Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1991 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes August - October
,~ ~...v PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION wg.-, August 12, 1991 AGENDA 12:00 Site Visits 2:00 Public Hearing Site Visits Public Hearinq 1. Review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 22, Garden of the Gods, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing1365 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello • 2. 2. A request for a front setback variance for the Tupy Residence, l..ot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision11901 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Leon Tupy Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3. 3. A request to amend a development plan approved by Eagle County for Phase 11i of the Spruce Creek Townhouses, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek Townhouses at Vail. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/Carl Dietz Planner: Andy Knudtsen 7. 4. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck at the Siamese Orchid, Vail Gateway Plaza, 12 South Frontage RoadlLot N, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Chai Kulvet/Siamese Orchid, Ltd. Planner: Mike Mollica 6. 5. A request for a minor exterior alteration, and a site coverage variance for Super Star Studios, Gorsuch (Clock Tower) Building, Lots C, D and E, Block 5, Vail Village First Filingl263 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Paul Golden Planner: Jill Kammerer 4. 6. A request for a major amendment to SpeciaE Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to change the conditions for development for Area D, Phase IA, Glen Lyon Office Building. Applicant: Calumet Federal Savings & Loan Association of ChicagolPierce, Segerberg, Spaeh Planner: Shelly Mello V 1. 7. A request to amend the conditions of approval for Phases Il and Ill of Vail Point relating to revegetation of foundations, 1881 Lionsridge Loop. Applicant: Steve GenslerNail Point Condominium Association Planner: Jill Kammerer 5. 8. A request for a wall height variance for the Samuels Residence, Lot 11- B, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing1224 Forest Road. Applicant: Bernard Samuels Planner: Mike Mollica 9. A request to amend Section 18.58.020 -Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening of the Town of Vail Zoning Code Supplemental Regulations regarding enforcement of covenants restricting fence heights. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 10. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code -Definitions; to add a new definition for employee housing unit, and a new definition for bathroom. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica/Jlll Kammerer 11. A request to amend Chapters 18.10 -Single-Family District, 18.12 - Two-Family Residential District, i 8.13 -Primary) Secondary Residential District, 18.14 -Residential Cluster District, 18.16 -Low Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 -Medium Density Multiple Family District, 18.20 - High Density Mulitple Family District, 18.22 -Public Accommodation District, 18.24 -Commercial Core 1 District, 18.26 -Commercial Core 2 District, 18.27 -Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -Commercial Service Center District, 18.29 -Arterial Business District, 18.34 -Parking District, 18.36 -Public Use District, and 18.39 -Ski BaselRecreation District; to allow employee housing uni#s as Permitted and Conditional Uses. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike MollicalJill Kammerer 12. A request to create a new Chapter 18.57 of the Municipal Code - Employee Housing, to provide specific development/ zoning standards for employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica/JiA Kammerer 13. A review of a staff decision (per staff request -this is not an appeal) concerning a request for a wall height variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Entermountain Subdivision12684 Larkspur Court. Applicant: Robin E. Hernreich/Atwell Development Planner: Betsy Rosolack 14. Approval of PEC position letter to the U.S. Forest Service regarding private inholdings. Planner: Mlke Mollica h '. v .. . ~~-. ~ 5. Reminder of August 27, 1991 housing worksession with Housing f Authority and Town Council. S1 16. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos dei Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums/600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Pinos def Norte Condominium Association Ptanner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED T4 AUGUST 26, 1991 r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 12, 1991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Betsy Rosolack Gena Whitten Amber Blecker The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 2:OSPM. Review of a staff aburoval of a minor amendment to St~ecial Develovrnent District No. 22. Garden of the Gods. Lot K, Black 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing/3b5 Vail Vallev Drive. Avnlicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello i Shelly Mello explained the staff approval stemmed from discrepancies between the original survey, completed by Eagle Valley Surveying, and the Improvement Location Certificate {I.L.C.) by Robillard Associates. Pam Hopkins, representing the applicant, said the new building had been located per the survey conducted by Dan Corcoran. They used Robillard and Associates because they were conducting the on-site road improvement surveys and where thus more easily accessible. Pain and Shelly both stated the building appeared to be sited correctly, and the dis.,~~Yancies were related to lot line lengths. Kristan Pritz explained one survey needed to be chosen for use as the legal description for the SDD Ordinance. Kathy Langenwalter agreed, stating there was a need for documentation. Diana Donovan was concerned how the discrepancies might affect the ridge line height and the corresponding view corridor. Kristan said staff felt the building was in the right location, but staff needed only one base map document. Staff would have the ridge elevation shat when apY=.,Yriate from the original view corridor location. 5he11y indicated a third survey to be performed would deg:,=.==ine the survey of record, since neither of the two previous surveyors could find fault with their original surveys. Diana stated there was a need to find the mistake and establish a legal description. Kathy suggested researching to determine if there was more than one title report for the property, and if perhaps that could have been the basis for any discrepancies. Pam agreed to do that research. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the staff's approval of a minor amendment to Community Development Department No. 22, Garden of the Gods, Lot K, Block SA, Vail Village 5th Filing/355 Vail Valley Drive with the condition that the discrepancies between the surveys be resolved. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was approved 6-0-1, with Connie Knight abstaining. 2. A request for a front setback variance for the Tunv Residence. Lot 33, Buffeter Creek Resubdivision/1901 Chamonix Lane. Aunlicant: Leon Tunv Planner: Andv Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the changes from the previous hearing on the request, and introduced into the record a petition from the neighborhood asking the Commission to deny the request for a setback variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance with conditions as listed in the memo. E.J, Meade, architect for the applicant, explained that the most significant change from the previous hearing was that the primary unit had been moved to the west, out of the setback, and the garage doors had also been shifted to the west. These changes resulted in a decrease of 1IX? sq. ft. from the building. Another imp,.., cement was the landscaping location, which would decrease the visual impact of the structure. Addressing the safety issue, E.J. indicated the building would not block the view from the intersection. E.J. stated the owners had no intention of developing the portion of the lot on the other side of the creek, further reducing the impacts of the development. Since flooding had been an issue raised at the previous PEC meeting, the owners were working with engineers and a hydrologist to protect not only the Tupy residence, but the neighbors as well. Mitigation being Y~.,YOSed included a berm along the side of the structure and the placement of a gravel swale. A neighbor asked if cars would be able to turn around in the driveway, or if they would have to back out. E.J. indicated they would back out, similar to the adjacent lot to the south. Neighbor Cynthia Steitz asked what the front wall was for. E.J. said it was terraced to prevent erosion. Loyette Goodell, a neighbor, said that although staff had looked at the development potential during the summer, Chere were winter impacts as well. Specifically, the Town uses the lot for dumping snow. Yn addition, it had been indicated to the neighbors previously that the lot was unbuildable. Another neighbor, Marka Maser, was concerned with the safety, given that the lot was being developed in this manner. She said the addition of trees and the fact the sun would no longer warm the road to the same extent in the winter created safety and visibility problems for the • 2 intersection. The resulting problem would be a lack of traction. She asked staff and the • Commissioners to look more closely at the traffic safety issue for busses and cars travelling dawn the hill. Brice Allen stated that the lot had been purchased for a fraction of other lots in the area due to the hazazds and difficulty in devel.,y.