This is not 2,530 square feet of new square footage. It is square footage that was previously not calculated at all, or discounted because it was listed as some other type of credit. On this size lot, the common area would have to be go 6 increased from 200/. to 35.20/. to account for the floor area listed above (2,530 sq. ft.) and the floor area on page 5 (3,660 sq. ft.). At 35.2% the total common area credit on this site would be 6,130 square feet. Will this same percentage increase provide a reasonable amount of common area work for a 1 acre property? At 35 %, a 1 acre P.A. site would allow 12,197 square feet of common area - exactly twice the amount permitted on the .5 acre site. The question is whether the need for common area doubles if density doubles. In most cases, the need for common area will increase, but it probably will not double. An argument could be made for doubling square footage for hallways, storage, meeting rooms and office support. However, lobby areas, rec facilities and mechanical spaces will probably not require twice the space to serve twice the people. There would also be an increase in square footage for stairways. A common area credit of between 30 -35% seems reasonable for the "typical development ". However, there are some slight discrepancies with applying one number to all lot sizes. 30% could potentially burden a.5 acre site by not permitting enough common area. 35% on a 1 acre site would probably permit more common area than is required. In this case, however, it is probably better to "error on the high side" for the following reasons: 1) If a development does not need the common area, it is not used - it cannot be developed as GRFA. There have been no documented cases of multi - family development "abusing" the common area provision. 2) The 20% common area allowance has historically allowed a disproportionate • amount of floor area to larger lots. There are no reasons to change this arrangement. 3) Site development standards will regulate building bulk and mass that may result from common area allowances. It is emphasized that the methodology used to reach this conclusion is based on many assumptions. Making different assumptions will result in different numbers - which will ultimately suggest a different percentage. This analysis is essentially a judgement of whether the percentage will allow for a reasonable amount of square footage for common areas. VI. PROPOSED DEFINITION OF GRFA FOR MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT The following are the proposed revisions to the definition of GRFA. The actual definition is identical to what was approved in December. Changes to multi - family buildings begin with the credits in paragraph B. 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 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 and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, covered porches, 0 7 covered terraces or covered patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they moot the provisions of paragraphs A and B below. A. paragraph A includes credits or allowances for buildings containing two or fewer units. These would not change with this amendment. B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1) Enclosed garages to accommodate on -site parking requirements. 2) All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common spaces and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall not exceed thirty -five percent of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot. • a 0 a. common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks b. lobby areas C. common enclosed recreation facilities `d', meeting and convention facilities e. common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is from common hallways only. f. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage excluded from calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square footage required to allow for the maintenance and operation of such systems. g. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the management and operation of on -site facilities. Any square footage which exceeds the thirty -five percent maximum will be included in the calculation of GRFA. 3) All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty -five square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the outdoors. 4) 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 excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 5) 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 to the underside of structural floor members of the floor /ceiling assembly above. 6) Roofed or covered decks, porches, 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 provide the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. • a 0 GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraphs A and B shall then be excluded from the total square footage. VII. IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT The following is a summary of changes that would result from this amendment. 1) The amount of square footage that can be exempted for a parking garage will not be quantified, but is clarified to ensure that only space necessary to accommodate the garage is exempt. 2) Common overlapping stairways have been incorporated into the common area credit. Because of the change in the definition of GRFA, overlapping stairways in individual units will no longer be exempt from calculation as GRFA. If single family units are not built on these vacant sites, approximately 26 properties could be impacted by not compensating for internal stairways. In addition, existing development may become non - conforming. Please see the attached chart, dated October 24, 1990. If two or three level multi - family units are built on these properties, square footage is being taken away under this amendment. However, the impact is tempered because many multi - family units are only one level and staff is building GRFA compensation for RC, LDMF and MDMF single units (please see attached memo). To add square footage per unit in multi - family zone districts could add significant GRFA to multi - family properties when many of these properties do not have multi -level units. Staff recognizes this inequity. The Task . Force discussed the possibility of not counting internal stairs within individual units. However, it was determined that the system became overly complicated with this approach. 3) Meeting rooms have been added to the list of common area credits. 4) Closets and storage areas have been qualified to require access from common hallways only. 5) The mechanical area credit has been incorporated into the common area credit. It has also been qualified to ensure that any area exempt from calculation as GRFA is legitimate mechanical space. 6) Office space for management of "on -site facilities" has been added to the list of common area credits. 7) The airlock credit for individual units has been maintained. 8) With each type of credit, provisions are established for how the common space can be used - this is done to ensure that common area is developed for the purpose for which it is intended. If a development does not utilize all credits available, the square footage cannot be developed as GRFA - the square footage simply is not used. • 9 IX. RECOMMENDATION The staff and Task Force recommends that the common area credit for multi- family buildings be amended as proposed in this memorandum. Obviously, the key question in this amendment process is the allowable percentage of common area. A change to the existing percentage is proposed not because of a desire to permit the development of more square footage, rather, to clarify the way common space is account for in multi - family buildings. The increase to 35% is essentially based on a cursory analysis. One may argue that this analysis does not provide an adequate basis for making this recommendation. However, more analysis would simply be an attempt to find a standard - when there really is no standard. All multi - family development is different, and the requirements for common area are different. We believe the amendment provides a general compensation for common area, given the variety of development within the zone district. cApecltovlgrfa2.513 • 10 n; 9 i z x wy 3 r Mai h. 0O wz Ems: iX `.6 a V4 Cm OA C'4d Viz. sx Cy C V(IS O s ii E to U N z E ..Q. �; Cd Z D 4 o r e`� CD C co N 3 [11 N d d dd N N N tlYQ1 W.� 61 Q1 N:4f N m m d j Ch ti t3 m I3 , C) too ed u �t CD t3 t; °'; m t; ti t3 m d y Q cc co ecs ce. co co cc ca m o� ae oo ti ;t3 a +nrMN om i7c"u sv.o morD IN to o� IN mw U m DO Q Q Os M ' OD [D � h � � r O� L1 � � � h M Rt ED h � CO Q r^ } h N Z 0 Q r N d O t7 O O Q Q ZZ 1y 3 W Q QQ Q; a O eel n x s�F'M co fp 40 iQ It/ M c Z N Z Z r MW r � k§ jS a: . • % h ? - 4qi _ DQD Z lL' 1 IL tL (L =t7 N m m a I:cddQ a: cc mcc q.a,rus � Qm a'a cc lis f } 3 vti10 n xi.ti �v 3 o aac>r� qa c>:¢ v �. a 0, m : e1 v" m UUUU UU UU C O U :ti -c C am a a' f�IJClZ . 0 0 o eq a o eEE E E E o c o v g o o C �r D ar 11 CC m ` IL N 0i Oti : C �Cq.: C LL. 'D L W 0q � �pQC co ampIn m m x,� -m co -- �(ntiJ Z � �t0p1 .'ah�•Pi, m ^mmm�' C by In Inn W M - :P � (N�! ��pto -` i7 .i�V}+r0� rtl�j C ` C 4V N 7i Q F• r r r r r p, 't'•'..r. .- x ! r- r r f0 N N .'r N,r MV C rf. Z _:> c �J ym E Al E n ee a a W k:W m1 }.'•�Tk c z> x - iV o - CA .0► a C .E C EELL � a b i Z fO x IL zs IN 'O 5 Lo Tj3b _ NH tC� ¢Wp3,eM.0 . �� QQ ,mot �s e= �n7�i >> ;^ NN ' O V x ed ed I .f � .a C7 t7 r>t Q• a a '� — m a I $d $t1.1:,,'�' �l.C�r m •- '� N.pp. «. «: (dy 5orrilD ^~ j,. •� �I; - w d. G. a 'o S :;"ail C J ...ID c ,:1, ,t°•1 E C _ s •C 1 I 1 1 1- p f i O 1 I - -D I 1 �., E 3 u L` to )-0 ul V O� f� 00 50 a o � W r+ o z bo f o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 grW1`GU00ti�MNr -.w G ��I rrC�lrr rrrMrNN I U ! Cd 4� O V � c� i.� V yV � C C p v � CJ � C 3 ° ° a -.43 00 NMlcrY-w Moo *-NOON CVNrrN - - rrI�YN I I a4 Q, I m w 0 Lo CY) Lf3MC�YC� OM0wNCY3 I:rwmCF NI�Lo N"co N�� T - S� M C\ O Y CC] CC) N t17 � Cfl N CD CA (ri �' N COM1`Nd'wm I-hNN(X1 r r,'Y - M �'�Q OQ0 -R N d' CO C11 T- Ili r CM M C'? M M N- r 0M1-d rd'MYato0M [�C7mNIt Z'N1-COR1 -0 (ntri Cnco0NT- toNYN O C77 M c Ld to It C\ CO NMNYr C+je --r MC()rr 1� m N o r T- M 7- N O 0 M 00—,'1` Nd' NNq'rM C10M0w0MlqrLoMIt tiw rC6 cq L6 C6 C6 L6 CrJMCV I� oo N CA M M d' M O o r) co wW0MLoOT0T- 01�CC) d:mtorMON OWN 4— �CCITCAC�Nrr�YT- r .c 0 0) O 0 : i3 C,5 CA �'a`� a �oo0 -00 .75 m goo o w2 aoCOCjjCD F- ■ C O c .l C 3 Cn CD C31 O O t� co cc U O 0 0 m 0 0 0 • F-1 fu MEMORANDUM T0, Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to site coverage regulations for multi- family and commercial buildings. Applicant: Town of Vail WIN. a fi c � t ` ' c P°rrF O' ry'��`lf��W'+; ..FF'� •4�''- }' � .SF"hRG:� 4 IX : ' W ?�4r. C'z � !7y"�i� � #% f,A� 'C8ry.ir ¢ �rry3� 4> }' �y{^ i 4 �$ ��f�� y�' � i'l�oi., r: � � • �:c* w4 :.I c ,��:%a' a 4w{�4�F ` ' IX . � p .g}jt"�Er�a 7r�{tP ;ryr Fi : F � '`',o�/�' n4 'f �3' � ' - A4/"fy)•$ i`.:-0''C'2�• �?. $ yi' ", ' �; y� �� �4F} ++? ,..k� �' 3: o : v n.,o�d.d � (' ��o¢f ,i 4?v 'I '�i� '.y`,�+� � +�ri�'�f',��v'Fg,��jr'wr. 7 ri�Gr'.''rbV{ r r.f � GC �y2�yr�' ''r '��tl � ` �� 1 orr ` S �/ F�jS,/ } 'O�F ' I`r.`� rqi' r p'• d . af r f� `. ; yYs✓ 4'�, a.., � �. ? '•4GF f:,� r�. �•G',�}r 23 �'�F, � ref` Amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed single family and duplex residential development only. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage regulations is to address multi- family and commercial development. This memo outlines the issues and recommendations for amending site coverage. An accompanying memorandum deals with GRFA in multi - family development. The recommendations outlined in this memo have been discussed and agreed upon by the staff and Zoning Code Task Force. The PEC's action on this proposal is advisory. The Town Council has the final authority to approve, deny or modify these proposed amendments. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE COVERAGE AMENDMENTS Prior to the PEC's review of amendments to site coverage last fall, the question of how the proposed amendments would affect multi - family and commercial buildings was raised. While it was the staff's intention that the new site coverage regulations would apply to all development in the same way, discussions during the amendment process had focused exclusively on single family and duplex development. For this reason, amendments to site coverage were modified so that they applied to single family and duplex development only. The new site coverage definition reads: "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 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, porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. At the present time, this definition applies to property located in the Single Family, 2- family, Primary/secondary and Hillside Residential zone districts only. Delaying action on multi- family and commercial buildings was intended to allow the staff and Task Force an opportunity to discuss the implications of these amendments on other types of development and to inform the public that these changes are under consideration. II. IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW SITE COVERAGE DEFINITION The fundamental question is whether the new definition of site coverage is appropriate for multi- family and commercial development. The staff and Task Force agree that the new definition is not only appropriate, but also necessary. The three major changes made by the new definition of site coverage are: 1) Cantilevered portions of buildings are now calculated as site coverage. 2) Any portion of a roof overhang that extends more than four feet from the face of a building is now included in site coverage calculations. 3) Any portion of a covered deck or similar feature that extends more than four feet from the face of a building is now included in site coverage calculations. . The justification for these changes is that these design features affect the appearance of a building. Cantilevered buildings, overhangs and covered decks all add to building bulk - as such, it is appropriate for site coverage regulations to establish some limit on the extent of these design features. Cantilevers, overhangs and decks contribute to the bulk and mass of a building, regardless of the uses within the building. For this reason, it is reasonable to use the same site coverage definition for a commercial or multi - family building as is used for a single family residence. It is important to remember that this amendment deals with the definition of site coverage only - allowable site coverage ratios will remain unchanged. If adopted, this amendment should have no significant affect on the design of multi - family and commercial buildings. Adopting the new definition would not prohibit cantilevers, overhangs or decks. The definition would merely establish parameters that in some cases may result in these features being calculated as site coverage. A large cantilever or overhang, something that presently does not count as site coverage, would now count. Depending upon the overall design of the building, this change could put a building over its allowable site coverage. However, in such cases it is appropriate that these design features are included in site coverage calculations because they contribute to the bulk and mass of a building. 40 2 III. SITE COVERAGE AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT A specific concern of the Task Force was the impact of this definition on arcades and covered walkways on commercial buildings - would the new site coverage regulations discourage what is often considered a desirable design feature? The answer is no, in most cases the new site coverage regulations will not change how arcades are calculated. The Westin, Crossroads, Lazier Arcade and the West Vail Mall all have arcades or roofed walkways that would be included as site coverage under the new definition. However, with the exception of the West Vail Mall and Crossroads West, each of these elements would have counted as site coverage under the existing definition because in each case, the arcade or overhang is supported by columns and has floor area above. As with decks and overhangs, it is recognized that with this new definition, an arcade or covered walkway may contribute to a building exceeding allowable site coverage. However, one cannot simply point to an arcade as the only element of a building that exceeds site coverage. An architect will have to consider arcades as one element of the overall design of a building when calculating site coverage. This new definition will not prohibit arcades, but will require that they be considered during the design process. IV. SITE COVERAGE AND MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Another issue, or question, raised by the Task Force was whether this change would affect low . to medium density residential projects (townhome or condo projects in RC or LDMF zone districts). As with the other types of development, the answer is that this amendment will generally have no affect on low to medium residential development. The relationship between density and site coverage (and for that matter building height) is important. Development standards must be sufficient to accommodate permitted development. Allowable site coverage in RC is 25% and in LDMF it is 35% - as compared with 20% in single family and duplex districts. Site coverage is greater in RC and LDMF in order to accommodate the increased development permitted in these districts. Adopting the new definition of site coverage for these zone districts will not alter the relationship between density and site coverage. First, the change in what constitutes site coverage is relatively minor. Secondly, the four foot 'buffer" should accommodate most overhangs or decks - without changing site coverage calculations. Finally, cantilevered elements and large overhangs add to building bulk, and should be included in site coverage calculations if they exceed thresholds established by the new definition. V. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the definition of site coverage recently approved for single family and duplex development be amended so it is used for all types of development. Two steps must be taken for this amendment to be completed: 0 3 I . f=irst, the definition of site coverage must be clarified. The now dofinitieil wos initially approved as "Site coverage - Hillside Residential, Single - family, Two - family and PrimarylSecondary zone districts ". This was done because the definition was intended for these four zone districts only. The definition should be amended to simply read "Site coverage ". With this change, the new definition will apply to development in all zone districts. 2. Secondly, site coverage regulations in each zone district need to be reworded to: "Site coverage shall not exceed X % of the total site area ". This amendment would not change the percentage of site coverage permitted in each zone district. Rather, the change is necessary to avoid confusion over what definitions to use when calculating site coverage. Presently, the wording in each zone district is "No more than X % of the total site area shall be covered by buildings ". This wording creates confusion over what terms to use in calculating site coverage. Amendments will clarify this by specifically referring to site coverage only. With these changes, amendments to site coverage will be complete. These amendments are needed for commercial and multi - family buildings for the same reason they were needed for single family development - to establish some limit on design features that are presently not regulated, and have the potential to add considerable bulk to buildings. 0 cAPeCVOV\s itecOV.513 0 4 171 • MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Fireplace Issue Discussion ',+�`.,'.':>:py`Y+�!'4: ?y: �' TY::'; {I:O'.`'�Y�LRiL.vG':iL'.: :�C` ?i �iUG.*T�, �i0•C ?7{.°. ^• °yp :ter ;`4`O'{r -r � N"v"ifhG°<44�Yy.r`{..,r�G.+- '�i'':H - `.'f: � Y`b2'i�. `d31�•T�•�6'�9i�rS�S^. e y 4'11 ,�.`��`qr °" i� /r'' ��'� ?v° f+ yJ;: %- 't•';.,� ;n: ?: <;R��r "''`�V �`.: ;+- :.�.. �� rr�.r � . :�r�f.'y?� �;,d! , : ��cy�g�rr�,&.�r�' �.�:?�•'r� �1r�'`'�Cde�•`•'i0�v . {c ,rf,,. ?/ �rf 4°.4°.4r�� ?�',.jh�,.:'r 4.LF:0: 4:�2�4.. : ?r�.rF ;� }. y¢`? .r��•.r.rgo��a }` [6 •E:.,'7?� q o.,e:.,,...>: {l•, �' .yo- �• :�' '�ga� ''•^: :;fi:.n�:,:e; � � kY,Y�S?.' .:rf� :.J•�;s':,�: .�� <'` +`'r � ?j,'�q• �- ?�• o �. .�w'f':'� ,�..�tF' j. ' qr c#.`. 5::. �`. �ciw?`.! x:::::= �}:!. ��'':: �.: 4% 0�;,? ��'; 3vi.'.;,.: s:-:: ishr,:, �q,;# :y.`.d:.�.r..�:G.f�.�Rh"`.`:?£� . �&- S. a. x�f.•: �C':' fc• ��: Z��R�-. �r .. °.::.�r:�•`�:� <'�•`�rn'.:�•! ` rx:��:` r: '�}'3�. .. .•. BACKGROUND On April 23, 1991, the Community Development Department. staff presented its research on the EPA Phase Il certified solid fuel units and natural gas fireplaces to a joint Planning and Environmental Commission/Town Council worksession. The research was disseminated for information purposes. Council was asked to seek public input on the questions or topics proposed for discussion, prior to the next worksession on the topic scheduled for May 7, 1991. The staff asked Council to consider each of the issues presented in the memo and be prepared to make recommendations to the staff at the May 7th meeting. ll. DISCUSSION During the discussion on April 23rd, with regard to the emissions which could be created from the EPA Phase II certified units, the question was raised as to what the "worst case scenario" would be if the units were operated without a combustor, doors open and with wet wood. In an effort to answer this question, I spoke with Steven Crane of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - Air Quality Division and with Skip Barnett, Senior Scientist at OMNI, one of the principal stove testing and research facilities in Beaverton, Oregon. They both concurred that if a catalytically equipped stove is operated without the combustor, with the door open and with wet wood, they will operate as a traditional stove and produce, on average, 15 -25 grams of particulates per hour, but could produce as much as 40 -50 grams per hour. The non - catalytic stove operated with the door open would also operate as a traditional stove with emission levels of 15 -25 grams per Dour. Mr. Barnett also related that many of the catalytically equipped stoves are experiencing difficulty in achieving EPA certification levels in home use, although they do very well in the laboratory. EPA is currently performing stress tests on these units in the laboratory in an effort to detect difficulties before the unit is given EPA certification. Mr. Barnett did indicate that the non - catalytic stoves seem better able to achieve certification levels in home use. When asked about setting a particulate emissions level below 7.5 grams per hour for acceptability of units for our area, Mr. Barnett suggested a level of 5.0 grams /hour. He indicated that this would permit the installation of many of the better performing non - catalytic stoves as well as the catalytic units, if desired. M The staff raised the following six topics for discussion in the memo presented on April 23, 1991, and would like to direct discussion to these at this time. 1. Which of the listed devices /alternatives are acceptable for those individuals or associations considering retrofitting existing fireplaces? Should any differentiation be made based upon zoning or unit density? Each of the listed options, gas logs, gas fireplace inserts, pellet burners, catalytic woodstoves or inserts and the non - catalytic woodstoves or inserts, produce significantly less particulate pollution than a traditional fireplace if operated properly. The staff position on this issue would be to allow only gas or pellet stoves in lodge rooms and multi- family projects where fireplaces presently exist. Under the same scenario, the low density projects in the Town would be permitted the choice of any of the options determined to be acceptable. This idea is based not solely on density and frequency of use, but also on the operator knowledge required to correctly operate the other options. Those units with a higher degree of potential operator error would not be acceptable in those units which have a greater potential to not be owner occupied. 2. Should the Town of Vail work within the parameters of EPA guidelines for acceptability of units or should we establish our own standards? That is to say, should all EPA Phase II certified units be acceptable for installation, or do we wish to say only those units with emission levels of 4.0 grams or lower are acceptable and then provide a list of accepted units? There was some discussion at one point of the Town of Vail establishing its own emissions levels for determining which units are acceptable for installation within the Town of Vail. The EPA has set limits of 4.1 grams per hour for catalytic units and 7.5 grams per hour for non - catalytic units. It is deemed that whichever units meet these emissions criteria are acceptable for sale and installation. Should the Town of Vail set an emissions level of X grams of particulates per hour and determine that only those units with emissions data meeting this standard be permitted within the Town? The only concern staff would voice on this issue would be that many of the units which would meet this type of criteria would probably be catalytically equipped units. Since the catalytic convertors require maintenance to maintain the determined levels of emissions, there is some concern that if the convertors were not maintained, emissions levels exceeding 7.5 grams might be achieved. If a limit below 7.5 is set, will the slight change in particulates be a significant change when a decrease from 47 grams to at least 7.5 grams has already been accomplished? If a particulate level of 5.0 grams /hour or lower were to be established for emissions level acceptability for any unit, a review of the list of EPA Phase 11 certified non - catalytic units shows approximately 34 of 81 certified units, or only 42 %, of these units would be acceptable. 3. Does the Council wish to take a position on acceptable options based on any specific parameters other than particulate emissions, such as heating efficiency? Does the Council wish to approve as acceptable options only those units which meet a certain level of criteria for factors other than particulates? Staff believes that heating efficiency, the use of renewable resources and operator error should also be considered when determining acceptable unit types. Y d i',, Public Hearings 1. A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn TABLED TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED 2. A. request for wall height and front setback variances for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger 3. A request for a front setback variance, Bailey Residence, Lot 38, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing /193 Beaver.Dam Road. Applicant: Jeanne M. Bailey 4. A request for a minor amendment, and a request for a conditional use permit, Special Development District No. 5, Simba Run Resorts, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and part of Lot 10, Block C, Resubdivision -of Lionsridge Subdivision /l 100 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: U.A.P. Holdings Co. 5. A request for a worksession to review the Town of Vail .Master Transportation Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail 6. A request for a front setback. variance, Shannon Residence, Lot 22, Block 7, Vail Village list Filing /245 Forest Road. Applicant: Michael Shannon 7. Appointment of PEC member to Municipal Complex Task Force ... ..._ -.- �_.. ;tai, -.,d . �- .= �•m��_ ... ... ... _- ..,., c- �.t,•�.tr4_.- �c°�ar, _r.^r.���..,.- .�.�.�. �ti 3 i g - `1:45 X3:00 :Site Visits 2. 3. 4. 1. i 5. Y d i',, Public Hearings 1. A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn TABLED TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED 2. A. request for wall height and front setback variances for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger 3. A request for a front setback variance, Bailey Residence, Lot 38, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing /193 Beaver.Dam Road. Applicant: Jeanne M. Bailey 4. A request for a minor amendment, and a request for a conditional use permit, Special Development District No. 5, Simba Run Resorts, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and part of Lot 10, Block C, Resubdivision -of Lionsridge Subdivision /l 100 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: U.A.P. Holdings Co. 5. A request for a worksession to review the Town of Vail .Master Transportation Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail 6. A request for a front setback. variance, Shannon Residence, Lot 22, Block 7, Vail Village list Filing /245 Forest Road. Applicant: Michael Shannon 7. Appointment of PEC member to Municipal Complex Task Force ... ..._ -.- �_.. ;tai, -.,d . �- .= �•m��_ ... ... ... _- ..,., c- �.t,•�.tr4_.- �c°�ar, _r.^r.���..,.- .�.�.�. �ti 1 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Ludwig Kurz Jill Kammerer Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker Absent Connie Knight Kathy Langenwalter Gena Whitten The public hearing was called to order at 3:25PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail bas Schone First Filing. A licant: Peter Jacobs of Da s Inn Chuck Crist moved, and Jim Shearer seconded, to table this item to a May 28, 1991 meeting of the PEC. The motion passed, 4 -0. 2. _A request for wall height and front setback variances for the Neuswan_ger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Rid e/2642 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger Jill Kammerer explained that a previous wall height variance request had been brought before the Planning Commission on March 25, 1991, had been denied in part, and then appealed to the Town Council, who denied the appeal. The plan now presented had changed to include tiered walls with at least 3 feet of planting space between walls, and 'a spa/sunroom in the. front setback on the east side of the structure. The north wall of the spa/sunroom would serve a retaining function. The lower wall of the retaining walls would be 4 feet tall and constructed of timbers. ' The second wall would range from 2 -8 feet in height, and would be concrete construction. Staff recommended approval of the variances, finding no grant of special privilege, and believing the changes resulted in good site planing. The slopes on the site. were in'excess of � � 1 } n 45%, resulting in a recommendation to grant a front setback variance to allow the construction of the spa/sunroom. Staff further recommended approval of the wall height variances with additional plantings. As previously stated, under the applicant's proposal, the north side of the spa /sunroom served 4s a retaining wall. Staff recommended that the north side of the "bay" window on the west side of the home could also serve the same function. Chris Neuswanger agreed to the additional vegetation, but felt that perhaps too many trees were being required. Considering that this property has no trees on it currently, he requested fewer plantings. He also showed the Commissioners examples of retaining walls in other areas of Town with greater than 5 foot heights. He believed the proposal he had made did not exceed what has been granted to others. Re did have a concern, however, in changing the "bay" window to serve a retaining function. He indicated it would hurt the design and lighting of the interior.of that room, as that was the only natural light in the room. He thought it would throw off the entire balance of the room. Chuck Crist noted he voted in favor of the original proposal, and his vote had not changed. He did not think it was necessary to require the "bay" window be changed, as he happened to think they are a positive feature. He did not have an opinion on placing additional plantings on the lot. He would support the proposal without any modifications to the "bay" window: . Ludwig Kurz indicated he had voted against the previous proposal, but felt the improvements in the current proposal were positive. He also did not find the "bay" window to be of , concern. Jim Shearer agreed with Ludwig that the "bay" window need not be changed. Jim asked the applicant if he would find the additional landscaping acceptable, and Chris answered it would be fine. Diana Donovan concurred with the comments of the other Commissioners. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for wall height and front setback . variances for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane per the,staff memo subject to the conditions, and with the elimination of the second condition regarding the "bay" 3 window. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The vote was a unanimous .4 -0 in favor. 3. A re uest for a front setback variance Bailey Residence Lot 38 Block'? Vail Village 1st Filing/193 Beaver Dam Road. A licant: Jeanne M. Bailey ,Till Kammerer explained the request to construct a three - space, detached garage in the front setback, and the proposed site plan. On May 1, 1991, the Design Review Board reviewed the plan. to determine if the garage separation would be. acceptable. They determined the site constraints warranted the building separation, 2 ■ z Staff believed an alternative garage location with less site disturiance existed. One option was to shift the garage slightly to the east, and access the garage directly off of Beaver Dam Road. Staff agreed that a construction road would need to be built in order to access the site to demolish the existing structure and construct a new residence, but believed this construction road could be revegetated. If applicant were to access the garage directly from Beaver Dam Road, the Town Engineer recommended the garage be setback 20 feettrom the. edge of the road's paving to allow for stacking of cars. Staff recommended denial of the request, citing the following reasons. First, there was concern for mature vegetation on the site, and the impacts the - request would have on that vegetation. Secondly, the siting of the garage and driveway could be changed to minimize the site impacts,. and third, there existed the .possibility to build.the garage adjacent to. the house out of the front setback. In conclusion, staff found no hardship existed to warrant ranting of the variance. Before beginning public comment, Diana Donovan asked that the names and addresses of the individuals who had written letters regarding the proposal be entered into the record. Those names and addresses, along with their letters, are attached to the staff memo. Mike Ernaman, architect for the Baileys, stated the owners were permanent: Vail residents with an active family, including 3 drivers, and desired to have the garage on the entry level to the house, as climbing 15 -20 stairs would make it difficult to transport groceries into the house and would also be difficult for Mrs. Bailey's mother to climb. The applicants recognized the importance of the trees, and were agreeable to doing everything possible to save as many trees as possible. Regarding the location of the garage, and design of the house, the road would not be visible from Beaver Dam Road, as the garage would be partially buried into the slope. Additionally, due to the slope of the site, very little of the house would be visible. They tried to minimize the visual impacts from the road, as well as minimizing the parking =demands since there existed problems with on- street parking. He showed the impacts of a garage built at road grade, and indicated the owners found it preferable to tuck the garage below grade. In addition, in designing the structures, maintaining privacy was a primary concern. The ridge of the house would remain below the eye level of pedestrians along Beaver Dam Road.. He stated that the construction road would be necessary, but felt staff's assessment `of.the number of trees removed was high. Plans called for 'starting construction at the end of summer, with immediate revegetation of the land, Mr. Ernaman illustrated various alternatives suggested by staff with a scale rendition of the house, garage and landscaping. If the garage were placed at the end of the drive, there would not be enough space to turn around. Backing up an 8% grade was undesirable, especially in winter. A discussion took place regarding turning radii and the resulting fill or retaining • - 3 3 i walls, and whether trees would still be lost. R the garage were attached to the house, the j resulting bulk would be much more apparent to people across the creek. Mr. Ernaman stated the owners did not want to diminish the values of adjacent properties, and also wanted to keep the mass reduced by.putting the garage.in the hillside. The Design Review Board had felt this was a good design, and unanimously approved the conceptual design. He asked staff and the audience for suggestions on what could be done to minimize the impacts of cutting the trees. Jill reminded applicants that there was also the consideration of the hardship which needed to be resolved. Kathy Douglas, a neighbor, spoke of her concern that the