«ent, and felt the owners were taking advantage of an anticipated variance. Dick Peterson said the issue of snow removal had not been addressed as to where it would go since Lot 33 would no longer be available. He was also concerned that the snow would be piled higher, further compounding the sight line problems at the intersection. E.J. responded that the sight lines for backing out of the driveway would not be affected, as the snow would not block them. In addition, the owners of the property were not responsible for city snow, and the Town would have to address that issue. Cynthia Steitz asked if a building could be constructed on the lot without requiring a variance. Kristan replied it could. Cynthia said that just because a variance had been requested, it should not be automatically granted. Diana Donovan asked if the road was standard width. Andy replied he was not sure, but that Town Engineer Greg Hall had not indicated any concern in his review. Chuck Crist said he believed most of the neighborhood concerns had been met, and he was in favor of granting the variance. He did ask, however, if designing the house within ail setbacks had been examined. E.J. replied they had tried, and it had resulted in a very long, narrow and inefficient structure. Kathy Langenwalter reviewed the variance criteria, stating she did not believe there was any grant of special privilege, was not detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of residents, and was warranted due to the physical hardships and extraordinary circumstances which existed on the lot. She also believed the strict and literal interpretation of the code would deprive the owners of the reasonable enjoyment of their property. Kathy further indicated that since the owners were only proposing approximately 65% of the allowable site coverage, and 75% of the GRFA they were entitled to, they were showing quite a bit of restraint. The owners had a right to utilize their property and she saw the proposed design as a reasonable solution to a highly constrained lot. Ludwig Kurz agreed with Kathy, stating he felt the owners were showing consideration toward the neighbors. Connie Knight saw the fact that the greatest encroachments were from the roof overhangs, the deck and the entry and that these had low impact. Because of the relatively small amount of impact, she was in favor of granting the variance. • > Tim Shearer questioned what would be done regarding snow removal. Kristan replied the Town could not use private property for snow dumping if the owner wished to build on the lot, and an alternative would be devised by the Town. Jim asked the neighbors why the proposal would make bus travel more dangerous in the area. Marko Maser replied it was the fact that a building was there. Tim asked if staff had checked the visibility issue, and Andy said the closest impacts would be an aspen 30 feet away from the corner, a spruce approximately 40 feet from the corner, and the house, which would be located approximately 70 feet from the corner. Tim was in support of the variance, stating he liked the fact that the ~,~ „YOSaI was under the allowable site coverage and GRFA for the lot. Gena Whitten disagreed with staff, feeling that the development would impact both the neighbors and the safety of the area, but supported the right of the owners to develop. However, she also disagreed with the staff in that she believed the house could have been designed within the setbacks, and was thus opposed to granting a variance. Diana Donovan asked where the ground floor encroached into the front setback. E.J. replied it was only the entry. Many of the neighbors expressed concern that there was no consistency in how variances were granted in the area, citing instances they believed were similar where variances had not been granted, which resulted in poor quality design. Kristan explained to them that variances were evaluated on a lot-by-lot basis, and not based on an entire neighborhood. Diana stated she would vote against the variance, citing the fact the road was currently bad and would only get worse and more dangerous if the request were granted. She did state that if the variance passed, she would Iike it conditioned on landscaping not affecting the vehicular views and not being placed in the right-of--way. Marko Moser asked if there was landscaping ~,. „YOSed in the right-of--way. Andy said there was in front of the fifth parking space, but it would be able to be moved onto the property. Connie Knight withdrew her previous statement in favor of the request, stating she had been convinced to vote against the variance due to traffic safety issues. Kathy Langenwalter rnaved to apr~., re the request fora ;~.,~~t setback variance for the Tupy Residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision/1901 Chamonix Lane per the staff rnerno with the condirions in the staff memo, as listed below, adding that the fifth parking space be screened and that all landscape features be removed from the right-of--way. She cited the criteria and findings of the staff memo. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Prior to submitting a DRB application, the applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include 3 additional spruce and 2 aspen to screen the parking. All landscape features shall be removed from the right-of--way. . 4 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall install a construction fence to protect all existing willows. The fence shall establish the boundary which no construction activity shall cross. 3. Immediately after the foundarion is constructed, the applicant shall submit a survey to the Community Development Department showing that the construction conforms to this approval and that the structure will not encroach into the front yard setback more than 6 feet. 4. During the construction process, any willows or other trees which must be removed, must be transplanted on site on the bank of Buffeter Creek. S. Prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall secure a revocable right-of-way permit in order to construct the one to two foot walls in the right-of-way. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was approved, 4-3, with Gena Whitten, Diana Donovan and Connie Knight dissenting. 3. A request to amend a development plan approved by Eagle Countv for Phase III of the Spruce Creek Townhouses, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/St~ruce Creek Townhouses at Vail. Atinlicant: Michael Lauterbach/Carl Dietz Planner: Andv Knudtsen Andy explained the general issues of the request and explained each condition of approval. Staff recommended approval of the request, with conditions as outlined in staff's memo. Mike Lauterbach said he had one additional request, and that was far an additional 300 non- transferrable square feet per unit. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the buildings would be kept within the existing "fo..~r.:nts." Mike said they would, plus or minus 1 foot. Commenting on the staff recommendations regarding the public improvements, Mike said he could accept (with some reservation) the requirement to bury the cable, but asked that the assessment be based on a specific, revised Holy Cross estimate of the amount necessary to bury the portion adjacent to his frontage. In addition, if the cable were not buried within S years, he asked the escrow amount be returned with interest. He believe the amount would be approximately $$,000, but that the Grand Junction office of Holy Cross Electric had not yet determined the exact cost nor the amount of his share. Mike did not agree with the bike path construction, as he felt it unlikely to be used to widen the shoulders. In addition, fees for bike path construction were obtained by the Town through permit fees and taxes. • _ Mike indicated the other staff conditions of approval were acceptable to him, and stated he . intended to berm and landscape the area as much as possible. Andy said the numbers for the escrow amount for undergrounding the electric lines were rough, and staff would be willing to go with a revised Holy Cross estimate when available. Diana asked if it was acceptable to staff to have Mr. Lauterbach pay a percentage of the cost based on his frontage, and have the funds returned to him within five years if the undergrounding were not undertaken by that time. Andy replied it was. Regarding the bike path amount, Andy said that there was a master plan in effect for the area, it was reasonable to request developers to pay the cost for public improvements adjacent to property when they have been identified in a master plan. Mike replied there was a bike path easement on the ~,.~.rerty, but he would prefer to see the path located along the right-of--way as it would minimize the size of the berms he would need to construct. Chuck Crist asked if the $13,300 figure in staff's memo was Mr. Lauterbach's portion. Andy said it was. Diana indicated she would like to see anoff-road bike path graded in. Mike said there was a ditch between the road and the property line, and it would be difficult to grade in. Chuck believed a path adjacent to the road was more appropriate than a separate bike path. Connie Knight did not believe it was fair to request an applicant to put in a trail when staff was not sure where it would connect up to other portions. Kristan 1'ritz answered that the master plan indicated a shoulder path, and that the plan connected the path into the overall path system identified in the master plan. Tim Shearer believed it was the job of the Commission to support adopted programs, but felt that $13,300 was perhaps not fair, and could be used for other purposes, such as berming and landscaping on the property. Gena Whitten believed the Commission should support a shoulder bike path plan and not require grading on the applicant's site. Ludwig Kurz believed that nothing in the approval for the development should preclude the widening of the shoulder for use as a bike path. Andy indicated the $13,300 figure had come f~.,~A~ Town Engineer Greg Hall, and staff believed it was an accurate number. Kathy suggested perhaps adjusting the figure, and allowing the funds to be used elsewhere. Chuck Crist asked when it was anticipated the path would be built. Kristan indicated if it were not done by the developer, it became part of the Town's Capital Improvement program and would be funded based on community priorities. Mike asked that, if the path were not constricted within 3-4 years, his money be returned. Kristin indicated the path would be built at some time, and she was not in favor of limiting the time frame. Kathy supported construcrion of a separate bike path. Mike Lauterbach proposed placing $5,000 into the Dowd 3unction bike path plan as an alternative. Andy indicated the Dowd Junction link had been specifically requested by • 6 residents. Mike said he would be willing to put $8,000 into a general West Vail/Dowd Junction bike path fund. Diana Donovan liked that idea, and the general consensus of the Commission was in favor of that alternative. Diana asked if staff would work out the amount of the electrical undergrounding escrow based on a Holy Cross estimate. Staff said they would. Diana also questioned if GRFA of 2,250 sq. ft. per unit was granted, would the 225 sq. ft. credit also apply? In addition, would there be any provision for employee housing in the devel~,y...ent? Kathy Langenwalter did not support additional square footage far employee housing, as she believed the site was "tight" to begin with. Jim would like to see the possibility of employee housing not be precluded. Mike replied that the site was so small, if one house were taken out to allow for employee housing, the numbers for the entire development would not work. Diana said it would be easier to come back if the option were left open, and proposed that the applicant be allowed to come back to the Commission within one year to add employee housing without having to pay an additional application fee. Kathy addressed the separation of the units by saying she preferred to have a lQ foot minimum distance between the structures. Chuck pointed out that the units on the east end would only have approximately 8 feet between them. Andy said some variation could be worked in. Mike found a minimum 10 foot distance between foundations to be acceptable. After discussion about specific square footage numbers, Kathy proposed limiting each unit to a total of 2,300 sq. ft., with no additional credits except fora 2-car garage. Jim Shearer left the meeting at this time. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request to amend a development plan approved by Eagle County for Phase III of the Spruce Creek Townhouses, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek Townhouses at Vail per the staff memo with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Provide an escrow account far the Town to use to underground the utilities adjacent to the parcel. This account shall be established by Holy Cross electric, and shall cover the costs of undergrounding the utility line along the frontage of Phase III. b. Provide $8,000 to the Town of Vail for construction of a bike path between Donovan Park and Dowd Junction. c. Provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for developing a site partially covered by wetlands. • d. Provide documentation I'i.,~~- Holy Cross Electric Association that the unused electric easement running through the center of the property has been abandoned. e. Provide a drainage plan of the site for the review and approval of the Town Engineer. 2. Prior to submitting an application for design review, the applicant shall modify the site plan, and: a. Move the eastern building 5 feet to the east. b. Provide 4 more parking spaces, 2 on the east and 2 on the west side of fire truck turn-around. 3. The Town shall waive all PEC application fees for employee housing, if the applicant requests any employee housing within one year of the at,~~.,~al date of this request. 4. The total GRFA allowed on this parcel shall be 13,800 sq. ft. Each of the 6 single family dwelling units shall be allowed 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. The 225 sq. ft. credit is included in these numbers, and may not be added to the 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA allocated to each dwelling unit. A 2-car garage, with the corresponding 600 sq. ft. credit, will be allowed to be added to each of the dwelling units. Connie Knight seconded the rnorion. It was unanimously approved, 7-0, with Jim Shearer's proxy noted via Diana Donovan. Connie Knight left the meeting at 4:35PM. 4. A request for a condirional use iermit for an outdoor dining deck at the Siamese. Orchid. Vail Gatewav Plaza. 12 South Frontage Road/Lot N. Block SD, Vail Village First Filing. Apvlicant: Chai Kulvet/Siamese Orchid. Ltd. Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica stated staff recommended approval of the request with the condition outlined in the memo, and an additional condition that the applicant may use a lattice fence with flower boxes instead of a rope to contain the area with Design Review Board approval. Gena Whitten clarified that a 5 foot pedestrian access would be maintained around the outside of the fencing. Mike said it would. Chuck Grist moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck at the Siamese Orchid, Vail Gateway Plaza, 12 South Frontage Road/Lot N, Block SD, Vail Village First Filing per the staff memo with the requirement the Design Review Board review the railing design. Gera Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0. 5. A reauest far a site coverage variance for Super Star Studios, Gorsuch (Clock Tower) Building. Lots C, D and E, Block 5, Vail Village First Filin~/263 East Gore Creek Drive. Anblicant: Paul Golden Planner: Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz excused himself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict. Jill Kammerer presented the application far a site coverage variance in order to allow the construction of additional display windows for the Super Star Studios and Gorsuch, Ltd. retail spaces. She further explained the allowed site coverage for structures in the CCI zone district is 80%, and the existing site coverage for this parcel was 87%. The proposed display windows would further increase the site coverage on this parcel to 87.4°Io. Staff recommended denial of the site coverage request as they found it would be a grant of special privilege not given to other merchants with similar circumstances. She did state that the applicant believed there was a hardship due to his basement location. If the variance request was approved, the applicant would have to come back before the PEC for exterior alteration approval. The applicant, Paul Golden, indicated the hardship was a business owner could not do • business in the Village without some store front visibility, and that the nature of his business Gena Whitten asked if there would be sound associated with the video monitors, which would be placed in the Super Star Studio display window. Paul replied he did not believe the code would allow it. Kristan Pritz did not believe it was appropriate, and believed it was prohibited by the code. Further, the sign code only regulated signage within 3 feet of a window. relied on impulse purchasing. He reminded the Commissioners that all but the original tenants of the space, Gorsuch Sparts, had failed in that location. He disagreed with the Community Development Department that to approve the site coverage variance would be a grant of special privilege. He simply wanted store front exposure, and that the other basement locations in the area were bars, and they did rat need the window display area his business required. His business is unique, and provided additional family enEx,~l«inment options for Town guests. He did not believe the variance request would impact adjacent uses in the area. Kathy Langenwalter inquired as to the reason for proposing the additional Gorsuch display window. Paul said it was designed for balance, and that his architects believed it was necessary. Kathy stated she could not support the request as submitted, as she believed the resulting step down to the landing would be unsafe, and the t,~„t,osed window addition would crowd the area at the top of the stairway. Paul said the stairway was heated, and the step v down was within the building codes. Kathy reiterated that the area would be too tight/ • crowded, and she also did not believe the Gorsuch display window was necessary. Chuck Grist asked if the new step would have to be put in. Paul said his architects, Gordon Pierce, believed it would meet the applicable building codes. Gena Whitten agreed the step would be dangerous, and that most people would not see it. She could see the need for the display window fnr the business, but believed Mr. Golden's landlord, Gorsuch, should accommodate his need. Paul stated Mr. Gorsuch had been flexible in granting other display areas, but they did not work, because Paul needed display area at the top of the stairs leading to the business entrance. Diana Donovan was sympathetic to the applicant's request, but could not consider it a hardship, as she felt Gorsuch could accommodate Super Star Studio product display needs without any variance. Diana also cited the safety issue as a reason why she could not support the variance request. Kathy Langenwalter also believed it was the responsibility of the landlord to promote a tenant's business, and did not see a physical hardship. Diana added that the basement location was aself-imposed hardship which the applicant had control over. Chuck Grist moved the request for a site coverage variance for Super Star Studios, Gorsuch (Clack Tower) Building, Lots C, D and E, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing/263 East Gore • Creek Drive be denied per staff memo. The motion was seconded by Kathy Langenwalter. It was approved, 4-0-1, with Ludwig Kurz abstaining. In the interest of time, item 6 was delayed, and action an item 7 of the agenda was considered next. 7. A request to amend the conditions of annroval for Phases II and III of Vail Point relating to reveaetation of foundations. 1881 Lionsridae Loan. Annlicant: Steve Gensler/Vai1 Point Condominium Association Planner: Jill Kammerer There being no staff presentation of the request, Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request to amend the conditions of approval for Phases II and III of Vail Point relating to extending the period of time for the developer to carry out the revegetation for, or unit construction on existing foundations by one year, and extend the letter of credit another year for 18$1 Lionsridge Loop, per staff's memo. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved 4-0-1, with Chuck Grist abstaining. 10 fi. A reauest for a maior amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to change the conditions for development far Area D, Phase IA, Glen Lvon Office Building. Applicant: Calumet Federal Savings & Loan Association of Chicaao~Pierce, Berbera. Spaeh Planner: She11v Mello Shelly explained the request. Staff recarnrnended approval of the amendment with conditions. Applicant's representative Saundra Spaeh explained that the original cost was estimate was based on the anticipation of the Brewery going into the location, Holy Cross expected to gain substantial revenues from that placement, and therefore would be incurring the expense of the undergrounding. With the Brewery no longer being considered at this rime, Holy Cross Electric was no longer willing to incur the entire expense. Ludwig Kurz suggested a letter of credit for undergrounding, posted by the applicant, which would have a dollar amount based on the 400 sq. ft. of office space in proportion to the rest of the approved development. He felt such a percentage apportionment would be app~u~.~iate. Diana Donovan indicated the need to find out f~.,~~f Holy Cross the cost to underground the portion of line in front of the project. She believed a new escrow of $15,0{)0 plus the percentage of total cost would be appropriate. Shelly asked if it should be the portion of just the office space or the total build-out. Diana said it should be a percentage of the total project. Saundra Spaeh said that sounded fair. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with the condition regarding additional landscaping of the parking area. The consensus of the Commission was in favor of that condition. Shelly asked if it would be okay for staff to approve the landscaping plan rather than requiring it to go to DRB. That provision was consented to. Shelly stated staff recommended some ev;,~~,:,ens in addition to the aspens already proposed. Diana believed the landscaping should be concentrated near the entry. Saundra proposed adding 5 spruce trees to the aspens and shrubs akeady proposed in the landscape plan. Kristan Pritz stated staff would work with the applicant on the specific location of those evergreens. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to change the conditions for development for Area D, Phase IA, Glen Lyon Office Building be recommended for approval by the Town Council per the staff memo with the conditions that applicant pay the percentage portion of costs in escrow to underground electric Iines and adding 5 spruce trees to the landscape plan with staff to determine the exact location of such spruce. The condition to complete all the undergrounding of the utilities would remain for the next phase of the development. If no assessment on the individual property owners for undergrounding the primary service was placed by Holy Cross, the money would be returned to the applicants. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0. 