driveway be heated, especially with the slope proposed. Michael Ernaman said he hoped it would not be necessary, but would Consider it. Ms. Douglas wanted the applicants to take into consideration the amount of water runoff, but stated she liked the design. Neighbor Nancy Tyler felt the garage could be placed west of the current steps (east of the current proposal), which would eliminate the removal of the largest trees closest to Beaver Dam Road. She thought an underground garage was. an acceptable design. Michael Ernaman thought Ms. Tyler's suggestion was good, except it would increase the driveway slope, necessitating it be heated. Jim Shearer asked if Ms. Tyler's suggestion was taken, and the back -out area was moved, could the tree in the driveway be saved? Mr. Emaman thought it might be possible. Morgan Douglas, a neighbor, asked if a precedent was being set having a detached, underground garage. Mr. Emaman stated that with the expansion of the Town, many marginal sites were now being developed, and the zoning ordinances dealt with more average sites. He believed each site merited individual attention. Diana Donovan elaborated that there were strict regulations concerning separating garages. Mr. Douglas clarified he did not Q bject, except to the extent approval of the setback variance might set a precedent. Diana stated this was always a concern to the Commissioners when evaluating a project. Jim Shearer stated he would like to see a heated driveway, and that banking snow should not be encouraged, as it killed more vegetation. In addition, he felt a heated drive was much safer. He was 100% in favor of Ms. Taylor's suggestion of moving the garage.to the east if it would save more mature vegetation. He believed the trade -off between a heated driveway with a 10 -12% slope for 2 -3 large trees to be a winnable solution. He said he shared the neighbor's worry about revegetating the area, and would encourage the applicant to replace any trees removed from the site with as large or larger trees whenever possible. He did not see a potential precedent set on this site to be a problem. He also felt Oie profile of the house from across the creek, if the garage were attached, would be a. definite negative. � 4 1 i p udwsg Kurz asked if Ms. Taylors alternative were used, would enough turnarounzl' space "be • provided? Mr. Ernaman said it looked like an approximate S foot retaining wall would need to be built, and was further concerned about guest parking. He stated the family's need was for 3 covered and 3 outside parking spaces with a turnaround area. Ludwig asked if the alignment of the driveway could be changed to save more trees. Mr. Ernaman indicated it was a balancing act between two beautiful trees as it was, but the owners' intent was to save as many trees as possible. Ludwig expressed his preference to have the garage moved to the i east, and suggested heating the driveway. He. believed the owners should not be penalized. for having a beautiful site. Some trees would need to be removed, but he believed as many as possible should be saved. 3 Chuck Crist reminded the audience that everything the PEC did, could set precedent, and the fact this might did not bother him. He did feel more trees would be killed than anticipated, j due to construction disturbances. He also asked why a 3 -car garage was necessary, and Mr. Ernaman replied there were 4 cars in the family. 3 ' Chuck felt the current proposal was better than having the garage at the end of the drive, but he would prefer the garage be shifted slightly to the east to save an additional tree. He was i generally in favor of the proposal. W. Ernaman related that during the design process, they were aware that the house would affect the water flow through the site. They proposed collecting water above the house and piping it below to help minimize the environmental impacts. i lim did not support parking on Beaver Dam Road, but he was also not promoting backing out of a 12% grade driveway. If the garage were moved to the east, it would leave area on the west end for parking, and he thought the guest parking would be as much as the current i proposal. Ludwig stated some trees would be lost due to construction disturbances and necessary eemoval. He believed the owners' intentions were good, and it was the utmost importance j that the owner and staff ensured no mistakes were made during construction; no clear cut should be performed just to allow the contractor easy access to the site. Mr. Ernaman stated the loss of trees would;be devastating to the owners.as well as neighbors. Diana Donovan stated it was acceptable to separate the garage for a better site plan; and was s 100% in favor of a garage located on the site, rather than off of Beaver Dam goad. Jeanne Bailey stated they would revegetate to make up for losses, and it was their intention to create a pristine look. Diana indicated it was not her intention to penalize the Baileys for haying tots of trees on their lot, but believed sliding the garage to the east might have a better result. Mrs. Bailey stated that would .be acceptable. Mr.. Ernaman stated he would try to move it, and redesign the house, and it would be worth doing. to attempt to preserve additional trees. Jim asked that an attempt be made to preserve the tree in the` middle of the drive, as well. 5 ;� �.z �......_..;:..� xa. 1 ;1 i I t)iana asked the staff what direction to take at this point. V -Astan Pritz recommended tabling the request, since if approval were given and the plan were found to be unfeasible, another hearing would be necessary. She suggested adding this item to the May 28 agenda, if the applicants believed a new plan could be prepared by. that time. Michael Ernaman requested this front setback variance request be tabled so he could work on moving the garage, changing the driveway and turnaround and making slight modifications . to the house design, as the cars determined the design of the house in that location. He indicated his willingness to work with staff. Chuck Crist moved to table the request to .May 28, 1991. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The unanimous vote of 4 -0 approved the motion. 4. A request for a minor amendment and a x uest for a conditional use permit, S ecial Development District No. S, Simba Run Resorts, Lots 6, `7, 8, 9 and part of ``Lot 1.0 Block C, Resubdivision of Lionsridge Subdivision /1100 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: U.A.P. Holdings Co. - - Mike Mollica explained that the request was to enclose a lower level breezeway to construct a meeting/conference space with kitchen facilities for the use of Simba Run condominium owners only. A conditional use and minor amendment to the SDD is necessary. The proposal included adding three medium -sized spruce trees to the rear of the conference space. t •Mike explained that the limited amount of space affected by the proposal allowed .this . request to be handled as a minor SDD amendment, as it was less than 5% of the gross area of the.. $DD (exclusive of residential) The additional parking required :by the enclosure was proposed to be handled by restriping the current spaces in the Simba parking structure. Staff recommended approval of the proposal, citing the fact that the conference space would pot be available to the general public, and the addition would not be noticeable; or have any negative impacts, upon adjacent properties. t Chuck Crist asked staff for clarification of how many times a minor amendment, of 5% of the site, could be made. Kristan said it was on a per- proposal basis, and that the SDD. ordinances did not set a limit. Mike added that the PEC or staff could still require a major amendment if there was a problem. He believed that as long as it was common area in question, it was probably acceptable. Chuck also asked for clarification that the proposal included the additional trees. Mike assured him it did. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for a minor amendment, and a request for a conditional use permit, Special Development District No. 5, Simba Run Resorts, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and part of Lot 10, Block C, Resubdivision of Lionsridge Subdivision/1100 Noah Frontage Road West per staff memo, including the condition of planting 3 medium sized. spruce .trees, 6 xz.:'; kr_.x. �.�.,. -'" _. .. - -. - .... e ,. .., ., ss.�., a._ r.- .._ ,... ._.. .. <. ..ze _.:n. .. _:x.t:::..x _ i'va"v,�.,.... -. :�s.,.Ya,. _..,ti.•_ >.e: s and founts that the proposal met findings A, B and C of Section IV of the melho: Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved 4 -0. Since the applicant's representative for item 6 was available,. the Commission jumped to that Item. 6. A request for a front setback variance, Shannon Residence, Lot 22, Block __7, Vail ` Village 1st Filing/245 Forest Road. Apylicatit: Michael Shannon ! Shelly Mello explained the request to place a garage with GRFA below in the front setback. The slope beneath the structures on the lot does not exceed 30 %, and therefore the garage Was not automatically allowed in the front setback, per Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The proposed structure would encroach a maximum of 14 feet into the setback. The request met all other zoning considerations. Staff recommended `that additional landscaping be added to screen the addition and a metal grate driveway be used to avoid the need for excessive fill and retaining walls. s taff found there to, be no grant of special privilege, and recommended approval with 'the following conditions: 1. All trees effected by the siting of the garage will be relocated. 2. Additional landscaping, three 8 -12' spruce and two 3" caliper aspens to the east of the garage will be planted by the applicant. 1 3. The staff recognizes that there are traffic/parking problems on Forest Road due, to the lack of on -site parking located directly adjacent to the road, and recognize the merits of keeping some additional parking available in this area. A condition of approval is that one space be removed to allow for additional planting, which would include trees, that would serve to screen the parking areas. this plan will be reviewed by the DRB. This approach still allows for a total of 6 parking spaces.' Four spaces are required per the Town of Vail parking requirements. 4. The proposed metal grate system be used for the entire drive to eliminate the necessity for fill and retaining walls below the driveway. Findings A, B and C2 support grant of the variance. Ned Gwathmey, applicant's representative, said he thought the additional parking was beneficial, but it was no problem to remove it. Diana Donovan questioned how to soften the impact of so much asphalt. Ned suggested on -deck planters. Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for a front setback variance, Shannon Residence, Lot 22, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/245 Forest Road per the staff memo with a correction } of the garage encroaching 14 feet, and the parking area be screened sufficiently with landscaping. All of the parking may be retained if the Design Review Board finds the • 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 20, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for front yard setback and wall height variances for the Neuswanger residence, located within the Primary/Secondary Zone.District, 2642 Cortina Lane/ Lot b, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision: Applicant: Chris Neuswanger 1: BACKGROUND On March 25, 1.991, the Planning and Environmental. Commission (PEC) reviewed requests for front yard and wall height variances for the Neuswanger, residence. During the course of discussing the wall height variance request, the applicant indicated the proposed wall heights could be reduced to 10 feet above grade on the south side of the. eastern wall and to 8 feet above grade on the south side of the western wall. Following discussion regarding the front setback and wall height variance requests, Kathy Langenwalter moved to deny the wall height. request and to approve the front yard setback request, subject to the applicant. variance eq Pp Y q J providing a minimum of 20 feet of. driveway from the edge of the asphalt of Cortina Lane. The PEC's basis for the motion to deny the wall height variance. was, the need for the variance was a self- imposed hardship and approval would be a 'grant of special privilege. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -2 in favor of the motion, with. Chuck Crist and Gena Whitten in opposition. Chuck felt the wall height variance should be allowed because the steep lot was a hardship, i.e., the hardship was not self - imposed. Gena stated she would like to see Mr. Neuswanger re =work the plan, rather than simply'vote against it. On April 16, 1991, Mr. Neuswanger appealed the PBC's denial of the wall .height variance to the Town Council. Following discussion, Peggy Osterfoss moved to grant the appeal based on the fact the slope of the site was a physical hardship, and from the north. (Cortina Lane), the walls would not appear to exceed 3' -0" in height. The motion to. grant the appeal was ubject to the condition the proposed retaining walls be terraced with 2 tiers of equal height, with a 4 -foot wide planting area between the tiers. This motion failed by a vote of 3 -3. Because the average slope beneath the proposed structure and parking area. is in excess of' thirty percent, the code requires any structures on this site be designed by a licensed architect (Section 18.69.050.D). Those individuals voting against the motion did so because they relieved the applicant needed to retain a design professional to explore . alternative building design and/or siting solutions. The thought being the walls could be better integrated with the 1 s. 3 1 -p, • A. Front Setback Variance: The Neuswanger lot is accessed from the north off of Cortina Lane. The subject site slopes down to the south from the high point on the north side of the lot adjacent to Cortina Lane. The low point of the site is located along the southern property line. The majority of the slopes on the site exceed 30 %. In fact, adjacent to Cortina Lane, in the area where the new residence is proposed to be located, the average slope is 45%. On March 25, 1991 the PEC approved a front setback variance to allow the construction of a residence in conjunction with an attached garage, in the front setback. The applicant is requesting a new front setback variance in order to allow the construction of additional GRFA in the front setback. Under the previously .approved setback variance, as well as in this instance, GRFA would be constructed 5' -0" from the front (north) property line. This 15 -foot encroachment into the front setback would result in a 5' -0 front setback. Wherefore a 15 foot front setback variance is required. The proposed additional GRFA would encroach no further into the required front setback then the previously .approved GRFA encroachment. The additional GRFA would be located on the lower level of the east side of the residence. The north wall of this spa/sunroom, off of the master bedroom, will also serve a retaining function, thereby reducing the amount of retaining wall on the east sjde visible from below (the south). Please see attached site plan, floor plans and elevations in order to better understand the location of the proposed additional GRFA. B. Wall Height Variances: In addition to the front setback variance, the applicant is requesting approval of wall height Variances. Under Section 18.58.020 (C) of the zoning code, walls may not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback and may not exceed six feet in height on any other portion of the site. The two walls for which variances are requested are located on the east and west sides of the residence within the required front setback. The purpose of these walls is to. create fairly level side yards and to provide light into living spaces. On the east, in an area where the applicant had previously proposed to construct an at -grade deck with a small, sodded side yard and a 10' retaining wall, he is now proposing to construct a spalsunroom .(the north wall 1 2 fx . 1 ' of which will serve a retaining function) and a two tiered, terraced retaining wall with a l) -0" planting area between tiers. The lower section of the eastern retaining wall will be built of timber and will be a;maximum of 4 feet above grade. The upper section of the eastern retaining wall will be concrete faced with stucco and will range in height from 2 to 8 feet: The applicant proposes to plant 2 potentilla shrubs in the 3' -0" wide planting area between the tiers. The lower section of the western retaining will be timber construction and will range from 2' to 3' above grade. The upper tier of western wall be concrete faced with stucco and will range from V to 6' in height. A portion of the western wall will be screened by a liay window -like, three -sided architectural detail which is located on this side of the residence. The applicant proposes to plant 3 potentilla shrubs is the 3' wide planting area between the tiers. Please see attached drawings in order to better understand the wall heights and locations. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. This lot is located within the Primary /Secondary Zone District. B. All of the adjacent properties are zoned Primary /Secondary. Adjacent lots to the north, south, east and west are vacant and undeveloped at this time. C. The GRFA and site coverage meets the primary /secondary standards for lots. where the slope is 30 % or greater. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 1pon review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal . Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested front. setback and wall height 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. } a. Front Setback Variance The requested setback variance, if approved, would not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties. By concentrating the development on the northern portion of the lot adjacent to Cortina Lane, 3 less site disturbance will occur in constructing this spahunroom. If the ` iapplicant were to construct the spa/sunroom elsewhere on the site, but not locate any of the GRFA in the front setback,. the square footage' associated with this spa/sunroom would simply be located further down the southern slope, thereby creating greater and.unnecessary site disturbance. The north wall of the spa/sunroom serves a retaining function. The location of the room also benefits the development of the site by screening the area where the greatest amount of retaining is needed. b. Wall Height Variances Staff believes the impact of the proposed wall heights on adjacent properties can be mitigated through the provision of additional plant material (including deciduous and evergreen trees) in the planting area between the wall tiers and in the lawn below the walls. Both the eastern and western retaining walls will be visible from properties located below this lot. Although these walls will be tiered and constructed using 2 different materials, without adequate landscaping;. between the tiers and below the walls, staff believes the walls will read as one 8 -12' tall wall when viewed from below the structure (south). Staff believes the proposed 3 -sided architectural detail on the west side of the residence exacerbates the retaining wall height situation. However, staff understands the applicants desire to increase the amount of natural light in the unit. if the 3 -sided architectural window is to remain, staff believes an opportunity exists for the applicant to rework the north wail of the 3 -sided architectural detail area to serve ,a retaining function, as has been proposed with the north wall of the spa/sunroom on the east side of the residence. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity 'of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant; of special privilege, a. Front Yard Setback Variance Because of the steepness of the lots in this subdivision; there are several properties in the area which have taken advantage of the :section Of the zoning code which allows the construction of garages to occur in the front setback. Relief from the strict and literal interpretation <and. enforcement of this provision of the code is warranted in order to 4 minimize site disturbance. Staff does not believe allowing the construction of GRFA in the front setback on this lot would be a grant of e. special privilege. P P g b. Wall Height Variances Access to this lot is extremely difficult due to the fact the average slope of the lot adjacent to Cortina Lane is approximately 45 %, The slopes of the site are such that through the construction of the retaining walls on the east and west: as proposed, the applicant is able to` create a small side yard and allow for more light into living spaces. Under the previously reviewed wall height variance request, the staff. had suggested the applicant take. up the necessary grade through tha. use of a series of stepped retaining walls, with sufficient planting area in between the tiers to allow for the installation of plant material to break up the mass of the wall. This is what the applicant is. i now proposing to do. However, as previously stated, staff believes the impact of the proposed wall could be further mitigated through the installation of additional plant material, both in the area between the tiers and in the lawn area below the walls. Staff does not believe granting of these: wall height variances would be a grant of special privilege because of the steep topography on the site which warrants some relief from development standards. 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. a. Front Setback and Wall Height Variances Staff finds the requested variance will have no significant impact upon any of the above considerations. Public works has reviewed the proposal and has no concerns. Snow plowing can 'be accommodated. V. FINDINGS he Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantinc a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in `the same district. 'r 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 i inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Front Setback Variance Staff recommends approval of the front setback variance request; Staff does not believe approval of the request would be a grant of special privilege and further a pp roval would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. The topographic . conditions of the site have created unique development considerations for this site. The planning staff believes a hardship would be imposed on the applicant if the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. The strict interpretation of front setback requirements would result in an inferior building design in that a greater area of the site would need to be disturbed in constructing the residence. Findings supporting the variance are A, B, C =1 and C -2, B. Wall Height Variance Staff recommends approval of the requested wall height.varance with the conditions that: 1, The applicant be required to install additional plant material (including trees) in the area between the wall tiers and in the area below the walls in order to minimize the mass and soften the impact of these retaining walls. This plan includes a minimum of 8 shrubs, 4 spruce and 2 deciduous trees. The specific design of the landscaping should be reviewed by the DRB. 6 3 ( 4 s ( ( ( l C ( L' ( r - r ( I C s r r KEY QTY. COMMGN NAME SPRUCE A 512E 9 Ig ppi POPULUS TRM OIDUS 1 I SASKATOON SERVICE BERRY AMELANCNIER ALNIFiOLIA 7 GAL. M 9 a q CO IN LILAC M I SYMNGA YLILGARIS 7 GAL. a 5 POTENTILLA POTENTILLA 5 -0AL. SOD SOOSWFT +— �Tr���FiJi1 ;Y�lihlil'lii {��?i!iFl ar% ✓R�I� la it T �r w REVtGITATE ALL DISTURDED AREAS TH NATIVE GRASSES 1 Electric Line KEY QTY. COMMGN NAME SPRUCE BOTANICAL NAME PILEA PUMENS 512E 9 Ig ASPEN POPULUS TRM OIDUS 2 -2 i /2' SASKATOON SERVICE BERRY AMELANCNIER ALNIFiOLIA 7 GAL. M 9 a q CO IN LILAC M I SYMNGA YLILGARIS 7 GAL. a 5 POTENTILLA POTENTILLA 5 -0AL. SOD SOOSWFT +— .OZ d a0 L G Ql CL v C p O \ 1 LL Q, co tL _ Mw F� W � CIA /r • �!� i : � �!: , \/ tD LL Q, co tL _ Mw F� W � tD M z. -.. _ r LU ..t LLS O x W M .. r Ui — p TV R � ♦�1 � :rrsYri�t �:�?as i MOEN m I 51111 \tom f ♦� ♦�J JJJ.JJ JJJJJ I 4' .S 1 'i i � i I w i r j I �r k 1 i I I I 1 l a ..t LLS O x W M .. r Ui — p TV R � ♦�1 � :rrsYri�t �:�?as i MOEN m I 51111 fr S0 w Ii 00 t� qr YJ{ W . \tom f ♦� ♦�J JJJ.JJ JJJJJ fr S0 w Ii 00 t� qr YJ{ W . 1111 4® ® liiiliii rs ® liiiiiii 14�1�1�1 Yiii Iva .01 Lu:o FPR Z6 '91 WU-16 VHIL. MTN. PROP. LNL;. r. CSC April 23, 1981 Ri vism VARIANCE 09QUEST al avo Pursuant to the apparent wishes of the Vail Town Council, we�h redesigned our retaining wall system to provide a two;stp wI7 with a maximum height of . S feet, Th i e Is data i l ed in the attached drawings. We have also expanded tha :lower level of the house, by enclosing the lower patio off the master bedroom into' a spaj sunrooM, thus reducing the amount of retaining walls required. We have further tried to break up the visual ' i mpact of the iva l 1.9 by making the lower section.built of 'timbers and the upper section built of concrete raced with stucco. The l owe r section : an the east side will be 4' tall, and the upper section wi l l range : in :height from 2' to am. The lower section of the west wall ;will rwjae '-from 2-3* in height, and the upper sect- do will range, from 1' to 5.' , however as part of i t .will be behind the bay window the v` si n 10 portion of the upper wall will range =from i'to 4' tall.. We would also like to note that we did consider the auggostione of some PJC members that we locate the deck and lawn on the south tide. Ws find this unworkable for the following reasons: 1. An 8' wide deck would be about be about $.' i4 the a;ir, thus requiring a stairway to get to the ground, ,tiny ' lawn area below that would require further retaining'. walls to have any type of fairly level surface. This would also preclude using ft .in the winter to let the. dog out on :a tether without frequent shoveling of the steps: and ;. going all the way-down to tie, up and untie the dog. 2. Putting s hot tub on such a , decK would be very` = uncomfortable because it would be a very unprotected spot. 3. We often have found a south facing deck to be toe sunny to really enjoy without umbrellas and sunglass®s. We owned another home in Vail with both a east Ana a south deck, and though the south deck was far.larger we rarely used it. d. Chris Neuawanger has had several benign melanomas removed and.cannot spend a great deal of time in'the sun:, a,south` foc i ng deck would reduce the amount of t i ma he cou l Cl,,: spend i outside. 3, e ,.: it ..�.tia "� - .. . - -. ..5 ,. L " -� 1.z .. i�c-.. aS.L,:&::ri.. e ...,,,. �_��. ,. ,_ E a r. lrR GO 71 00-1'h7 YM1L.. rl111. rIV&K . LM— we feel that we have mad* every effort ' to meet the ' towhs � _ 4 resulationa, we are under height limits, aRFA, and sit® coverage 1 end OVS!" :011 BA b8lCiis (OXcopt. the f rent) sma pant i ng , WO fee • x _ tho alopa of our si to creates a very r9a7 hardship and we 3 �' -have bebn , wi l I i ng .,to, compromise and are 'i nves:t'#+�o About . J an sdd'itionel :;�T,�G4.a4 '� g.'�ve, the town. divined retaining ,14 ao$pe areas i n . between . We have no p 1 arls to rase 1 f° wails with 1:11419 a ti :,this` h+om®> i n the near f uturo k, and td: ue that is a eubatrtti ..cost. We hop4 you will agree with cur efforts. t Chris hieuswanger .. - .. I F 3 • is 3 -' I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 20, 1991 SUBJECT: Request for a front. yard setback variance to allow the construction of .a detached garage on a Primary/Secondary zoned lot, 193 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 38, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Jeanne M. Bailey v� 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED With this proposal, the applicant is requesting a 19 -foot, 3 -inch variance to the front yard setback in order to construct a 3 space, detached garage within the front setback. The zoning code requires a 20 -foot front yard setback, and the applicant will be providing a 9 =inch etback. Therefore a 19 -foot, 3 -inch front setback variance is required, The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence on the site and construct a new ? residence with a detached garage. The subject site fronts onto Beaver Dam Road. The site $lopes down from the north side of Beaver Dam Road to the south bank of Gore Creek. The tow point of Beaver Dam Road is on the eastern edge of the property and the high point is on } the western end of the property. The proposed three space garage will be accessed from a driveway which runs` the length.of 1(he property. The Beaver Dam Road curb cut for the proposed drive will be at the eastern edge of the lot. From this point, the drive dips down into the site, at a grade ranging from % to 9 %, following a path which is generally parallel to Beaver Dam Road, to the western dge of the property. The change in grade from" the edge of Beaver Dam Road, where the; curb cut occurs, to the garage entrance is '10.5 feet. However, because . Seaver Dam Road continues to climb up hill from the eastern edge of the Bailey property to the western edge of the property, the entrance to the garage is approximately 16.5 feet below the grade of Beaver Dam Road above. Subsequently, the proposed garage structure would be covered with soil, and the roof planted with native grasses. 1 } fV. CCRITERTA .AND FINDINGS I Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested'_ variance based on the following factors: i A. Consideration of Factors: 3 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential Uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed driveway grade flattens out in front of the garage and an asphalt } turn around area has been designed. With construction of the driveway. down into the site as proposed, the staff believes. that the applicant has the ability to construct a garage in the asphalt area adjacent and possibly attached: to the residence, which would be located out of any required setbacks. Under the proposed driveway design, staff believes that a 12 -foot high retaining wall will be needed on the north side of the driveway in order to access the garage. On the site plan, the area where it appears a retaining wall would need to be located, exceeds a 1:1 slope ratio.. The DRB guidelines limit slopes to a maximum of 2 :1. Given the proposed slope, the possibility of avoiding a retaining wall at this location is unlikely. The neighbors to the north south, east and west would probably not. notice the garage, since it would mostly be located below grade. However, staff believes constructing the garage and the driveway access as proposed, is contrary to the site sensitivity the zoning code calls for under the design review guidelines. Two 18 -inch caliper evergreens and 1 large aspen must be removed in order to construct the garage in the location proposed. In order to construct the driveway and grade the site as proposed, one 5 7inch caliper, three 64nch caliper and six 18 -inch caliper evergreens must be removed. In order to construct a walkway from the residence to Beaver Dam Road, as proposed, 4. large aspen must be removed. In. summary, in constructing the driveway, walkway and garage as proposed, the net loss of trees would be' 12 evergreens ran in ^ in size from 5 -inch. to 18- inches and 7. as ens. Additionally.; in constructing the residence as proposed, two 6 -inch caliper, one 8 inch caliper 3 and one 12 -inch caliper evergreens and two large aspens must be removed: The staff recommends that the applicant restudy the site planning on :this lot. If the applicant shifted the location of the garage to the east, eliminated the proposed driveway and accessed the garage directly from Beaver Dam Road, and linked the proposed walkway directly to the garage, the net loss of tees would be two 5 -inch caliper "evergreens and 7 aspen. This scenario achieves _•ice �;' :� - <� t.9 � .&�, the Towns ob�ecdves of minimizing the impact of construction on a site as much as possible while maintaining the natural alpine environment. Staff recognizes the applicant may deed to construct a roadway in order .to access the site for demolition and construction. However, staff believes, the applicant could construct a temporary road to access the site for construction and revegetate the temporary road following construction activity. Even under ' this scenario the applicant must take precautions to insure minimum disturbance of the soil under the drip line of the trees. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve, compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the, vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Under Section 18.69.050 of the zoning code, there is no front setback requirement on lots where the .average slope of a site beneath a proposed structure and parking area exceeds .30% (except as may be required by the Design Review Board). A number of residences along Beaver D"am `Road meet the 30% slope criteria and, subsequently, there are a number of garages within the front setback which are accessed directly from Beaver Dam Road ". This development plan does not meet the 30% slope requirement. h location of the garage to the east would result in less Staff believes shifting the oc g g site disturbance and loss of mature vegetation and would be compatible with other residences in the area: Staff believes the current proposal fails to meet the above criteria and therefore enforcing the development standards for setbacks is reasonable since. approval of the variance would not provide compatibility among sites within the vicinity; If the applicant is seeking relief from the strict interpretation of the code, staff believes relief should be granted only for the option with the least amount of impact (i.e. shifting the garage to the east, eliminating the permanent driveway and requiring revegetation of the construction road). 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 garage location and driveway access, as proposed, would have no impact on the above criteria. If the staff's recommended garage. location alternative were to be pursued, staff would recommend the applicant provide a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the existing asphalt of Beaver. Dam Road to, the' i �. front of the garage in order to allow for the stacking of a. utomoli'lles off' of the edge of asphalt, and to improve backing visibility. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make he following, findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of'the .following. reasons: a. 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. b. 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. C. 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 this front setback variance request because we believe it does not meet the criteria for a variance. Several problems with the proposal revolve around the issue of the removal of mature vegetation, the siting of the garage and the construction of a driveway to access the garage. Staff believes the proposal could, be improved, as there is an alternative location for the garage which has fewer negative impacts. The visual impact of the garage and the driveway in the alternative location would be negligible and the alternative location would be compatible with the location of other garages directly off of Beaver Dam Road, 8 taff also recommends. denial of the request because we believe it does not meet any of the fequired Findings. Staff believes the garage does not have to be constructed in this location. Under the development as proposed, the garage could be attached to the home if the driveway is constructed. 