11 In the interest of time, item 13 of the agenda was considered at this time. • 13. A review of a staff decision (per staff reauest, not an anbeall concerning a reauest for a wall height variance for Lot 1. Block 1, Intermountain Subdivision,/2684 Larkspur Court. Applicant: Robin E. Hernreich/Atwell Develovment Planner: Betsv Rosolack Betsy Rosolack explained the review was brought to the Commission because the current variance was not the exact variance granted previously by the Commission. However, there was not a significant difference. The consensus of the Commission was to uphold the staff's decision. Item 9 was considered out of order. 9. A reauest to amend Section 1$.58.020 -Fences. Hedges, Walls and Screening of the Town of Vail Zoning Cade Supplemental Regulations regarding enforcement of covenants restricting fence heights. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer Kristan Pritz explained the request. Diana Donovan questioned how any change made to the code would affect the outstanding Chester lawsuit. Kristan responded that Town Attorney Larry Eskwith had indicated it would not affect the suit. Kristan said that the Town did not enforce covenants to which the Town is not a party relating to other issues, and simply wanted to be consistent. Jim Shearer returned to the meeting at 5:SOPM. Diana wanted to ensure that any changes made would not affect the judge's ruling on the Chester lawsuit, but would apply to questions regarding fences, hedges, walls and screening which are raised from this paint forward. Kristan clarified that Larry Eskwith had given his approval for this zoning change, and that the Town was acting on its ability to change the ordinance. Ludwig Kurz moved to recommend approval to the Town Council of the request to amend Section 18.58.020 -Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening of the Town of Vail Zoning Cnde Supplemental Regulations regarding enforcement of covenants restricting fence heights to which the Town is not a party per the staff memo. Chuck Grist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6-0. 12 10. A request to amend Chatter 18.04 of the Municipal Code -Definitions: to add a new • definition far employee housing unit, and a new definition for bathroom.. Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Mike MollicalJill Kammerer 11. A request to amend Chapters 1810 -Single-Family District, 18.12 -Two-Family Residential District. 18.13 - Primarvl 5econdarv Residential District. 18.14 - Residential Cluster District, 18.16 -Low Density Mulriple Family District, 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple Family District, 18.20 - High Density Multiple Family District. 18.22 -Public Accommodation District, 18.24 -Commercial Core 1 District., 1$.26 -Commercial Core 2 District. 18.27 -Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -, Commercial Service Center District. 18.29 -Arterial Business District, 18.34 -Parkins, District, 18.36 -Public Use District. and 18.39 -Ski BaserRecreation District: to allow employee housing units as Permitted and Conditional Uses. Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Mike MollicalJill Kammerer 12. A request to create a new Chapter 18.57 of the Municipal Cade -Employee Housin~~ to provide specific development/ zoning standards far employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Mike MollicalJill Kammerer Mike Mollica stated there had been significant changes in the ~,~ „r,osal since the Planning . Commission reviewed the proposed code amendments in March, and staff believed the PEC should review the i,. ~YOSed ordinance. Mike reviewed the proposed Types i, II, III and IV employee housing units and explained the additional proposed code changes to the PEC. Diana Donovan asked if additional GRFA was being proposed for use in employee units, or were density bonuses the only incentives offered at this rime. Mike replied density was all at this time, but an addirional GRFA bonus was a concept staff wanted to discuss with the PEC members. Jill Kammerer indicated a reporting requirement had been added to the request. Diana believed such a requirement would be a u:,~,~endous burden for people to comply with. Jill also said the provision for a required shuttle hus had been eliminated at the request of Town Attorney Larry Eskwith, as it was an extremely difficult idea to enforce. Mike said most of the properties which had the potential to be developed with Type III and Type IV units, the only units which the previously proposed shuttle requirement affected, were within a reasonable walking distance to a bus stop. • 13 Mike explained the items for discussion which staff had identified. These consisted of waiving conditional use application fees for Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Types II, III and IV, setting policy on applying the 250 Ordinance to EHUs, and a matching GRFA "bonus" fnr individuals who construct Type II EHUs. Jill stated additional items to be discussed included revisiting whether to consider 30 days a long term lease, and should "bandit" units be allowed to be legitimized, and how could that be accomplished? Mike said the proposed EHLTs would not be allowed in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. Changes to the Public Use District zoning would allow Type III and IV EHUs to be constructed in this zone district for all qualifying residents, instead of just Town of Vail employees and employees of special districts. Further, under the Public Use District recommended code changes, EHUs would not need to be an accessory use within or attached to a principal structure, but could be free-standing and the principal use/structure in the district. The consensus of the Commission was to recommend the conditional use application fees to be waived. There was a general discussion regarding differing GRFA alternarives. Audience member Ned Gwathmey, a proponent of the GRFA bonus concept, said that at the present time, there is no incentive for property owners to construct employee units, since Y~.,~.erty is so expensive to buy and build upon. With restricted amounts of square footage available to owners, there is no incentive to take any of that space away from family use. Ned stated the • Town should not discourage au pair or caretaker units, and reminded the Commissioners that Beaver Creek was successful in allowing for these types of units. Kathy Langenwalter commented that the lots in Beaver Creek were also generally larger than those available in Vail. Kathy viewed the question as a size problem, and asked how Ned proposed the 250 Ordinance to be used. Ned stated the use of the 250 for tear-downs should be re-evaluated, but that he believed the 250 should be accessible far new construction if used for the purpose of employee housing. Gena Whitten did not believe that both the 250 and another GRFA "incentive" or bonus should be used together. Jim Shearer believed allowing the 250 to be used for employee housing immediately, instead of having to wait 5 years, was an incentive. Jill commented that units might be better designed if the 250 could be used at the time of construction, rather than waiting for five years. Diana was in favor of eliminaring the 250 entirely, except far use for employee units. However, she felt that, if the 250 were used at the time of construction, it should not be available again 5 years later. Gena said that Ned's incentive idea was good, i.e., to match 100-150 sq. ft. of allowable GRFA with a "bonus" of equal amount. She believed the amount could even be increased • 14 above 250 sq. ft., but if such bonus were awazded, there should be no ability to also use the . 250 Ordinance again after the currently required 5 year period of time had lapsed. She suggested the bonus be a function of the size of the lot via a certain percentage. Kathy could only suggest using the 250 Ordinance at the time of original construction, as the houses were just getting too large, and there were ton many incentives. She questioned what would happen in 1S years when other incentives were needed. She asked Ned if people really were not building employee units without incentives. Ned answered that it did not even occur to most, as the costs simply did not work. The cast to construct the units was greater than the rents that could be charged to retire the debt associated with constructing the units. An allotment of additional square footage would allow the unit to pay for itself. Ned suggested the incentives be per lot, rather than per unit. Kathy said she would like to see the 250 Ordinance only used for employee units. Jim liked the idea of incentives, but believed they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis at the conditional use permit hearing. Diana did not believe such a review would work, as granring the incentives would become almost automatic. Ludwig Kurz agreed with Kathy's concern that the impact an additional, matching square foot bonus would have on the size of units and overbuilding of lots, but he could also see the point of incentives. He believed the 250 Ordinance should be used for employee housing at the time of construction to lessen the impacts the construction of a 250 can have on mass and bulk of a structure. Diana wandered what would be the incentive to those owners who had • already used the 250 Ordinance. Kristan said they would not be allowed to use it again, even if it was requested for the construction of an employee unit. She also reminded the Commission that there was only a small percentage of unbuilt land within the Town, so using the 250 up-front would not address the need far employee housing issue to any great extent, and same type of modest bonus made sense as long as it was matched by allowed GRFA. Diana wondered how to reach the current houses who have not yet used the 250, and suggested the Ordinance be changed so the 250 could only be used for employee housing. Kathy proposed allowing the 250 to be used anywhere in the house, but if it were used, 250 sq. ft. somewhere in the structure would have to be permanently restricted for employee housing. Diana believed more units would he created if the 250 Ordinance could only be applied to the construction of employee units. Jim Shearer could support changing the 250 Ordinance to allow the 250 to be available at the time of construction if it is used for constructing employee housing and only remodels to allow the 250 only for employee units. He agreed with Kathy's suggestion to allow 250 sq. ft. anywhere in the house to be restricted, not simply where the addition was placed. Kathy supported changing the 250 Ordinance to allow using the 250 square footage for employee housing at the time of construction. She also supported either restricting the 250 Ordinance only for employee housing or restricting use of the Ordinance in demolrebuilds for 15 the construction of employee units. Ned replied there would be no real incentive with those changes, it would mostly apply to new construction. He believed there should be across the board incentives or benefits, or people would not construct employee units. Chuck Grist was in favor of increasing the size of the 250 Ordinance allowance up to 300- ~00 sq. ft. in keeping with the recommended minimum Type II EHU unit size, but only if the Ordinance were changed to only be used for employee housing. Tim suggested 350 sq. ft. as an alternative, as he did not believe it would be worth it for a home owner to add 250 sq. ft. for someone else. Kristan asked the Commissioners what they could support if the Council did not agree with eliminating the 250 Ordinance for use in anything other than the construction of employee units. Did they have a recommendation for an incentive or matching square footage amount? Jim suggested allowing the 250 Ordinance to be used for employee housing at the time of construction, and then adding a matching bonus of 100-150 sq. ft. to the amount of allowable GRFA the owner uses. Gena said there should be a real incentive, and agreed with Jim's suggestion. Kathy said that if an owner wanted a caretaker for their property, it was a personal pref;,.;,..ce, and they would do it regardless of incentives given. She did not want to see the houses increased in size. Diana did not want employee units crammed into areas which were inappropriate and ruin the look of the Town for the sake of the units. Kristan wondered if 100-150 additional square feet would ruin the neighborhood? Mike reminded the . Commission that any incentives would not be a by-right use, but would be subjected to the condirional use review. Kathy was adamant that no bonus be given, preferring to even give money rather than additional square footage. The consensus of the Commission was to allow the 250 Ordinance to be used at the time of construction for employee housing. In addition, some of the members believed an incentive could be beneficial, but that opinion was not unanimous. Jim Shearer believed the 250 Ordinance in conjunction with an incenrive or matching GRFA bonus would provide units. Regarding legitimizing "bandit" units, the Commission believed it was worthwhile to pursue having individuals with bandit units step forward and file permanent restrictions, but believed there needed to be some incentive for people to do this in the form of a penalty if the units were not registered. After discussion of the time period necessary far a unit to be considered long term rental, the Commission believed 90 days was more a~y~~Yliate than 30 days, and discussed the reporting requirements, indicating perhaps only one report was needed to be filed per year. 16 If a restriction were requested to be terminated, the Commission believed the Planning Commission, at the least, should review any proposed termination. They also questioned the maximum proposed occupancy of 2 people, with the suggestion that a child under a certain age should be able to be in the same unit. Under school-age and 3 years old were suggested ages. There was also a question of who was an authorized agent for a property, and staff agreed to research that issue. The Commission discussed the requirement of a shuttle, with Kathy stating that more definition of when one would need to be provided was necessary. In addition, she believed the requirement of a private shuttle might make a project too expensive. The Commission asked staff to change the ordinance language to state a shuttle "may" be required. Kathy Langenwalter moved the recommendations of the Commission be as discussed above. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, b-0. Jim Shearer moved the definition of "bathroom" be recommended approval to the Town Council as stated in staff's memo. Ludwig Kurz seconded. It was approved 6-0. S. A reauest for a wall height variance far the Samuels Residence, Lot 11-B, Block 7,, Vail Village First Filing/224 Forest Road. Applicant: Bernard Samuels Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica briefly explained the request, stating staff recommended approval of the variance. Jim Shearer moved to apN~„re the request for a wall height variance for the Samuels Residence, Lot 11-B, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing/224 Forest Road per the staff memo. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was a~,Y~.,red 5-0-1, with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining. 14. Approval of PEC position letter to the U.S. Forest Service regarding private inholdinas. Planner; Mike Mollica The letter was discussed, changes were made and the consensus of the Commission approved the letter to be signed by Diana Donovan, The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15PM. 17 MEMORANDUM TO: Plannin and Environmental Commission g FROM: Community Development Department Staff DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: PEC notification of staff approval for Minor Amendment to SDD #22 - 365 Vail Valley DrivelLot K, Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th Filing, Garden of the Gods, to change the approved survey far the project. . , ,~ PY r ~.. f . ~ cry .~ ~crur ~n~ °v r -- ,~ y. u. ~i};~~:~2v~`.~"%' rr`#lk:, l ~ ~ c $ a= f~ o ~ 7`~ca$f, to ..nr` $` ¢. ~A ~ ~;3"~irs~ .~. ~ ~~ e~~xt'oy:~~N~:'rc.:c ' ~ r~ ~ r40'+.Y+?.^...y.w ~ 4hY, ,~f {y .fr. ~ f,~., ~ ,Cr~S~...~1 ,r .<91{.#~'.~ mr,E~4o-°3~`~fr..~C°„~~'~~t&~:~.x~r<x a...~~?~..,~a.........:. ~ s..::~~ ~.&fa~ ~ ~.~e.~ a ,.¢yf~o-/~.~' f .,c~r:~ra r^ .. . The staff recently approved a request for a Minor Amendment to the Garden of the Gods, Special Development District #22, to change the approved survey for the project. The staff felt that this amendment was necessary because there were two different surveys for the property done by two different surveyors that indicated different line lengths for the east and west property lines. Neither surveyor feels that their survey is incorrect. This arnendrnent will change the recognized to the latest survey done for the project by Robillard and Associates. The Town requires that an Improvement Location Certificate (I.L.C.), which locates the • building foundation and property lines, be submitted for all new construction. Upon'review of the I.L.C. for the project completed by Robillard and Associates, a line length discrepancy between the original survey and the I.L.C., for the east and west property lines, was discovered. The result is a 6" to 12" discrepancy between the Y..,~,osed and existing setbacks from the property lines. In relationship to the north and west setback, the building is located as proposed. The PEC proposal located the northwest building corner 2 feet from the west property line and the north elevation 4 feet fiu~~~ the north property line. These distances are correct nn the I.L.C. Other minor (no more than 12") discrepancies occur in other areas on the property. The total size of the building is the same. The form shown on the LL.C. differs from the site plan because the complete foundation is represented, including elements which are below grade. The ridge location should be correct because the building is in the proposed location as related to the preexisting building and existing curb lines. On the amended LL.C. dated August 8, 1991, the top of the ridge beam was indicated at 219.2 feet. There will be an additional .4 feet added for roofing material for a total height of 219.6 which is the maximum ridge height allowed to not encroach into view corridor #5 as indicated by Eagle Valley Surveying. At this time the I.L.C. document has not been received, the ridge height information was relayed by the architect. Any ridge height error which may occur would not be generated by this survey discrepancy. Certification will be required showing that the ridge line is not in the view corridor when the roof is completed. Under Section 18.d0.020 (B) of the Town's Municipal Code, the staff may approve minor amendments to Special Development Districts. A minor amendment is defined as the following: "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 aYr..~.,ved 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 annroved setbacks andlor building fo.,~u~:nts; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses), of not more than five percent of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other nonresidenrial floor area." The staff finds that the dis.,x~~ancy between the surveys was unforseen. Because the building is Located correctly as related to the north and west N~.,rerty line and in relationship to the preexisting building and the edge of asphalt as it was N~..~.osed to the PEGDRB and Town Council, we feel it does not alter the basic intent and character of the approved Special Development District, and is consistent with the design criteria of the zoning code. C: • ENT LocATION cERrr~rcaTE,GE FIFTH FILING BLOC A~ F'COUNTY,VCOLORADO - ~. ~~ - 1 LOT J (1/ILLA yQL,LHALLAI ~ 1 l ' i~ i 4 1~ 1 S 1 f yY 1 ~~ y ~ ~o, 'ASE' NOS •~- -}~ a i i~ ~~i y j i RElNNINGI WALL lY /~/ /~ /~ Pt7OL / // _~ ` `~ :.. ~ ti' ~ ~1 ~. ,\ Zq' Q ~~~` ~ • 0 ~ _ fp .~~'. x -- Boa .. . ~. ~ , o~ o 0 2.R• Iv s ° °' 0 1 ~A• q N O Q h O ~O. }~ ~ ~. .. ~ ~*~ 1 .~I' E8' 5 ~ .. `v cavdPErE Prt7V8 ~~LE ~ a/sr. r ' = ers9 s S SAME DATUM AS VIEW ~ EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYING ! Of' VAlL ENGlIYEER/NG DEPT t 1 0 l4Va 1 ooo•w sa.oo' I i i ~42~y, ` ~/>T ~` `' ~ , _ ~~ ~, ~~,y I~~,~? ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ gyp, ~~ 11,4• ~,"~ti` 11 a ~~ 0 o~ n o a' o ~ 9J i s ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~~ o c N ~- a'J' ~ b V ~\ w '(~ C ~ _.. < ~r'S, ~~ SD8'DODD"E 122.45' ~ =7B'D000" ~ ~~~ ~~ a-2o.o0' ~p`° L=27.23' GORE CREEK ROAD (50Y j~ /~~ - - N08'00'001N 2fap•p~ 0.22' .!' ' IPIO.¢6'AatASlA7EDI ~ - BASIS OF yEAR/NGS PER PLAT ~ N8'00 00 ~ FIRST h7L/NG ~N ~~ ~~-~a 1/`r~~ f b~ or1 ,~r~rl~~~ N ~ ~ a~ ~ 5 ~ ~~~ ~k ~=-~= ~ ~ r- ~-.. 1~6~ z ~~~~ -~-,~ ~e ____ _~ ~. ~~~x ~~~ ~ . ~~ ~~~ ~o ,Q ~ ~~~ ~ N ~ ~~ .- ~~ j~ ~ti-~~_ ~f~ 76 ~' -~~ /f ~ ` ~ ! ~---~ ~ •f ,~- ._ ,~ /~, ~ i ~ j _ . -~ . I ii :` -` ~_ .. ~~ -- - ~ ~~_ I~ I ~ ~ I I~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ y\ ! ~ ~ I f f ~ c,e mac, ' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,Ica i~ j7 >va ~ ,ti I = ~ 7 ~.~ I ~ '~ . ,, N -- a ~ ~~ _ ' $ ~ ' N ~ C'~ .r~ Low' Z ~ ~. ~ : I d 5~ `~ ~-~ i :x ~h=o,1 feK 15'{nW rVt,f~ Tv r~ ~oveo ~~ a~~~ ~1 °° I ~ i l ` +'_. fi ~"° s. ~ ~ ~ ~ S n= ~t1 _ . I I ~ I N i ~ .~~~ ~. g~ ~l ~ ~11 N S~ {`~y- ~ N~ ~ ~ ~~ V ~ ~~ Z r ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ; ~~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ' i~. ~ I ~_ f ~Ln~ ~ ~ ~ j pi. itr'd ~ v5ti'IIPF"~G G%H.61,~i1Y n yY ~ oY~`~ ; ~ oilS+.t~ f . i' ! ~ . 1 1bb',(/Y I I ~ ~ ~ ._~ ~ ~_ ~ ~re~ '-~~_ _ pXcfina ~. ~ ~ l \ ~:L~ fly 1 /~ .~ ~ ~~ ~/ 1 % ~--- -~ -~-, ~65 V < f~~--~ C~.~, l . ~~ ~~ ~ ~.