5 The Ernemann Group Architects PO Box 4602 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303.925.2266 A. Statement of Request We respectfully request a variation from regulation 18.18.060 (which calls for a minimum front yard setback of twenty feet)- so that part of a subterranean garage maybe constructed In said setback. After a comprehensive analysis of the.site with regard to vehicular access It became apparent that In order to: 1. minimize the visible impact of the new structure(s); 2. minimize the visible Impact of the automobile and'Its programmatically required facilities; 3. maximize privacy for the proposed and Its tlelghbors, and; 4. maximize the preservation of the natural character and'setting afforded. by the property Including topography, vegetation, light and air; the garage should be separated from the house and buried in the steepest portion of the site just below Beaver Dam Road. It is our opinion that the logical ognfiguradonof house, garage, and driveway necessitates construction of the garage In the front yard setback as shown on the site plan In this proposal, approximately half of the garage will be completely buried under existing,, grade, The other half will have a sod roof, compatible wlth existing terrain. Access to the garage will be from aproposed motor court at the end of the" driveway. Because the building site Is on the north side of Beaver Dam. Road the garage doors -wilt not be visible from the road. Other garages in: the vicinity. have been constructed in the frontyard: setback- per: section 18.69.050 (L), increasing visible building masses in these.areas. It Is assumed that a good portion of the Intent.of .a front yard :setback Is' to create a landscaped buffer between a structure and a public way: jn this "proposal, tho natural buffer area is retained: Additionally the` proposed house Is an average of 60-feet froa the front property line. Further, the existing situation at the site Is such tf at vehicles are. parked at a cribbed area contiguous to Beaver Dam Road. Our proposed arrangement will eliminate this existing parking situation; reducing the potential hazards imposed ,by vehldes at this area. In summary, we feel that this variance request: 1. Is in keeping with the intent and objective of the 20 feet ethack.ordtnance as related to other structures in the vlclnity; : 2. Is necessary to enable the site to be developed. in a manner that preserves its existing character (and compatibility with other sites in the leinity) by providing a means for locating a garage that will, present rf Mal visible Impacts form the road white attaining the objectives cf the setback ordinanos .' by being placed essentially below grade with a vegetated roof; 3, retains the light, airy natural qualities of'the site while reducing the visible portion of the proposed structure as well de,mitigates the Impact Of vehicles contiguous to the road, and; 4, is in total complianoa with regard to development in conjunction with retaining the natural beauty of the Vail Valley, vis -a vis Vail'$ Comprehensive Plan; __ � � � ,. - ,...., t �. 4 ' b �. �- 5 -�: `a � v` �; �c? .� y j b. " *- , . }i r . - t. r#���F�[' 4.i�: �—.`�M 3.�"aS5�"e#.:3�i" • • ' MAY 14 199' JOHN L. TYLER, JR. '7 9G XJIi l j r a- C Ci604a cam- � 61 2c> ezw�' �47'w 4c 255 Z f,,�l /4in� X37 - • - -�_ MAY 1419 /� `y 67 0-� 166N .` AM L 1,RViNG I SHMAY ER &A. G1 RX53D PL's • E1i.EWWD1 COLORADO X110 C�A/R,d�'.i�,loN �LA/1I�Yl�YC .4'✓Y17 Lr.i/Y /I�c+�!/NC�YT -5iG G�0.4.if /�S /O�✓ 9S Sarlfi,� ��v -yTA�� R� ,[.oT -38- 94oe -� 7 ! r � �T,�,gyr�.a ry Y� Ly �y� .4 45��.4.�r�- ��.�•� �� c.+rsf�r.,� �vrr...� .U�c�sis4 � GlJ� ✓�'Ta4D�!/¢G7/ GOW-e- 7W,47- .4.t?E /QGiti T/>�' �.� �ieoti�9�,�T T.5�4 =' u�•4- y T•�E'� ��".rr���... cUiG� p Ua» Ti2 e=4" S --P,.6 i 969 .yE-� cvE aura �- �G T G�- e.4.�.r Uf�.�✓�iYCG'�sS` �G �U / /�t/C� 7"�E� ®21 22 POLY pAK (50 Sets) AP476 { � N��n ����M� «� � . Mr" am Mrs~ �Paul E. Fuller' On��] � . 3232 S. Josephine St^ Demverr CO 90210 May 13, 1991 Mrs. Dianne Donovan, Chairperson Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail � 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81658 ' Reference: Agarage and front set—back variance For: Beaome M. Bailey Lot 38 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing 193 Beaver Dam Road Mrs. Donovan: As owners of property located at 363 Beaver Dam Road, we object to the granting of a veriance for the conetruction of a garage at the above refearenced property for the following reasons: First and foremost, is that we understand the garag e i to be a separate structure from the house. This n ..residlences_along, Beaver Dam Covenants and quire garages, to be attached to the house. Such were � established to maintain spacing of- residents in the area and should be enforced without exception. o-I! some fn anificant blue sgruce tregs on -the property which would contribUte to the growing erasion problem algQL L bank.5 of Gore Creek. "rhe aLesthetic value of the trees The granting of variances for individual properties only serves to diminish the unique qualities of the neighborhood. Building codes and covenants are meant -to pratect all property owners for the good of each. Pleaxs, e enforce covenants,. restrictions and building codes as currently in place for our neighborhood. ' Sincerely, Mzirgaret Tyler Fuller Paul E. Fuller . Mr-. & Mrs. John A. Winanbdker 6353 Kalani Place .�: r �. I .�.�:� �:�' �: X11 /;/ j t MEMORANDUM -to: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 20, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment, and a request for a conditional use permit, Special Development District No. 5, Simba Run Resorts, Lots: fi;.. 7, 8, 9 and part of 10, Block C, Resubdivision of Lionsridge Subdivision/1100 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: U.A.P. Holdings Co. h DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The Simba Run Condominium Association is proposing to enclose an outdoor breezeway Which is located at the lowest level of the existing, westernmost building. The purpose of. Enclosing this breezeway is to provide a meeting roozn/conference space of approximately 1,606 sq. ft. in size. In addition to the meeting space, two bathrooms and a ''residential- type" kitchen would be constructed in an adjoining rea, which is currently used as storage. This g area comprises approximately 450 sq. ft. The meeting space will not be. available for :use by the general public, and would only be used by Simba Run guests or condominium owners. The Simba Run development is located within the boundaries of Special Development District No. 5, Development Area B. As such, meeting rooms are reviewed as a conditional use within the zone district. In addition to the conditional use permit review, the proposed modifications to Simba Run are also considered a "minor amendment" to the Special . �evelopment District, according to Section 18.40.020(B) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. This section of the Code reads as follows: "'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 to oss floor area (excluding resid "ntial uses of not more than five percent of the aynroved square footage of, retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area." (Emphasis added by staff) z r } A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development, objectives of the Town. The general purpose section of the Special Development 'District: chapter of the Zoning Code, Section 18.40.010, states the following; "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; arid. to further the overall :goals .of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan:" The purpose section of the Simba Run Special Development District (SDD No. 5), Section 18.48,010 of the Town Zoning Code states the following: "Special Development. District 5 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner which will be harmonious ' with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the `zoning ordinance." Simba Run is located in Development Area B of Special Development ''District No, 5. As such, the only permitted Use in this Development Area is'multipfe family residential dwellings and employee housing units. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed meeting/conference. space would be a'' complimentary use to the existing multiple family residential character of the project. We see i no potential negative impacts on any of the existing development objectives.of the Town, given this expansion. f 2. The effect of the use on light and :air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities,, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities. needs. The location of this proposed conference space is such that it should have no affect upon any of the above considerations. ' 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to. conge$tion automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and. control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 3 Again, given the limited nature and size of this conference space, and the fact that this space will not be available for use by the general public; the staff believes there to be no significant impacts upon automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic: flow, access, maneuverability and snow removal. There will be a slight increase in the required number of parking spaces and the applicant has indicated they can meet that requirement by restriping the existing, enclosed parking structure: The staff has reviewed the restriping plan for the parking structure and concurs. ! 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. Staff believes that. the enclosure of this breezeway to provide for a conference space will have no significant impact upon the general character of the area. There should also be no significant impact upon. adjacent properties;. due to ;the location and siting of the .conference space. The breezeway area is proposed to be located at the lowest level of the existing, westernmost building, and would be very difficult to see from I -70, the North Frontage 'Road; and Lionsridge Loop to the north. Although the staff believes the proposed enclosure of the breezeway will be architecturally insignificant in relation to the existing .structure, the applicant has. proposed screen landscaping on the north ,side of the addition. This landscaping would consist of one 12 -foot blue. spruce and two 10 -foot blue spruce, as indicated on the attached site plan. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall rinake the followin finchngs before_ granting a conditional use. permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site -is located. B. That the: proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements,in the vicinity. G That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 4. i a_as. r , • • �- i � _ � :.. .i _r�.��` r, .t • L� r7 U . 1 o w -a CL 0 a i i i d _J Q 0. J W W W Q U z . 1 7 a Q • b °Cf ro N O CL O Z 0 Q S1J LLI O -- -------------- ------------------------- .1 . I § - .. --------------------------------------- - - - -- - --------------------- DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE Under Section 18.69,050 of the zoning code, there is no front setback requirement for garages, on lots where the average slope of the site beneath a proposed structure and parking area exceeds 30% (except as may be required by the Design Review Board) The staff has interpreted this to include existing structures. In this case, the average slope' beneath the Proposed garage is greater than 30 %. However, the remainder of the lot where the existing residence is Iocated is less than 30 %. The staff has determined that the allowance to place the garage in the front setback without a variance is not applicable to this lot. Therefore, a front setback variance is requested to locate the garage and the GRFA in the front setback. The Shannon residence is accessed from the south off of Forest Road. The site slopes down to the north from the high point on the south side of the lot, The slope is approximately:. 37.5% at the south end of the lot, where the garage is proposed. to be located, and averages approximately 20% midway through the lot where the existing residence is located. ` The low point of the site is located along the northern property line. (See Section 1. and 2 on Exhibit A.) The applicant is requesting approval of a front. setback variance in order to construct a garage Which includes GRFA below. The. garage. encroaches a maximum of 14 feet: into the front` setback and the GRFA below encroaches 12 feet into the setback. This encroachment into the front setback would result in a 6 foot front setback. The applicant also requests that the existing 3 surface parking spaces remain. This request is due to the lack of available on= street parking in the area. The floor of the garage will be at roughly the same elevation as that of Forest Road. Some fill will be necessary to construct the driveway as the applicant proposes to use a combination of fill and a metal, grate platform for garage access off of Forest Road. The applicant is requesting to construct a secondary unit (GRFA) in the front yard in conjunction with the 1 #a. s. s_.;„ ;f��,...`.:�:�-a._€e�3r�...r.ra -.- sires_ cc• `' , setback, the living area would be located further down the slope, thereby creating greater and unnecessary site disturbance, Three to four 4" caliper pine trees will be displaced by the siting of the garage. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to:.11ieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites,in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Because of the steepness of the lots in this area, there are several properties in the area which have taken advantage of the: section of the zoning code which allows the.. construction: of garages to occur in the front yard. However, due to the change in slope midway through the lot, this particular property does. not qualify for this allowance. Although the neighboring homes do not have GRFA in the front,.yard associated with the garages, staff believes that allowing GRFA in the front yard of this property will minimize site .disturbance, and: that relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of this provision of the code is warranted. The staff finds that, by allowing the construction of the garage and the GRFA in the front setback .on .this lot, there will be no grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff finds the requested variance will have no, significant impact upon any of the above considerations. Public Works has reviewed�the proposal and approves of the garage location in the setback FINDINGS A. • That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the: public health, ; safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or'improvemerits in the vicinity. gata:..�. "l NLO {Oy 1 b M% - - Ld - a 1 ' a j 1 b ca i a Al W ta n ad 8 N s.e � p a z:. a l z•sz � � xa�_ y � Z - 04 w m � 1m Oo J y. To z 3: 0. j H't � c� �� r ,� �.._� ��� � _: _.. �. . _ . � L �F i -.- MEW Present Staff Chuck Crist Kri.stan Pritz Diana Donovan Jill Kammerer Connie Knight Amber Blecker Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Jim Shearer 3 Absent Gena Whitten i The public hearing was called to order at 11 :10AM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A re guest for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site 2211 N. Frontage Road/Lot L. Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail. D_as Schone First Filin - __pplicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn Jill Kammerer explained the application. She indicated Days Inn was requesting the CCIII- 'zoned, 4.4 acre site become a Special Development District to allow for a 3- story, .37 unit employee housing building on the northwest corner of the site. The north of the site consisted of primarily condominiums and lots zoned Primary /Secondary. South of the proposed employee housing building were the Days Inn and Shoppette buildings. The lot to the west was vacant, and to the east was the West Vail Mall. The units in the building would be permanently restricted for long -term rentals to employees in the Upper Eagle Valley only, and such use is a conditional use in the CCIII zone district. The areas where the request did not meet CCIII zone district. standards were due to density, an overage of GRFA (predominantly due to an overage of common area in both the. proposed employee housing building and in the Days Inn complex), a shortage in the number of parking spaces, parking being located in the front setback, and a lack of the parking lot containing 10% interior landscaping. Staff would discuss these items later in the presentation. The proposed building would contain ten 1-bedroom units of approximately 550 sq. ft., 26 studio apartments of 270 sq. ft., and one 2- bedroom. apartment of 700 sq. ft. Provided in the apartment or on -site would be storage units, ski lockers, laundry facilities, balcony storage, solid deck railings, and a common lounge area of 240 sq. ft. 1 1 f E}ccupancy of the units would be restricted to one person per studio, two people per 1 ` bedroom, and three people in the 2- bedroom unit. The rental amounts would be set by the prevailing free - market rents at the time of rental. There were several changes since the original presentation of the proposal as a worksession On April 6, 1991. These changes consisted of: 1. Increased the width of the balcony from 2 1/2 feet to 4 feet. 2. Provided concealed and enclosed storage for bicycles on the balconies. 3. Provided a break in the exterior of the building, so that a portion of the building is now set. back 4 feet from the facade of the other portion of the building. 4. Provided a 3 foot break in the ridge line of the proposed building. 5. Provided windows on the east and west ends of the structure, so that the corner units will have windows on two sides. 6. Increased the size of the proposed storage units from 6 sq. ft. to 12 and 24 sq: ft. 7. Decreased the proposed density by 3 units through the provision of .2 additional one - i bedroom units, and 1 two - bedroom unit. 8. Increased the size of the lobby area and opened up the south and east walls with windows. 9. Provided solid railings on the balconies. 10. Increased the pitch of the roof. 11. Modified the proposed roofing material to shake from tar and gravel. J2. Provided bicycle racks for exterior storage of bicycles. 13. Provided permanent window coverings for each unit. 14. Used staggered studs in wall construction to reduce sound transference between walls of units. 15. Provided wall insulation and use of light- weight concrete for floors to decrease sound transference. between units. 16. Increased the amount of storage available within each unit. 17. Enclosed trash facilities are proposed. 18. Reduced the number of beds in each studio unit from 2 twin beds to. 1. double: bed. 19. Increased the landscaping for the project. Fill then explained the nine SDD criteria. The first related to design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment and neighborhood through several factors; Staff.. 'believed the proposal was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The building would be the same color as the existing Days Inn hotel structure, the perimeter of the building would be landscaped. The second criteria was that the uses, activity and density would provide a compatible; 'efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff found this location to be excellent for employee housing development. The circulation pattern would be primarily from North Frontage Road, which would not negatively impact the residential roads of Chamonix Road and Chamonix Lane. There was convenient access to shopping and public ". 2 transportation. The increase in density requested was acceptable because the average in GRFA on the entire site was due, in part, to an excess of common area. Because of the grade i change between the project site and Chamonix Road, the project would be in keeping with the ' heights of the adjacent residential neighborhood. The property niet CCIII zone district development standards for site coverage, height, landscaping and setbacks. Though the entire site would not meet the parking standards for lodge use, the owner had agreed to sign/restrict the 39 parking spaces closest to the employee housing building for use by residents only. In addition, the Town was in the process of reevaluating the number of parking spaces required to support lodge uses. i Further reasons which warranted the increase in density included the fact that, when the GRFA evaluation process changed, no credits were given in the higher density zone districts for stairs or elevators. If such a credit were given on this project, the amount of GRFA over allowable would be significantly decreased. In addition, under the proposed affordable y housing standards, an increase in GRFA and density could be given if a project were to be f 100% affordable housing. This project met that.criteria. However, through the process of evaluating this project, staff found there were sites in the Town which could warrant a bonus i in excess of the 25%a recommended by the guidelines. This was one such site. :dim Shearer arrived at 11:25AM. The third SDD evaluation criteria was the. compliance with parking and loading requirements `of the Code. As noted previously, the 39. closest spaces would be signed and restricted for . use by residents only. Responding to a question by Kathy Langenwalter, Jill indicated the 39 parking space number was determined by using the affordable housing guideline standards. In addition, staff was reevaluating the number of parking spaces necessary for lodge units; . The proposal was in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Identification and mitigation of hazards was the next SDD evaluation criteria. The northeast corner of the site is in a moderate debris flow hazard area, and the northwest corner is in a :medium severity rockfall area. Staff requested a condition of approval be placed that, prior to 'issuance of a building permit, a hazard study must be performed, and any mitigative measures recommended be implemented. In addition, a fuel storage tank is buried on the site. A -further condition of approval was requested to perform soil testing to determine if the tank 'had leaked. If the soil was contaminated, the applicant must clean the site as required by the Colorado Department of Health - Underground Storage Tank Division and the Environmental Protection Agency. The applicants were not sure if the tank had ever been filled; or if it 'had, :what it had contained. This would be determined prior to issuance of a building permit. The sixth SDD criteria related to the design and location of the project, and the production of A functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. As part of the design, substantial landscaping was proposed to be installed as a buffer. The height of the building, again due to the grade 3 i Wferences, were in keeping with the general character of the adjacent residential properties. The building itself would provide a buffer between the adjacent residential properties to the north and the commercial activity to the south. SDD criteria number seven addressed the circulation pattern designed for both vehicles and pedestrians for both on and off-site circulation. Staff found the circulation patterns to be 4dequate, with good access to the development. The Master Transportation Plan, currently being revised, called for a left turn lane into the Days Inn lot off North. Frontage Road. Applicant has agreed to escrow $50,000 for the construction of a left turn lane, with the stipulation that if the lane is not built within 5 years, the funds will be returned to the owner. Functional and aesthetic landscaping was the eighth criteria.. Although the parking lot would not meet the 10% interior landscaping requirement, staff believed it was more important to provide landscaping along the periphery of the property. Staff found the proposed landscaping plan to have a positive impact on the property appearance and serve better to screen the area from the residential areas to the north. As a part of the landscaping plan, applicant would provide a pedestrian link from the employee housing building to Chamonix Lane for more convenient bus access. The final criteria addressed a phasing plan for the project. The project would be completed in one phase. -Staff recommended approval of the proposal. The recommendation was based upon the • determination employee housing on the site would be beneficial. The request for additional -units and GRFA, along with a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and interior parking landscaping, and parking in the front setback was found to be mitigated by the fact .,the design fit into the site, designating adequate parking for the: employee units, and by ,.planting significant landscaping around the periphery of the property. The proposal was designed in a manner that was responsive to. the surrounding neighborhood, future project ;residents, and the community's need for quality employee housing Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions being met prior to the issuance of 'a building Permit: :1. Sign and execute the required documentation to permanently restrict these housing units for rent as rental units for full time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley for period of not less than 30 consecutive days and to insure occupancy restrictions are met. 2. Submit a Development. Agreement for. review and approval by the Town Attorney, The Development Agreement will set forth the terms for a $50,000 contribution for the construction of a left turn lane adjacent to the project site. If the lane is not built within 5 years, the money will be returned to applicant. 4 r 2 Obtain a geologic hazard study. In order to obtain a building permit, the applicant must institute any mitigation measures required under the study. 4. Test the soil adjacent to the fuel tank to insure no leakage has occurred, If the soil is contaminated, applicant must clean up the soil as required by the Colorado Department of Health - Underground Storage Tank Division and the Environmental Protection Agency. Jill introduced Saundra Spaeh, architect for the project, Tony Gooden, representing the applicant, and Arnie Ulevig, Master Transportation Plan consultant. Saundra commented that applicant had worked extensively with staff to help the design of the project, and he was hoping to complete the project by Thanksgiving. Jill explained the revised landscaping plan for the project, showing where the entrance drive from Chamonix Road had been revised. Connie Knight asked for clarification on the pedestrian link from the housing building to Chamonix Lane. Jill explained there was an existing link at the northeastern corner of the property, but applicant was proposing a link near the northwest corner in order to be more convenient to the residents. Jim Shearer asked which bus stop this additional link was designed to service, and Jill replied it was the existing Chamonix Lane stop. Dave Tyrrell, property manager to a nearby condominium property, asked that the second access to Chamonix Lane be removed, as it was in an extremely dangerous intersection in the .' winter. In addition, the existing access grade near the West Vail Mall was much lower. He Also requested that the Commissioners consider how many more people would be moving :through the stop at North Frontage Road, and felt there would be more impacts than had been stated, and the current intersection needed a complete overhaul. Kristan Pritz recommended Mr. Tyrrell attend a special meeting on June. 17, 1991 regarding the proposed Master - Transportation Plan, and indicated his concerns were being addressed in the Plan. Dave also wondered if there was a provision for a left turn lane in the proposal. Jill replied the, :proposed Master Transportation Plan called for many such lanes, of which this was one. Dave also asked if the green space around the employee housing building could be enlarged. Kristan stated it was staff's desire to have as much green space as possible provided, taking "into account Fire Department access requirements. Dave commented that, if more green. ,space were not provided, the residents would most likely use the grass area on the west side of the West Vail Mall, and this would be considered a problem by the.Mall. Connie`Knight asked for more information about this area, and Dave said this grassy area would be a perfect location to play frisbee, but it would be seriously discouraged by owners of the West .Vail Mall. Mr. Tyrrell concluded his statements by indicating this project was sorely needed, he believed the location worked well, and in his opinion, based on observations, the parking issue was not a concern, as he had never seen the lot full, even in the peak winter season. i i E Rathy Langenwalter asked what local residents thought about the proposal. Dave said the Timber Ridge Board of Directors believed the increase in perimeter landscaping to be a definite advantage, and the fact the lower floor of the project would be below the grade of Chamonix Lane would further lessen the potential impact. There had been some initial ' concern with the design, but the changes presented addressed those to his satisfaction. Jill suggested that, if the Board of Directors was concerned about green space, three proposed parallel parking spaces along the access drive from Chamonix Road could be eliminated. s Chuck Crist welcomed that suggestion, and expressed his desire to see those taken out of the plan. Connie asked what had happened to the original proposal to redevelop the conference space in the Days Inn building. Saundra Spaeh indicated that was not a part of the current proposal. Tony Gooden elaborated on the parking availability on the site by stating the hotel had never `had a problem with parking. Chuck questioned where busses could be parked; Tony I nswered that even when the hotel was 100% full, approximately 112 of the lot remained 'empty. The busses were usually only a factor in the summer months, when other usage decreased. -Kathy asked if the roof pitch of the employee housing building would be the same as that of. Ahe hotel. Saundra said the pitch was very similar, the housing building having a 5:12 pitch, but she did not know the exact pitch of the hotel roof. Kathy expressed . she was pleased to `see the progress made in the proposal since the original worksession. She found the square =Footage request to be acceptable, along with the parking provided, as the lot was. never. filled. She had a philosophical quandary with not requiring additional parking, but the specific circumstances of this project overcame that hesitation. She agreed with the suggestion. to remove the three parallel parking spaces to add more green space to the project. She was concerned, however, that the building perimeter landscaping, adjacent to Chamonix Road; be ,revised from the plan to use wildflowers and native grasses to more of a manicured ground ;cover. She believed it would look better in relationship to the neighborhood, and be more useable for the residents. Chuck Crist concurred with Kathy's opinion. Ludwig Kurz also agreed, but was discouraged that no other changes were being: made to the site. Tony Gooden addressed that concern by stating it was the intention of the hotel to :complete this project, then address the Shoppette building and the hotel facade in a separate `phase. Ludwig also agreed with Dave Tyrrell on eliminating the second pedestrian access to Chamonix Lane. 'Chuck wanted.to know what was in writing regarding permanently restricting, the units as ,employee housing. Jill said that prior to the building permit being issued, Town. Code `required a document be executed with very specific requirements. Chuck asked how many :years that restriction would be valid. Jill answered it was a permanent restriction; running ' with the land, and recorded with the County. When Chuck asked if the rates on the units Wi 4 would be affordable, Tony Good6n responded they would be market rates. Jill clarifiecl these • units would be free market employee housing. F Chuck also stated his agreement with the recommendation the second pedestrian link be removed. Jim Shearer asked if a crosswalk could be placed at the bus stop. Dave Tyrrell stated one could be placed at the stop itself, but that a street light should also be added. Chuck asked for clarification on the building facade, asking if it were going to be. stone. Saundra said it would be stucco, but the color would be matched to the existing hotel.. Jim Shearer agreed with the recommendation to renove'the 3 parallel parking spaces in order to provide additional landscaping, and further agreed with Kathy's suggestion :to provide a manicured lawn area. Jim also believed the additional pedestrian link to Chamonix Lane should be eliminated from the plan. He requested DRB be informed of. the: Wong recommendation to have the building be color - compatible with the existing hotel: Overall; he was supportive of the plan, and expressed he liked the type of housing 'being provided. Diana Donovan stated that staff and applicant had done a lot of work on this project, and it was great to be able to do an SDD in this manner all in one shot. She did, however, question the location of the trash dumpster located behind the Shoppette building.. Jill stated that the employee housing's trash dumpster would be screened and enclosed, and similar screening could be done on the existing dumpster. Diana suggested moving the dumpster to a less conspicuous location. Saundra Spaeh said they would reorient the dumpster to • = accomplish better screening. Diana indicated the amount of parking provided only worked because of the associated lodge .use. She said this was an incredible location for this proposal and for the production of ;employee housing. She asked that the applicant agree to abide by any restrictions .on rent that the Housing Authority might set in the future. Tony Gooden said they would be willing to review those guidelines, but could not agree to them in advance without knowing what they ;were. He stated that, since it was going to be set by market rates, if the Housing Authority set rate guidelines on some properties, most likely the market would reflect those rates: The -market would take care of itself. David Tyrrell elaborated that; since this was a private :development, they should not be tied to some future rental rate'restriction. :Diana said that the proposal was receiving bonuses in GRFA and density, among others, for -affordable housing, and she believed something should be obtained in return. She wasted to ,ensure. these units would be affordable. Tony could not lock in a promise to do that without knowing what the requirements would be. Kristan explained the Housing Authority may not . even decide to set rental ranges or rates. She was concerned about restricting private ,developers to a rental rate that was unknown at the approval time for the project: She believed the SDD conditions were stringent enough. • Diana stated it was dangerous to grant "freebies," and wanted current "affordable'.' housing to conform to the future requirements. Kristan clarified that rent controls were critical to the development of some projects, if they were to be publicly subsidized, but they were less directly tied to private development. Diana reiterated that, since they were getting an incentive of a density bonus, something should be obtained in return. I Tony explained that the rents would be set at or below market. Their objective was to obtain. 3 100% occupancy, and that would determine the rates. ! Before a motion was made, Kathy Langenwalter clarified with the applicant that they would agree to staff's conditions of approval, along with the staff's landscaping recommendations, the realignment of the existing trash dumpster, and the provision of a manicured lawn. ! Applicant agreed. i i Kathy moved to recommend approval of the request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, with underlying Commercial Core III Zone District, Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing/2211 N. Frontage Road to Town Council, with the findings that it conforms to the Land Use Plan. and Town of. :Vail Affordable Housing Guidelines and SDD criteria. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. After the motion, an amendment was made to eliminate the 3 parallel parking spaces along `the entrance drive from Chamonix Road, add manicured landscaping to the landscaping plan, `',and reorient the existing trash facilities. Kathy and Ludwig concurred with this amendment. • ,The vote was 6 -0 in favor of the motion. "After the vote, it was noted by staff that the adjacent property owners were each notified ;twice of the public hearing. �2. A request fora front setback variance Bailey Residence Lot 38 Block 7 Vail Villa e 1 st Filiniz/193 Beaver Dam Road. Applicant: Jeanne M. Baile - Kristan Pritz explained the changes made to this proposal since the May 20; 1991 meeting. 'The garage location had been moved approximately 24 feet to the east. to ensure the large levergreen adjacent to Beaver Dam Road would be retained. In 'addition, the garage had been reduced in size. There would still be a loss of some trees, but applicant has agreed to relocate trees from other portions of the lot to help mitigate any damage, Staff had requested the applicant increase the buffer between the garage wall and the.large evergreen, and the architect agreed to do as much as possible, working between two trees. The new location of the garage was in response to the direction the PEC had recommended 'previously, and staff believed that it was a good design solution. 8 A Relief from the strict and literal interpretation was warranted due to the dual hardships of a large amount of mature vegetation and the topography of the site: There would be no impact upon light and air to the site, and staff recommended approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1. The garage be moved to the east as much as possible, approximately ;5 feet, per the staff memo. r' 2. The driveway be heated per the requirement of the Town Engineer.. 