~n ----~~ ~~ ~~: ~. • + , Januaxy 29, 1991? Ms. Pam Hopkins Snowden ~ Hopkins Architects 201 Gore Greek Drive Vail, CO 81557 Re: Garden of the Gods Expansion Dear Pam, Per your request I have xeviewed the imQact the above mentioned expansion would have on the Town of Vail view corridor from View Point t~S. The. elevation of the highest existing north-south ridge line of the structure is 8219.13 feet.If the ridge ryas moved to the east seven feet the new ridge line could be built to an elevation of 8219.6 feet and it would not encroach into the defined view corridor. pyiq'-~'~ Please call if I can be of any further assistance an this project. Sincerely, Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. Dan Corcoran, P.L.S. President t 41199 Highway fi & 24, Eagle-Vail Post Office Bax 1230 Edwards, CO 81632 303-949-1406 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance far the Tupy Residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision/1901 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Leon Tupy Planner: Andy Knudtsen ~~y{^~~.1. . v ~• 90 [y t ~ ~{~`tS" `Y }dG.;~°.~`~.'~.4?;.Fy y'~?f:.yE?i~vp~ fG : .bo-°. r ~'o-~ • .bd:rrlxrbb.b~ ..: :.c. ~..... ,~~~.s+~ t'+ a::3. yw tk~i I, INTRODUCTION Since the previous Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting on July 22, 1991, the applicant has modified the proposal. At the previous meering, the applicant agreed to table the request, due a staff concern regarding the parking calculations. The applicant has revised the proposal by adding a fifth parking space in front of the primary unit. The architect has also reduced the size of the primary unit, and eliminated any encroachment of the primary unit into the front yard setback by shifting the building to the west. The secondary unit remains as the PEC saw it previously. As a result, the request continues to be fora 6-foot encroachment into the front yard setback. The format and content of this memo is similar to the one presented to the PEC on July 22. Any changes which have been made in the design have been discussed in the memo where apYl~Y.:ate. In addition, a section has been added to specifically address the neighborhood concerns discussed at the previous PEC hearing. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESi~li The applicant for the variance, Leon Tupy, is planning to construct aPrimary/Secondary residence on this site. The lot is located at the southwest corner of Buffehr Creek Road and Chamonix Lane. Approximately SO°Io of the lot is designated as the 100-year floodplain, since Buffehr Creek runs through the property. The structure the applicant is ~,~..NOSing continues to be "pie-shaped," reflecting the available site area which can be developed. At the narrowest portion of the developable area, the house is 16 feet wide. The applicant is proposing a 14-foot front yard setback, where 20 feet is required. As the PEC was concerned about the amount of encroachment into the front yard setback at different portions of the building, staff has identified each area specifically. The site plan provided at • the end of this memo has six setbacks identified, lettered A-F. Each letter represents a different part of the building, with a different setback. Beginning with letter A on the south side of the building, there is a 20.5-foot setback measured to the second story overhang. Letter B identifies a 19-foot setback to the entrance of the primary unit on the first floor. Letter C identifies a 17.7-foot setback to the second story overhang over the southern garage. Letter D shows a 15.5-foot setback to the second story overhang over the northern garage door. Latter E shows a 14.5-foot setback measured to the third story projection over the entrance to the secondary unit. Letter F shows a 14-foot setback measured to the deck of the secondary unit. The worst case scenario of each of these different setbacks is the deck of the secondary unit. The 14-foot setback proposed in this area results in a 6-foot encroachment into the 20-foot required setback. There will be no encroachment into any of the other setbacks, including the 30-foot Buffeter Creek stream setback, The applicant has designed a 4foot roof overhang, and a 5-foot cantilevered deck, which will encroach into the stream setback; however, the zoning code allows for minor encroachments such as these. These encroachments will not be located in the 100-year floodplain. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: 1$,255.9 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed Prot~ased GRFA Primary 2,874.1 2090.9 Secondary 2055.1 1614.3 Total 4925.2 3705.2 Site Coverage 3,650.3 sq. ft. 2,279 sq. ft. Height 33 ft 32.8 ft Setbacks North-Side 1S 71 South-Side 1S 15 East-Front 20 14* West-Rear 15 80 * Requested variance IV. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS A. There were several neighbors at the previous PEC hearing who expressed concern about various aspects of the proposal. Staff would like to identify each concern and discuss it. The first is parking. The parking requirement for this development is a total of 4.5 spaces. When parking calculations result in a • 2 fraction, such as 4.5, staff rounds it up. As a result, the total narking reauirement is 5 spaces. The requirement is based on the primary unit having approximately 2,100 sq. ft. and the secondary unit having approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of GRFA. The parking requirement is based on size of the structure, not number of bedrooms or dens. The applicant has met the five space requirement by locating one space within each of the two gazages, two spaces between the face of the garage door and the property line, and a fifth space perpendicular to the driveway. All of the parking is contained on the ~,~.,Yerty and does not use any of the public right-of--way. There is 20.5 feet between the face of the garage door and the Y~~,yerty line. B. Some neighbors were also concerned about the mass and bulk of the structure. The applicant has designed a structure of approximately 3,700 sq. ft., about 1,200 sq. ft. less than what the zoning code allows. The zoning code limits the secondary unit to 40% of the allowable GRFA, or 2,055.1 sq. ft. As the secondary unit is 1,614.3 sq. ft., it conforms to this regulation. C. Some neighbors were concerned about the floodplain and wetlands and the impact of the development upon those areas. With these issues, the Town must rely on federal standazds. The Town does not regulate wetlands, nor does the Town regulate floodplains more restrictively than the Federal Emergency Management Agency {FEMA). Given that the applicant has shown that the 100-year floodplain area will be unaltered, and given that the applicant has provided a letter from the Corps of Engineers granting approval for .the development of the site relating to wetlands, the Town is not in a position to further regulate these areas. D. Another concern dealt with the amount of traffic along Buffehr Creek Road and the safety problems which may arise with the development of this lot. Staff believes that the parking configuration is quite similar to the condominium building adjacent to this lot to the south. Staff acknowledges that the additional trips created on Buffeter Creek Road from The Valley and Vail Point developments do increase traffic. However, staff believes the additional automobiles generated by this development will not alter the characteristics of the road significantly. In addition, the request before the PEC is fnr a front yard setback. Staff acknowledges the lot has development potential, and that some automobile trips will be generated by the development of this site, regardless of an encroachment into the front yard setback. E. Neighbors expressed concern about the requirement to improve the public right-of--way with curb and gutter. The Town of Vail Engineer has deleted this requirement from the proposal in an effort to maintain the existing drainage patterns as much as possible. The applicant will be providing a drainage swale at the edge of pavement to convey drainage from the north, past his property, • to the south. Staff has walked the area, and believes that this will be similar to the existing drainage patterns, and will not alter them significantly. -This approach has been approved by the Town of Vaii Engineer. F. The last issue neighborhood representatives presented involved the issue of hardship. Some neighbors mentioned that the applicant knew about the site constraints when they purchased the lot, and therefore "hardship" is no longer applicable. Staff would like to point out that physical hardships are attributed to physical property. Previous knowledge of a physical hardship does not alter the fact that it may exist. Staff will discuss the hardship issue further under the criteria section. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.Ob0 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. (:onsideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The neighborhood provides a varied context for this development. The adjacent property to the south and the property across the street to the southeast are condominium projects. Directly across the street to the east is a single family residence. The area to the southwest of the Y..,Yerty contains single family and primary/secondary residences. Lot 33 is located between this group of primary/secondary homes and the commercial and multi-family development which has been built along the North Frontage Road. Staff believes that the mass and bulk of the house is in line with the structures around the site. The encroachment into the front setback will mainly affect people driving along Buffeter Creek Road. Staff would like to see additional landscaping planted in the front yard, particularly in the front of the parking area. Staff recommends that an additional 3 spruce and 2 aspens be included in the front yard to screen the parking. Each of the setbacks adjacent to other lots do meet the zoning standards. The applicant had the option of siting the house so that it met the 20-foot front setback standard, but encroached into the stream setback. Staff believes providing the full 30-feet adjacent to Buffeter Creek is positive, given the willows and 100-year floodplain. Staff understands from the architect that no willows will be removed. However, staff is concerned that during construction, some may be excavated and removed. If, during the construction process, any willows must be removed, staff believes they must be replanted along the bank of Buffehr Creek. 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 that ayt,~.,~al of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. Because Buffeter Creek divides this property, and leaves a relarively small amount of the lot that is developable, the site has a physical hardship which staff believes justifies a variance fi.,~,~ the code. The total site area is 1$,255.9 sq. ft. and approximately 50.0% of the lot is in the floodplain. The floodplain divides the ~..,~.erty through the middle, leaving 1,245 sq. ft. on the west side and 7,874.2 sq. ft. on the east side for development. Of the area on the east side, only 2,473.6 sq. ft. is located out of required setbacks. Given the relatively small size of area to develop, staff believes that encroaching into one setback, specifically the front setback, is reasonable. As staff mentioned in the discussion of the neighborhood concerns, prior knowledge of a site constraint does not alter the fact that it affects the deveiopability of a lot. The Tupys may have known about the way Buffeter Creek affects the amount of developable land on this lot before they purchased it; however, they did not have a guarantee of variance approval. To staff, the issue is not about previous knowledge of the hardship, but if one exists on the property, and if the applicant has responded to it with a reasonable design. Staff believes that, in this case, the 6-foot encroachment is reasonable. 