3. Replace any trees that will be lost due to the construction of the driveway and garage. The new trees include one 20 -font, one 15 -foot, two 12 -foot, acid two 10 -foot ever green trees. An additional 5 aspen trees will be planted to the east of the proposed garage to replace those that will be removed because of the construction. Art Younger, architect for the project, stated the applicant was happy to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, particularly in the ability to save as many trees as possible, including the tree in the center of the parking area. Kristan asked if the garage could be moved an additional 5 feet to the east. Mr. Younger indicated it could probably be. moved 3 -4 feet, and they were investigating various methods to make the cut for the foundation which would have fewer impacts to the tree. Kathy Langenwalter commented that, if the structure was 10 feet from the tree, there would be no difficulty. Diana Donovan clarified for the members of the Commission who were not present at the previous meeting that the hardship on this lot consisted of the amount of mature vegetation, i.e., trees, on the site. Connie Knight stated she was concerned about the amount of lots in. the area with site constraints. This proposal resulted in a 1 -inch setback from the road, and believed this was a dangerous precedent to set, possibly resulting in the opening of a "can of worms." Kristan responded that she thought with the Planning Commission's review, and the criteria for a variance, there was quite a bit of review discretion. Since the area is getting built out, there are more marginal lots being developed, which equalled more decisions of this type. :Connie also asked why the garage was not attached to the residence. Jim Shearer responded it would result in more impacts, as well as being more visible. Mr. Younger showed Connie the model with both options to clarify the point. Diana Donovan declared she believed the plan was the best for the neighborhood. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for a front yard setback variance to allow the .construction of a detached garage on a Primary /Secondary zoned lot, 193 Beaver Darn ;Road/Lot 38, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing per the staff memo, with the change that the applicant agree to move the garage as far east as possible in order to ensure the large tree adjacent to Beaver Dam Road would survive. The 5 foot margin suggested by staff was not W MEMORANDUM TO- Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, `with underlying Commercial Core.III Zone District; Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing/2211 N. Frontage Road. Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn 3 } 1. OVERVIEW The 4.4 acre Days Inn property is located within the Commercial Core III zone district. There. are currently two structures located on this site. Businesses located within the Westernmost shoppette building include the 7- Eleven store and the FirstBank of West Vail. The easternmost building houses a furniture store, CJ Capers restaurant, Nozawa restaurant, stn optometrist and the Days Inn. Under this redevelopment plan, the applicantproposes to construct a new, three- story, 37 unit, free = standing employee housing building; along Chamonix Road, at the northwest corner of the site. '7n March 25, 199 1, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved amendments to the Zoning Code to provide specific development/zoning standards for affordable housing Units. These. Zoning Code . amendments will be considered by. the Town Council in. June, and are not yet officially approved. The zone district permits a density of 12 dwelling units per buildable acre. Through the ;construction of the new employee housing units, the density of the SDD would be 21.8 units per acre under CCIII zone district development standards and 16.6 units per. acre under the proposed affordable housing development standards. section 18.40.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of special ;development districts, and reads as follows: "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; 1 to preserve the natural and scenic: features. of open space areas; end to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special .development district, in conjunction with pp p p the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development, district." The Town Code also states any uses permitted in the special development district. shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The proposal meets these use requirements. Multiple family. dwellings for employees are addressed as a conditional use under Section 18.27.030(B) in the CCIII Zone District. This Section reads as follows: 3 "Multiple- family dwellings for employees of the Upper Eagle Valley as defined under the Primary /Secondary Zone District, subsection 18.13.080(B)(3)(b) and (d). Upon approval of the conditional uses, the Planning and Environmental Commission. or Town Council may impose conditions necessary to preserve the units; for employees. A Special Development District will be necessary in order to allow the proposed development to occur because the project, as proposed, does not meet the following underlying Commercial Core III (CCIII) development standards: * The project exceeds allowable density by 9.8. units. per acre or 42.8 dwelling ! units under the CCIII: zone district development standards. 3 The project exceeds allowable density by 4.6 units per acre or 20 dwelling ! units under the affordable housing development standards. t Under the zone district, 57,354 sq. ft. of GRFA is allowed to be constructed on the site. There is currently. 51,515 sq. ft. of GRFA on the site (7,983 sq. ft. of which is excess common area). Existing GRFA, including excess common area, is under the allowable GRFA by 5,838 sq. ft. Through the construction of employee housing, the site will exceed allowable GRFA by 12,300 sq. ft. ` This is due in large part to an overage of common area within the SDD of 12,976 sq. ft. Under the CCIII zone district when the amount of common area exceeds the allowable common area, the overage is added to the GRFA figure. . 4 The GRFA in dwelling and accommodation units usage only, is : under the total allowable GRFA by 676 sq. ft. 6 I 2 F Parking occurs in the front setback. This is an existing situation which would remain. The project has a deficit of 12 parking spaces given the affordable housin g development ment standards. * 10% interior landscaping requirement for the parking lot is not met. 11. DESCRIPTION OF _THE REQUEST This Special Development District has been proposed in order to allow construction of a 37 unit multi- family /employee housing project. Access to the parcel would be from North. Frontage Road and Chamonix Road through the Days Inn and shoppette properties. The project calls for the construction of a three -story building which would include one. 2- bedroom, ten 1- bedroom, and 26 studio dwelling. units. The studio units are proposed to be approximately 270 sq. ft, in size, the one- bedroom units are proposed to be 550 sq. ft. in size, and the two - bedroom unit will be 700 sq.. ft. in size. A mix of one - bedroom /two - bedroom and studio units are proposed for each of the three' levels, . with the one- and two - bedroom units being located at the corners of the building, and the studio units located in the middle. A 12 to 24 sq. ft. storage locker. and a separate :ski locker will be provided for each unit in the basement of the building. Laundry facilities will'. also be provided in the basement. In addition there will be enclosed storage of approximatel 5'- 0 "xl'- 6 "x6' -8 ", or 57.5 cubic feet, on the exterior deck of each unit, which will be primarily for the storage of bicycles. The proposed structure includes a 246 sq. ft. lounge on the first floor. A Studio units' occupancy will be limited to one person, a one- bedroom units' occupancy will be limited to two persons, and the two- bedroom units' occupancy will be limited to three persons, Therefore, the maximum total occupancy for the entire affordable housing project is 49 people. The applicant proposes to rent all of the .units for a period of 30 consecutive days or greater, and the units will be rented only to individuals who are full-time, employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley includes the Gore Valley; Mintum, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee is one who works an average of 34 hours per week. The applicant proposes to set rents based on free: p market demand for the units. The units shall be permanently restricted as employee housing units. The parking requirement for this development proposal is 258 spaces under CCIII zoning development standards and 236 spaces under the proposed affordable housing. standards. Given this proposal, 224 spaces would be provided on site. This results in a deficit of 12 parking spaces. The applicant also proposes to landscape the periphery of the; entire SDD area. 3 y _ f Y'S Sr �' Ferry i s Since this proposal was last viewed as a worksession item by the PEC on April: 6, 1991, the applicant has made the following changes to the employee housing building: 1. Increased the width of the balcony from 2 112 feet to 4 feet. 2. Provided concealed and enclosed storage for bicycles on the balconies. 3. Provided a break in the exterior of the building, so that a portion of the building is now set back 4. feet from the facade of the other portion. of the building. 4. Provided a 3 foot break in the ridge line of the proposed building. 5. Provided windows on the east and west ends of the structure", so that the corner units will have windows on two sides: 6. Increased the size of the proposed storage units from ;6 sq. ft. to 12 and 24 sq. ft. - 7. Decreased the proposed density by 3 units through the provision .of 2 additional one- bedroom units, and 1 two - bedroom unit. 8. Increased the size of the lobby area and opened up the south and east walls with windows. - 9. Provided solid railings on the balconies. 10. Increased the pitch of the roof. 11. Modified the proposed roofing material to shake from tar and gravel. 12. Provided bicycle racks for exterior storage of bicycles. 13. Provided permanent window coverings for .each unit. 14. Use of staggered studs in wall construction to reduce sound 'transference between walls of units. 15. Provision of wall insulation and use of light- weight concrete for floors to decrease sound transference between units. 16. Increased the amount of storage available within each unit. 17. Enclosed trash facilities are proposed. 18. Reduced the number of beds in each studio unit from 2 twin beds to" 1 double bed. 19. Increased the landscaping for the project. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following zoning considerations will compare the proposed development to both the underlying CCIII zone district development standards and affordable housing development standards which are used throughout this memo as a guideline for review. A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Zone District: Commercial Core III (CCIII) 4. i } Proposed: 24,447 sq. ft. or 42.6171 of allowable GRFA Amount Over Allowed: 12,976 sq. ft. (This amount over allowable has been added into GRFA) F. GRFA: (30 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area) Allowed: 57,354 sq. ft. Existing: 43,532 sq. ft. . Existing Under Allowable: 13,522 sq. ft: Proposed: 13,146 sq. ft. ` Common Area Over: 12,976 sq ft: Proposed Under Allowable: - 676 so. -.'ft. Total Amt. Over: 12,300 sq. ft G. Commercial Area: Allowed: No Limit Existing: 22,178 sq. ft. Proposed: No Change H. Setbacks: I Required: 20 ft. on all exterior boundaries of the zone district.... i No buildings now, or under this proposal, will encroach f into the required setbacks. Existing satellite dish encroaches. into public right -of -way. j I. Site Coverage: (40% of site area) Allowed: 77,432 sq. ft. Existing: Shoppette - 5,169 sq. ft. t Days Inn - 34,303 sg. ft. Total: 39,472 sq. ft (20.3%) Proposed: Employee Housing -, 6,460 sq. ft. Total: 45,932 sq. ft. (23.7 %) Remaining: 31,500 sq. ft. i fr J. Parking Requirements For.Proposed Development CCIII Proposed Housing Standards. Affordable Use # Spaces # Spaces ## Spaces Days Inn Accommodation Units: 54.6 No Change Not Applicable Days Irn Dwelling Units: 38 No Change Not Applicable Days Inn Commercial: 72.5 No Change Not Applicable Days.Idn Meeting Rooms: 10.5 Shoppette Building: 34.2 No Change Not Applicable gmployee Housing DUs: Not Applicable 37 units = 61 14.2 units = 38 Sub- Total: 209.8 270.8 247.8 S% Multi -Use Credit: -10.5 -13.5 -12.4 Total: 199.3 257.3 235,4` Existing Spaces on Site: 231 Spaces Proposed Spaces on Site: 224 Spaces Required Under Standard Parking Requirements: 258 Spaces 3 Required Under Affordable Housing Standards: 236 Spaces Amount Under Standard Parking Requirements: 34 Spaces Amount Under Required Using 3 Affordable Housing Standards: 12 Spaces K. AREA BREAKDOWN r 1. Shoppette Building - 8,971 sq. ft. No Changes Proposed Under This Development Proposal (See Appendix A attached to end of this memo) 2. Days Inn Building - 78,584 sq.. ft. No Changes Proposed Under This Development Proposal (See Appendix A attached to end of this memo) 3. Employee Housing Building. - 18,876 sq. ft. (Comparison under CCIII zoning and proposed affordable housing (A.H.) standards.) • 7 i F v a = 37 DUs at 13,146 s.f. 14.2 DUs at 13;146 sl fV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes the proposed architectural style, scale and building heights are in keeping with the character of the immediate area. The applicant will use the colors of the Days Inn building and apply them to the new employee housing building in order to better relate the building to .the existing Days Inn and Shoppette structures. The perimeter of the SDD area will be landscaped. This landscaping: will buffer. the employee housing building from the adjacent residential properties. The employee' , housing building itself will also buffer the residential properties to the north from the Days Inn and Shoppette buildings. The siting of the building is such that, from the north, the building will appear to be two stories tall. This is in keeping with the lower density development to the north, which is primarily 2 stories in height. The location of the structure at the northwest corner of the Days Inn property provides a good transition between the Primary/Secondary zoned properties to the north and the I commercial uses to the south. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff has worked with the applicant on the density of this development:- We believe the location of the property provides a good site for employee housing: The tenants will be in close proximity to major shopping needs and Town of Vail bus stops on Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road. The circulation to and from the site will be from the North Frontage Road, which is a. major arterial road: Further, because the primary access points are from North Frontage Road, the auto trips generated by this development will not negatively impact the residential, Chamonix Lane and Chamonix Road secondary roads. The allowable density under CCIII zoning is 12 dwelling units per acre or 52.7 dwelling units. The existin g development is 5.8 dwelling units (DUs) over allowable density under CCIII zone district development standards. The proposed density under CCIII zoning is 95.5 dwelling units, which is 42.8 DUs over allowable density. The proposed density under the affordable housing standards is 72.7 DUs, which. s. 20 DUs over allowable density. The existing project area is already 5.8 DU5 over the allowable CCIII zone district development standards, the net increase in density under. 9 i t } this proposal is 37 DUs (under CCIII development standards) and 14.2 DUs, (under the affordable housing standards). Staff believes allowing an increase in density for this project area is acceptable for the following reasons: Taking into account the amount of GRFA in dwelling unit and accommodation i unit uses only, the project would be under allowable GRFA by 676 sq. 'ft. The project GRFA overage is the result of 12,976 sq. ft. of excess common area. s Excess common area is added to GRFA. In this instance, when the excess common area is added to proposed GRFA in DU and AU uses, the project exceeds allowable GRFA by 12,976 sq. ft. The project location is ideal for. employee housing development. The project area is immediately adjacent to Safeway, the West Vail Mail and Town bus stops on Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road. Project access' directly onto North Frontage Road and Chamonix Road near the West Vai11170 interchange means the development will have minimal traffic impacts on the adjacent lower density neighborhoods. Further, because of the grade change between Chamonix Road and the project site, two stories of the. structure will be above the grade of Chamonix Road, which is in keeping with the heights of the adjacent lower density neighborhood. i* The project meets CCIII zone district development standards for site coverage, height, landscaping and setbacks. * Under the affordable housing standards, 38 parking spaces are required to support the employee housing. The applicant has agreed to sign/restrict the 39 parking spaces closest to the employee housing for use by the residents. Additionally, the Town is in the process of re- evaluating. the number, of parking: spaces required to support lodge uses. The Days Inn Hotel is a lodge use and would therefore be impacted by any required parking-reductions. With the GRFA definition change in January, 1991, stairs and elevators on all levels count toward GRFA. GRFA credits were given in the lower density zone districts to compensate for this fact. However, the. higher density zone districts did not receive GRFA credits, Staff is in the process of revising the zoning code to add GRFA credits in the higher density zone districts. Because these GRFA credits are not yet available to this project, stairs and elevators on all levels are included in 'GRFA calculations. When the credit is made available, the GRFA of this project would be calculated differently and the total GRFA number would decrease because of the square footage compensation for common area. This would result in. the project's common area being reduced as well as GRFA. 10 Under the affordable housing standards, the project contributed an additional I 14.2 dwelling units to the site. Discounting the 5.8 units the existin development exceeds allowable density by, the proposed 14.2 units would represent a 26.9% increase in density. The Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study proposes that an applicant "constructing. a 100% permanent affordable housing SDD may be eligible to receive an increase in GRFA or number of dwelling units or combination GRFA and density of up to 25% beyond that which is permitted within the underlying zone district using a standard dwelling unit definition." A 25% increase in the allowable density of 52.7 DUs would i be 13.2 units for a total of .65.9 units. Using a standard dwelling unit definition, the project would exceed the allowable 25% density number ,by 29.6 units. As a result of working on this .project and..evaluating the`,locational and design aspects of the development proposal, staff believes some flexibility should be built into this 25% bonus number. Staff believes there are sites in Town which could warrant additional density above 25% without major impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. Staff believes the proposed' project site is such a site. The applicant could meet the required unit count through the combination of accommodation units. within the Days. Inn Hotel. However, this would be contrary to the Town's goal of encouraging lodge rooms. for guests.. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. • A total of 224 parking spaces will be provided under this development plan. Under the CCIII zone district development standards, 258 parking spaces are required. Linder the proposed affordable housing development standards, a total' of 236 parking spaces would be required. Staff is in the process of reevaluating parking requirements for dodge uses and will be proposing the parking standards for lodge uses be slightly reduced. Although the Days Inn property is located within the CCIII zone district, it is primarily a lodge use. Staff believes the parking, as proposed, is sufficient, given the close proximity to the bus lines, and the fact the applicant will sign /restrict the 39 parking spaces closest to the employee housing building for use by residents of the employee housing building only. Loading/delivery and trash areas will be screened; from view. We believe the loading is adequate to accommodate the project. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans, 1. Land Use Plan The Town of Vail Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request for a SDD. This property has been identified in the Land Use Plan as '� 11 "Community Commercial" land use. This designation states. that: "This area is designed to meet consumer demands from community:' residents. Primary uses would: include supermarkets, dry, cleaning establishments, hardware stores, service stations, financial institutions and medical offices. The design of these facilities would be oriented toward vehicular access and parking." No dwelling unit per acre standard is given. in this Land Use Plan designation. Under the CCIII zone district, the allowable density is 12 dwelling .units per acre. Based on the proposed affordable housing standards, the density of the project would be 16.6 units per acre. This number of units per acre proposed is closest to the High Density Residential designation in the Land Use Plan of 15 DUs per buildable acre. The following goals, from the Land Use Plan, relate to this proposal: Goal Statement 5.1: Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal Statement 53: Affordable employee housing should be made available to private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. Goal Statement 5.5: The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Goal Statement. 5.4 The residential growth should keep place with the market demands for a full range of housing types: The proposal is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. 2. Town of Vail _Affordable Housing Study Below is an outline of how the project compares to the Town of Vail., Affordable Housing Study. Statements from the Study are in bold,.with staff comments following. a. Each request for a Type II Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) ,shall be evaluated to ensure the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be 12 i i 'r eliminated by the provision of alI additional parking spae required` under the Town's current parking standards. 3 The applicant will sign/reserve 39 spaces for residents of the employee housing building only. i b. All the development and zoning standards set forth in each specific zone district shall be met, including density control/GRFA, parking and landscaping. Under this SDD request, the underlying CCIII zoning standards, with regard to density controls /GRFA and parking, are not met. However, staff believes the location of the project, adjacent to a' major arterial and the West Vail Interstate -70 interchange, and two West Vail bus .stops support this proposed employee housing development with minimal impacts on adjacent properties and transportation facilities. Underlying zone district landscaping, height, setback and site coverage requirements are met under this proposal. The reasons .outlined. in Section V(B) also relate to this issue. C. Under the Affordable Housing Unit, Type III (studio), a central kitchen facility and a`lounge shall be required for every 5 Type III affordable housing units. Because each unit has its own full kitchen, staff is reevaluating the. logic behind this recommendation. Staff still maintains a reasonable gathering space must be provided in conjunction with affordable housing development, and believes the ,applicant has accomplished this through the provision of a lounge area on the first floor. d. Under the proposed affordable housing' guidelines, a maximum of 15 studio units per building is recommended... However, with proper justification, this number can be exceeded. Staff believes the location, and design of this particular affordable housing proposal warrants allowing this maximum of 15 studio .units per building to be exceeded. The project exceeds the 15 studio; unit maximum by 11 units, or 6.25 %. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is' proposed. The northeast corner of the site is in a moderate debris flow hazard. area and the northwest corner of the site is in a medium severity rockfall area Asa condition of ., 13 approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a geologic hazard study: must be • completed for this site. If the study shows mitigative measures are required, the developer must commit to install the mitigation as a part of the building permit. A fuel storage tank is buried on the site in the area behind the pool. As a condition of approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit, soil testing must occur to insure the tank has not leaked and the soil is not contaminated. If leakage has occurred, the applicant must clean up the soil as required by the Colorado Department of-Health, - Underground Storage Tank Division and the Environmental Protection :Agency. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed. to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community., The applicant proposes to install a substantial amount of landscaping mound the entire ` periphery of the SDD area. Areas in which landscaping will be concentrated: are north of the proposed affordable housing development, and on the south side. the existing Days Inn building, between the Days Inn parking area and North Frontage Road. Staff believes the residential building is well located to provide a buffer between the lower density residential development to the north and the commercial activity to the south. As previously stated, the building will appear to be two stories in height from Chamonix Road, which is in keeping with the height of the residential structures which are located on the north side of Chamonix Road: G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians:.addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Internal circulation is adequate, and it appears the proposed access from North Frontage Road and Chamonix is adequate. Access to the site from the North Frontage Road and Chamonix Lane will allow this development to occur with minimal traffic impacts on Chamonix Road. The Town is in the process of finalizing the Master. Transportation Plan. This plan calls for the provision of left turn lanes along the North Frontage Road. On Tuesday, May 24th, the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) approved the Days Inn access permit without requiring the provision of a left turn lane. Since this determination, members of the Public Works staff have contacted CDOH to determine their basis for not requiring the left turn lane. The provision'bf this lane is an issue because the Town had understood CDOH desired!. ese lanes and, subsequently, this is the reason the Master Transportation Plan calls for the installation of turn lanes along North Frontage Road. The developer has committed to escrow $50,000 for the construction of a left turn lane adjacent to the project site. 14 .t H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The parking area will not meet the 10% interior landscaping requirement for off- street parking areas containing 15 or more cars. However, staff believes in this particular instance, concentrating the landscaping along the. periphery of the lot will have a greater overall positive impact on the neighborhood than` would the installation of planted material within the lot. Staff believes the proposed landscaping plan will have a positive impact on the appearance of this property. The additional landscaping along the south side of Chamonix Road will serve to better screen the. existing Days In parking area frarn the residential properties to the north. The applicant will provide a pedestrian link from the employee housing structure up to Chamonix Road in order to provide better access to the Chamonix Road bus stop for the residents. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable,. functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The proposed employee housing structure and landscaping will occur in one phase. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • -Staff recommend s a pp roval of the re q uested Special Development District as it meets. the. 'above SDD criteria. We are supportive of the overall concept of employee. housing on this site. We believe the applicant's request for additional units and GRFA, a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, deficit of interior landscaping for the parking lot and existing parking in the front setback will not negatively impact adjacent properties. The applicant has responded to these areas of concern by providing,compatible design so that -the building fits into the site, by designating adequate parking for the employee. units, and by planting significant landscaping around the periphery of the property. The proposal has been designed in a manner that is responsive to the surrounding neighborhood, future project residents, and the community's need for llity employee housing. Staff recommends uca approval of this Special Development District request subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must: a. Sign and execute the required documentation to permanently restrict these housing units for rent as rental units for full time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley for a period of not less. than 30 consecutive days and to insure occupancy restrictions are met. 15 C'I C. APPENUIX A AREA BREAKDOWN r 1. Shoppette Building Commercial Area 1st Floor: 4,413 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 4,058 Total: 8,471 sq. ft. Common Area I 1st Floor: 367 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 133 sg. ft._ Total: 500 sq. ft. 2. Days Inn Building Commercial Area 1st Floor: 9,027 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 4 453 sq. ft: Total: 13;480 sq. ft. Common Area: 1st Floor: 10,276 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 3;092 sq. ft. 3rd Floor: 2,788 sq. ft. 4th Floor: 2,79.8 �• ft. Total: 18,954 sq. ft. Airlock Area: 1st Floor: 362 sq. ft. Mechanical Area: (Unlimited) 2,256 sq. ft: GRFA Area: 2nd Floor 38 AUs at 11,107 s.f: 3rd Floor 39 AUs at 11,417 s.f. 4th Floor 19 DUs at 20,495 s.f. 2 AUs at 513 sf. 79. AUs at "23,037 s.f..... and. 19 DUs at 20,495 s.f. Total: 43;532 s.f " c:\pecgnemosW aysinn.S20 17 APPENDIX A AREA BREAKDOWN f 1. Shoppette Building Commercial Area 1st Floor: 4,413 :sq, ft. 2nd Floor: 058 sq.. Total: 8,471 ` sq. ft: Common Area 1st Floor: 367 .sq. ft: 2nd Floor: 133 sc. ft. Total: 500 sq. ft. 2. Days Inn Building Commercial Area 1st Floor: 9,427 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 4,453 sq, ft. ' Total: 13,480 sq. ft. Common Area.: 1 st Floor: 101276 sq. ft: 2nd Floor: 3,092 sq. ft. 3rd Floor: 2,788 sq. ft. ' 4th Floor: 2.798:' sQ. ft. , Total: .18,954 sq. ft: Airlock Area: 1 st Floor: 362 sq. ft. i Mechanical Area: (Unlimited) 2,256.sq: ft. GRFA Area; 2nd Floor 38 A-Us at 11,107's.f. 3rd Floor 39 AUs at 11,411, s;f. 4th Floor .19 DUs at 20,495; s.f. 2 AUs at 513 s.f: 79 AUs at 23;037 s.f. and'19 DUs at 20,.4.5 s f Total:' 43,52 s.f. OpeclmcmasMaysi=520 17 i .5i J O f 11 1 I I a° II , T ' T l � i I l: • 9111 H I O f 11 1 I I a° II , T ' T l � i I l: • E i I I � I ' I E I _1 z 0 Q z 0 H V W in W F r.i 0 e w • t e._ i _ elm I i ��•. WE I-LIM. F awl - ' liftr 1 F, j — �1 -(• y, � i I�- "i .554 :•�+: i1tP _s; " I-] El a A� L• L. 0 In z 0 m F O O W Z ..a I ffI f ?I I r z 0 H 0 z 1 V z V1 x w W 0© �"0 w: ►� r • a m __ .. a�. t I i" II 41k t l F , gill I G� w•M W z 0 x r � a �+ w� I I{ zz o �y O 0 4 a F i47 a U Z O U 0 r � ; �`, i Y�.. _ - '� MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department May 28, 1991 (Revised May 20th Proposal) Request for a front yard setback variance to allow the. construction of a' detached garage on a Primary /Secondary zoned lot, 193 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 38, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Jeanne M. Bailey ............. DESCRIPTION OF TIE VARIANCE REQUESTED With this proposal, the applicant is requesting a 19 -foot, 11 -inch (+ or -) variance. to the front yard setback in order to construct a 3 space, detached garage. The zoning code requires a,10-. foot front yard setback, and the applicant will be providing an approximate 1 -inch setback: Therefore, a 19 -foot, 11 -inch front setback_ variance is required. `. • demolish he existn residence on the site and construct a new The applicant proposes to t g residence with a detached garage. The subject site fronts onto Beaver Dam.: Road. The site Slopes down from the north side of Beaver Dam Road to the south bank of Gore Creek. The low point of Beaver Dam Road is on the eastern edge of the property and the high point is on the western end of the property. T'he proposed three space garage will be accessed from a driveway which runs the. length of the property. The Beaver Dam Road curb cut for the proposed drive will be at the' eastern edge of the lot.. From this point, the drive dips down into the site, at a; grade at its `steepest point of 11 %, following a path which is generally parallel to Beaver Dam Road, to the Western edge of the property. The applicant has agreed to'heat the driveway; per the Town. of Vail Engineer's requirements. The proposed garage structure would be covered with soil, and the roof planted with native grasses. The garage footprint has been decreased in width by. 2.5 feet,. and decreased in length by 1 foot. On May 20, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this -request. The Planning Commission suggested the applicant look at moving the proposed garage further to the east in order to save a large evergreen tree adjacent to Beaver Dam Road. The applicant e . TV". CRITERIA AM FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code,. the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on 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 applicant has moved the garage approximately 24 feet to the east, which . maintains a 6 foot buffer between the west wall of the garage and the large evergreen adjacent to Beaver Dam Road. Staff reviewed the new location for the garage with the Town of Vail Landscape Architect. It is his opinion that the garage should be moved an additional 5 feet to the east in order to protect the large tree from construction impacts. He is concerned that the tree will die without more distance between the garage and tree. The applicant's architect is willing to try and move the 'garage 5 feet to the east, as long as access can still be accommodated up to the garage. The fact that the garage will be earth sheltered creates a positive effect on surrounding neighbors. As was discussed at the previous Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, the staff recognizes that some trees will need to be removed in order to construct the residence and garage. Staff and the applicant have "tried to come up with a design that will minimize the removal of trees from the site, while still allowing for the construction of a new residence. With the new location, several aspen trees will still need to be removed. to allow for the garage. The Town of Vail Landscape Architect also feels that it will be very difficult to save the trees adjacent to the drive on the northeast. The"applicant has agreed to replace the trees that will be lost because of the driveway and: ! garage. The new location responds to the direction of the Planning and Environmental Commission. This .approach still allows for the earth - sheltered garage access drive down to the site, while saving as many of the large'trees along Beaver Dam Road as possible. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve' compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the" vicinity or to attain. the objectives of this title without. grant of special privilege. Staff believes relief from the strict interpretation from the setback requirements is warranted, given the difficult site access and large number of existing trees • on the site. The proposal results in a significant setback variance. However, because the garage is earth sheltered, and as many trees as possible are -saved - with this design, we believe the relief from the setback is warranted. 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 garage location and driveway access, as proposed, would have no impact on the above criteria. r B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified' regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary 3 physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. 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. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district', i V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the front setback variance with the following conditions: i The garage should be moved to the east as much as possible (approximately 5 feet) to ensure that the large tree adjacent to Beaver Dam Road will survive construction. ' . .4 c