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 that the proposal will not negarively affect the issues listed above. Drainage will be handled with a gravel Swale in an effort to maintain the existing drainage conditions as much as possible. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. One issue staff is concerned about is the wetlands on the site. The applicant has contacted the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the potential impact on the wetlands, and the response from the Corps is attached to this memo. In their response, the Corps simply stated that, because the applicant does not plan to disturb the soil around the wetlands, a Department of the Army permit is not • required. The Corps does encourage the applicant to protect the stream bank from erosion by leaving as many of the willow stems and root stalks as possible. The architect has said that none of willows will need to be removed, and staff believes that, in conjunction with the advice from the Corps of Engineers and in an effort to preserve the willows, the applicant should place a construction fence around the wetlands prior to any excavation in order to preserve and protect the willows and cottonwoods during construction. If any are removed during construction, the applicant is responsible for transplanting them on site on the bank of Buffehr Creek. 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 granring of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or irn~,~~~ements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal int:;lt,.~,tation 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 int~it.~etation 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 aYt,~.,/al of the request, finding it meets the variance criteria as addressed above. In addition, Findings 1, 2, and 3{b) are met, in staff's opinion. Specifically, Finding 1 is met as the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, as • 6 the physical hardship of the floodpiain, 30-foot stream setback and existing willows are facrors which justify a deviation from the code standazd. Finding 2 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposal does not affect public health, safety or welfare. Staff believes that finding 3(b) is met, as the floodplain is an extraordinary circumstance of the site which is not generally found on other Y..,~,erties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1. Prior to submitting a DRB application, the applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include 3 additional spruce and 2 aspen to screen the pazking. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall install a construction fence to protect all existing willows. The fence shall establish the boundary which no construction activity sha11 cross. 3. Immediately after the foundation is constructed, the applicant sha11 submit a survey to the Community Development Department showing that the construction conforms to this approval and that the structure will not encroach into the front yard setback more than 6 feet. . 4. During the construction process, any willows or other trees which must be removed, must be transplanted on site on the bank of Buffeter Creek. 5. Prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall secure a revocable right-of-way permit in order to construct the one to two foot walls in the right-of--way. c:~pec~ttemos~tupy2.812 • . ' DEPARTIVrEMT OFTHE ARMY • gACR~MI:NTD pESTR{GTC~.~.• s pFEN~~NE~R$ 650Cl1P11ti1LiRAl.L ' SACRAII~NTD. C/ILJFORN{^ X491 ~-479d ~nrro Sep~.tembet` 2i ~ f9t10 ~-„r~u,wN or Resttulatorp Sec:Ci on dir. Leon C. T~tpY Mor.ri l I Tavnah , Pierce, !F'e[ihex ~ Smit2t lnc7. Post; Ai~f,tt~e Box 712U ~ . ~atalder. Coloradcy R030S-~? 12U Aear Mr. Tupv: This is {n response t.rsvo»r i~:t~•Irer dated gepF,esmberr 5. 1.990 '~ aonotrn$.n~ the removtsi..crf. ve~tetatian ~lc~ttp~ 1iuf ter Crack t-n I~nt: 33 Suffer Creek Addi.ti.on lncatecf '}n t}ts Town of Va};, }~a~1e County, " Gt7larado . ~'h+- llenartmen,t of the axm~-, Corps of EnRl~.z~eers, exercise{3 r~.~ulAtorv ~taritadir:t'i.an an rivers, $tr.e~sms~ lakes, impounr3ments, and W~t1atlC~fi. Section 404 rif the Clean Water Act renufres that an;v individual or ont,.ll:,v proposing to diac:harKc~ dredged or fa 1 i mt~teri.al iretr~ t.hp~tr~ "waters nf. the [}nltsd States" vbtaatt a Uwf-artmertt of tha Az•rn;v p~!rineit prior to a3iGh a discharate. A Depar.tn~ent, K~r the Arm:{r perm~S.t isi not required foL• 1',he reniovrs:t of veaetatton Pram a wetland or other "water of the United Statee" }~rov.tded dred~#ed nr, f i 1 t {nAF.pr3ai. is riot disaharlsled into Q "water of i:he United atates~" tc~ i"gci.i.itate the re~aovaZ of vcKvtai,tc~n. E,and aiearist~ aat~.vities whi;ah disturb the soil x~ta~rfr~ca and land leveitnK txatfviti.ea ovnduct'ted i.n wntiahd~- da regtairc i}r.nrsrtment of the Army csul:hdrization, )~eaau{se vcstj lyropose to clear veltet+~tian without d3.Rturbi.ttat tkae stc~il, a f~gpartmehl, ctf ~.he Armv vomit; ~:s3 not required. ,liowevcr. ~~et,:AUae wi.l~ow stes~~ tend root$tooks prot.rc:t ~.he atrer~mbank From gficis i.on . ~ try ise yvta to move on1P the mi.n:i mum amc~tanfi of ve~etativn heressary. ~ ~~ Ii' you have{ any questi.c~ns~, pa ease contact Mart itn Miller of i,htea affioe rxt trlenhc~ne (3Q31 ~4S-199. S,1.ri~Ar+±ly, /•7 .. Gxad p 1~ ~ v{. ~ ~~` ~~ ~ . ~ul.atory Unit 4 --.~ 76A Hor zon D7Civ~, }foam 23i Gra .funai.ioxa. Colox•adc~ 815fl6-8719 • . _1.i ..9""; qtr ~. ti_ - r... ~ ~ . • u "- - _ - _ - ... _ ~ ~ 1.. ~ f - ~, ~ • ~., • . ~ ~. ,: _ __. ~ __ _ . f:• .. ~ ~c" I ~ - ,~ .. ti. ~ ~ ~ d _ 4 ~ ,,~• ,,41., I Y~- .. ~\~ by ` ~ ~`~'• ~ ~'• ~~. =fir ~~- _ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ .,, ~ _'~ , •, 1 ,~ ~ .r P R~ ~ ~~' ~'- / - 000 ~~ ~ y ~ p 4 ° ~ °_ y ~ i / ~ ~ ~ r gg~ / ~ ~, . ~ 8~6. F `1 ty ~ 'q ~ ,. ~ ^, ~ 1 ~ / ~ ~ ! I ` Y Y~ 1 ~ ,•>;, i~~ 1 ~~ r ' r ~ . --'~~. 1 ~ ~ ~~ , ; ~ _. ,- , ,_• ~ ~ ~_ `_ ' - . -~,,. ~~ • E.J. MEADE BOULDER,COLORADO K ~~ ~il tU1~IY u~1LCetyJ.LL~1/lC,~tiL.1G (303) 444-3360 ' (512) 472~3l32 atAww:~s~r~ ~T ~' ' - [A!I' 33 $CJFFIIt CREJ:K v 4, ~ - ~tstd 7~,b•"SI ~- ai5-11,a•5 ~ ~s ~ 1901 CHAMON{X 1 . .e i~ - TOWN OF VAn. COl.OAADO . -_ --I-- j._ of ~ ~ ` , ~~ ~ ; ~ j ' ~~ ,dQ. ~ ra..o- ~ „1 ,...e. ~ ..~ ~ ~ J ~~ ~~ 4 ~ ry--~------- rr ' _ ` _ ' i U, ~. j; t ~_ ~ / `~ i _ _ - ,~ ~ £• j ~~fl i' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ !~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ,~ ~ ~ n.,4. ,. i t \\ . ~1` ~. _, .~ ~~ ~~~~_ mow, / V l r / ~ FQ~ a i~ x ~!o ~i= ~jt ,~„~ vac-~`~"°° F~ ~~ ~ .l ~~ I i g nF F`. ~ A ~ n t ~~ - _ . ~ ..~ ,. ~~ .,: ~:.. ,, s • ~.. i~ r -o ~~. b ~r te ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ f ,r # o . ~ B ; F rr 9 &j. ]ylEADB -s 73 CHAUTAUQUA PARK ~ r~~~~ zmZG+cCTTRS~TG~~R"~TC~ ~ ~ ~p~,p~pp(,p~,pp ... _ l.r]L ~LlU1C1L 1RILaLl71ll1Y1C~ (303) 444.3350 , (512) 472-3332 L~C7I' 33 Bihf~R ^tEF3C ~~ ~r oi,~ c a v t901 CIiA.MONDC IIEVi1mry-r}~~ ~.9 g; ~~~ U • • ~_ . I ~' ~~,r ~~- ' ~~ I ~ F~ 8' I ~ 4~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~j I~ jtE .~- ~ I f ' ~. _ ae- \1 ~- E 1 pr~~ M I ~~ ,f .- r .. ~ ~ _.. -. I . ~i ~ i { ~ Q ; A I I •~ _ - ~ I Irio" s I . ~ f- o q _' 14 ~ ~~ 91 I s+ P~. _ ._ .. L ~ ~ r .§ L ~_ ' I 1 ~ ,F iE Frno• ~I\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ -~. ~ ~~~ ~~y ~ ~~ ~I X11 I~-t-14 ~~ ,~ ~. :_~ i .. -a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ; ~;;; f ~ q 11I !// 333 o~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ .: IS ~~~ _ ~ ~ K ~, >~s f5 ; ~" ;rEaD RDAD f5o'1 ;~ ~ • • E•~ o - Wye - ._ !~ I `~Sr~'( S~.x s .~ I ~ i I~g~ Ica . . w~~`' 75.90% /~ I ri, -~_ ~.. `r~r ~ . ... - ~ __ - ^n _eF F (r•FCNrcg Fc1a~PyTUN _ ~ ~i ~ ~~~ 51l~V ~ ~ s€~. . 1 ~ ~ ~ R~ a ~ trt i~ 9 'p `pp • ~ ~ 1 ~~ Y 4i. .~ 1~1 „~.1 ~ y ,. ~~ w Z"i~l j , ~ ~-~- --- - i o...: ,, 2 ---, ¢. E.J. MEADS ~ I~\~ ~€]9 1 1 , i 22 CHAUTAUQUA PARK r~7~ r~7v~7~ ~p~~yy~~,r~T~y~i 1 ,i~ 80ULDER, COLORADO 111L11~ 111U11~~ In~l ~'dyJ.Llll/11e"1V,~L1Pa L`rf ~` •^ ~Y. `-- (303) 444-336Q ~ rj ~ vrnnr fno_-4~~ _ rrwr~Y~ (Sl2) 4T2-3332 ~ !~ ~C~~ l49:+~0'~~ ~ ------ ~ ' dlinwo-l:,.. LOT 33 Bt1FI~"ER CREEK i ~ I + ~ $~~ ~ an~:~r.+~ 1901 CFiAMONIX ~ ~~~ / 'y ~~ - J ~;, ~ , aEVlsen 3_,•nc4q -r~z+ 9, pa k° ~ W I A ~I ~~ 1 I e~ D~ iQ Q f .~.c~ I t I ~~ ~ ~ :i~~ ~ ~ . I _ ~ ~~ -, ~L..d u, ° ~ ~~ ~I 1 i r I ~ _~ 1 -~-- __ ._~ ~~~ E.1. hSEA98 UA pARK LL~Ir+ ~ ~ ~ CHA?JT ~OLOFJ+~~ g„ SO~UIJDER. 60 CRS ~*' (303) 44'i~ 3332 1~ 3CHA~MQ IX (512) ~ ~pA1Yl~~µ 41~~ 1~.U ~`9~ -~pytN UA VAM ~~NA y Y~ ~~ p{tEN4@t41~~ . ~+ f~ 4 i iI(` I ~I$ 1 1 t~ ~. ~. iri- r ~ , r - _ +: ~ ~ _] * ~ I - -~ i _ _- ---r-~_ . ~ _-x N - ~ 6 ~. I a F-.-~ { _ 9 {I ~ ~." ~r .. ~ i % H K~' u Y•a~1 I I] ~ 1j ILL :'a4Y OVU'1 ~~ l ~ ~~ pug 4 • ~ , w o=o• ~~ wrc '~ ~ ~ e 1 F 3 1 b.~. A{pMV6 ,2Z CFiAUTAUQUA PARK l~ rlTrffTTID~V ~~j`~~~~~~( +~r 1L t~~u+ l 1C 90UI~PIt Up(,p~pp . . _ _ll U ° (303) 444-3360 (512) 472-1332 IJJT 33 BV rrr~a CRmC uswrnc s~•~ ••• 1901 CHAMONIX >~~ ~' .ri~fi ~T,'~'ll 4- 4 , TOM+Or vA4. (IXA~uAo ~ ~,~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 22, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance for the Tupy Residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision/1901 Chamonix Lane. _ Applicant: Leon Tupy Planner: Andy Knudtsen • 'r'~?2z'r'V~`•'-Yr ~ ?~,y ~~".,: e~v~?°?Sd' ~ :fit ~q~v .cr +~v .Oi'~ ~'F;,;;.: ~rti:~r;r,::r;v:..a:.:n;:c:;;xr::; ~.;¢. fi}. F p. A ,~r'r r 4 : : i ' ~, r f~k? . ~` "~%" ,: ,a~,`~Ji-~'~~~R.~i:i3' ~r:,c °~`~:-.2~' ~ ' ~~ JfF ~i {-:. ; ~ .+~ ~~ J...... : ...:y~g~ !`y ~ ~ ~ •.br ;. • . f 'f.4` .r-^ ' ,ip X'•'S'e'.{; .... ,~,~~QQ:~r~e8.-Y~(q`x~y~'f„C•f 6i}'+;i~`y ~'¢~ ~~(.>.{. nr~+vJ' .i 4Yo-c: .W '.a~•,Gf~.'r:A r:? ri:y'+;i'..,,i{'~r~1', Q^~-~'%ar4A~r~E'.~~i.'~sA~ :~f:~L~r,~~.. ,c .n..o <:r-::.• fir'? ~f~v.PiW$G~~n~.i....C.,....~..XeNAiG+~r~ri'7'.~'.1Fiitr~e`.P.~~ k}iU' rnnisimav ~w.~: ?~ .~ y 4:ir•' ~~` ',Y.S'-`4A {.;.;.::v:'4~:C:}~'::~F~ tt~ ' ' S1c,3:. a~n:~,iYa:U:~rki fi~io-?Y-yr.`a'G;;bx':$i.4 VA ~~: .. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant for the variance, Leon Tupy, is planning to construct aPrimary/Secondary residence on this site. The lot is located at the southwest corner of Buffehr Creek Raad and Chamonix Lane. Approximately SO%a of the lot is designated as the 100-year floodplain, since Buffehr Creek runs through the property. The structure the applicant is proposing is "pie-shaped," reflecting the available site area which can be developed. At the narrowest portion of the developable area, the house is 16 feet wide. The applicant is proposing a 14-foot front yard setback, where 20 feet is required. The portion of the structure with a 14 foot setback is 9 feet in length. The rest of the structure has a 16-19 foot setback, measured from the property line. (Please see site plan.} The six -~ foot encroachment into the front yard setback requires a variance. There will be no encroachment into any of the other setbacks, including the 30-foot Buffehr Creek stream setback. The applicant has designed a 4-foot roof overhang, and a 5-foot cantilevered deck, which will encroach into the stream setback; however, the zoning code allows for minor encroachments such as these. These encroachments will not be located in the 100-year floodplain. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: 18,255.9 sq. ft. Zoning: PrimaryJSecondary Residential ~~ ~ • Allowed Proposed GRFA 4,925.2 sq. ft. 3,915.0 sq. ft `~ %~~ Site Coverage 3,654.3 sq. ft. 2,296.0 sq. ft. Q ~~ Height 33 ft 30.6 ft Setbacks North-Side 15 71 South-Side 15 15 East-Front 20 1~* West-Rear 15 ~ 84 * Requested variance 1II. 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 ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The neighborhood provides a varied context for this development. The adjacent property to the south and the property across the street to the southeast are condominium projects. Directly across the street to the east is a single family residence, The area to the southwest of the property contains single family and primaty/secondary residences. I.ot 33 is located between this group of primary secondary homes and the commercial and multi-family development which has been built slung the North Frontage Road. Staff believes that the mass and bulk of the house is in line with the structures around the site. The encroachment into the front setback will mainly affect people driving along Buffeter Creek Road. The setbacks adjacent tv other lots meet the zoning standards. The applicant had the option of siting the house so that it met the 20-foot front setback standard, but encroached into the stream setback. Staff believes providing the full 30-feet adjacent to Buffeter Creek is mere of a priority than the front property setback along Buffeter Creek Raad, given the willows and 104-year floodplain. Including the portion of right-of-way that can be landscaped, the apparent setback from the edge of asphalt will be 30 feet. The landscaping to be placed • in the front yard as shown on the submitted plan includes 5 spruce and 10 ~ aspen. During the review, staff discussed the need for additional landscaping . in the front yazd with the applicant. ,Staff is concerned that enau~h landscaping be provided in light of the fact that the variance request reduces the size of the front yazd. In addition to quanrity of landscaping, staff was concerned about a gravel parking area parallel to Buffehr Creek Rnad. Staff believes that all of the azea up to the existing edge of asphalt should be landscaped and that the gravel parking area be removed. The applicant has agreed to modify the plan by converting the parking area to landscaping and providing an additional 4 spruce and approximately 4 aspen in the front yazd. 2. The degree to which relief fram the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. Because Buffeter Creek divides this property, and leaves a relatively small amount of the lot that is developable, the site has a physical hardship which staff believes justifies a variance from the code. The total site area is 18,255.9 sq. ft. and approximately 50.0% of the lot is in the floodplain. The ~O ~ U floodplain divides the property through the middle, leaving 1,245 sq. ft. on the west side and 7,874.2 sq. ft. on the east side for development. Of the area an --- r?~~ the east side, only 2,473.6 sq. ft. is located out of required setbacks. Given the relatively small size of area to develop, staff believes that encroaching into one ~? ~ ~ setback, the front setback, is reasonable. ~~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ 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. Development of this site should include curb and gutter improvements to the right-of-way. The Town Engineer has requested that these drainage improvements be made to the "transportation and traffic facilities" abutting the property. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. One issue staff is concerned about is the wetlands on the site. The applicant has contacted the Army Carps of Engineers regarding the potential impact on the wetlands, and the response from the Corps is attached to this memo. In their response, the Corps simply stated that, because the applicant does not plan • ~ 5~-; I ~ ~~ ~ I~ ~1(~~ ~~ W B. The Plannma and Environmental Commission shall make the followrn~ findings before arantins a variance: to disturb the soil around the wetlands, a Department of the Army permit is not required. The Corps does encourage the applicant to protect the stream bank from erasion by leaving as many of the willow stems and root stalks as possible. The architect has said that the proposed structure will allow all but one cluster of the existing willows to remain on the site. Staff believes that, in ~k~~ conjunction with the advice from the Corps of Engineers, the applicant should 5~~~ place a construction fence around the wetlands prior to any excavation in order to preserve and protect the willows and cottonwoods. 1. That the granting of the variance will not consritute 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 nr welfare, or materially injurious to y~.,yerties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal int:,.Y=~.4ation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar 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 r.„rerties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request, finding it meets the variance criteria as addressed above. in addition, Findings 1, 2, and 3(b) are met, in staff's opinion, Specifically, Finding 1 is met as the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, as the physical hardship of the floodplain, 30 foot stream setback and existing willows are factors which justify a deviation f~.,... the Cade standard. • . Finding 2 is met, in staff s opinion, as the proposal does not affect public health, safety or welfare. . Staff believes that finding 3(b) is rnet, as the floodpiain is an extraordinary circumstance of the site which is not generally found on other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Therefore, staff recommends apt,,.,~al of the variance with the following conditions: Prior to Design Review Board approval, the applicant shall: r ~ a. Revise the site plan so that the full area between the structure and the existing ~u. Buffeter Creek Road pavement will be landscaped, except for the 21 foot wide ~-~ f~(,~ driveway accessing the garages. A minimum of ~4 spruce and approximately 4 Ctl, aspen shall be added to the landscape plan in this area. ~"`~ ~~ ~,,,,,~" Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall: 5~, ~~ a. Install a construction fence made of bright orange material to protect all lI''` existing willows, The fence shall establish the boundary which no construction activity shall cross. b. Submit engineering drawings far review and approval by the Town Engineer of the right-of--way improvements. These imy~~ cements shall include curb and gutter that shall be installed far the full length of the property abutting Buffeter Creek Road and a valley pan to be installed at the location of the proposed driveway. c:~pec~nemos~upy.722 5 •. u. ,~, s,nu a ~..ru~rJ vcll 4C1 1 f 1 f C!S !il •{7iJ1fITl T nllrnLl ~ AU.]! IlV ~ ~i jj~jL~Q~7W'GlS~'1 1 17EPA~`~'IYyEN`I" OF THE ARMY . aACRAM~NTD [115FRIGrGQRPB pF~N(iINEERw , ' 6Gb GIIFITiDI. MALL ' . SACRA1+tSNTD. C/1LIFORI+tfA X581 MA794 IR[PLYTO ~1Bpi~.eeml~p r~ 2 x , ~.9>:f U F7T>iNYFON4)z RAttiilatorv Se~:t;i nr~ Mr. Leon C, Tupv M~srrilx ~avnoh, Pierce , 1~ entl~:x* ~ ~lmith lne . Past o~i.~ce Box 712th Sc~c~lderr, Calvr~-d.c~ 80506-71ZQ Dear Mr, Tupv: '!'his 3.a in re:ppon~a~, #.nvcrnr i,~~t~.t:e.r dated BQ~t•.elmb~lr 6. ].994 . nanotr~cl.n~ the removal ,cif; veli`etation v~],tyttif~ }3u.ffer Crank ~n lent. 33 Buffer t/rGek Adcii.ti.on .koc:atc:cf in the 'fawn of Vs.1 ~, Ragie [:vunt,v, Ct~1q~r•ada . '1'he~ 1]I~ps,rtment of the Ar.mv, Ct-rPs of ~nr~~.xceers, axerciser~ rt'l~iillr~tary ,9urir~d,icat.~i.nn on river, zsi;r,~sm€s, lakes, impa~andments, and wetls.ntts. Section 404 c~#' khel Clean Water Ac:~ r~anuires thn,t,~. att;v f ncii.vidual or e~ni,.1, t.v prr~pasin~ tv ti3sc:hac•Ita dredged or fa ~ 1 m~-teri.ec~, iret.n t.hagne "waters af. t,ha Urllted States" t~k~~r.t3it~ a D~crar~tmsnt of the A~•mv permit prior to stlc~h s. Idischar~a. . A Depar. t;menl, Cif hhs Army port~:i t is net required i'ot• t;he reniav~sl, caf 've~lteta~tion 'ram a wtst,land or other "wat.er csF thr: Uryitesl ~lt;~ateR" lsrnv.l,ded drl~xd~ed ar, f i 1 Z ts~n.F.sria.t is net dieoharl;rd fnto :~ "water of t}~e i]nited flt;ates'„ to fa~rai.].its.te the rt:mr~val. of vo~otai,ipn~ Land ale~-rih~ activities which disturb the saii axtialt•fROe rind land levs~l.tn~ s.ativibiee oaric~tiac'tt~d in wetlands da require 1)e-l~rsrtfrle~ttl; aP th+M Army esulsharisat:ic~n~ Heaaus~c Ya1~ l~rn~4ae to clecr~r vc~~e+i:ati on without di~ti:tixrbi.ntt tkac an3,1. ~~4 4rf i:hs Armrr ~ermxt; is not raquirestl, ow®ver, ks~nR~js~c~ wf.llaw stems ar~ci rtrotOtoaks vrat.ac.t thq etrecambank Prom epc~~a i ~sn _ sae e. viR~+ you Nn remove an].v t.1i~ tn;.rya mtam `amraunt of vegetation n~oeasr~rv. -~ Ii` you hr~vea s~nx queatians, p.3ps,as contact Mart,xn M:tll,er of i.lcil~ office .~t #:s~lenc~sne t 3U31 r~43-! yfl9. eraly, . ~ ~~,.. Gt'ad ~- t0. n ~gtil.e,tary Unit 4 76A Hor zan Ur.iv~, Ream 211. qra .lunoi,ipn, (,;o1,arud.o 01608-87141 • ~``` -~ ~~''7 ~~~~~~ ,~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~-~-. ~ t ~, . _. f t 'rte ( ~ ~~`_' ~ , ! ~ `'`.... ~ ~ ~, ~r ~~ / 7 \.7 ~ , ~ l ~ 1 J) V 1t ~ ~ 1T~ 1 r k~: f ~` ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ J / ~ z t ~~' ~ / ~ ,° ^l ~ f z ~ ~ ti ~, 4sya'v ~' ~ 1 ~ ~` ~ ~~` ~~ ~ ~, : ~ / n ~ ~a~ dt 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i~ ~~ ~ ~y _ ~ ~~~ S 4 ~ f 1 ~ ~ ~-` ~ ~~~ r ~ ~ ~' ~ t _ ~~~ ~ ~ 1 • 1 _ ~' :, G ~ .~ .. __ ~~ ~~ ~~'~4 : _•4 ~ f 5 j a~ ! ! ~n # ~ , i `, ~ ~' /i ' - ~' ~ - --- I ' ~ 7 i Y ..~ ~ ~ ~. _~ 7 `` ~ { ~'' "" ~. ,~ ~~~ ~ '! X(NOW'rN~ ~~'~ ~ng££,-:t~ tett-tty 16QE1 i otQ ~ y~w~a r~avx L raw r3 va ~+~° ~ d Sa ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ Mw 4 aj 5 V 4~ } ~a r-~+ ~~ T< OOY71070.7 "llVA dO11M0A ®SIA31l XINOY~'HO TOfi1 ~~')a~ra a>3 avnYna }~ N333f1H E£ d~0'1 ZEEE-ZL6 KSS) D4tt•nnn (EDE) °~~~~~~"~ ~~~, '~~ oov~o~oa ~~aznaa xava vna ~ ~iv~ra F8 ~ ~ ~~ ~' cd D ~S ~~ k~ ;~ I r I 3'1~ ~~ ~{; __ . ~___._J i l l l - i r ~~ ~I _ _ ~ G __ I ~ j ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ j ~ / ~ ~ 0 d N -, ~~ ~~ _ W _ yy it1 z '~\' - f J 1 4 t •i • r ..~ ri ~~ ~ '~ ~3 ~ ~a ~~~~ . ~~(~~ 1 `~ 1 .. ~. c~'~ s ~~=~~ ~~ :~ + it- n~ew~ a~* O o~ xiN~ssc.i~- ,'~ ~ ' '~ / 1 ,~„~. ,yam ,,, ,riM,ra4 iEEE~zcr tEat1 o9ce•rv~-~~,oe ~aza~ ,~~ sa ]111VdY~~ qa W. CS S~ t ~, ~'} h` ~r~y ' 0 ~~J' ~ fi !,r'" ~ I 1 r 4' !1 A O 1 t7VON ~ x __ - 1 ~~y~~~ ~ ~,/ S ~„~~ :.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~{ y, d ~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ ~~~R ~ • ~ °J S, x ~ ~ a ~ ~ '" ~ ~. G~ ~ k i 1 !-- ~"ib • J l -: -.; -- ~ .~.~ .,:., .. ]C1K~ng££ S~ ~~ ~I~ ~, ~~~ .. ~~~~~ t~-tk y~ i3 "~ ~. .~- ~ .- ._...-- ~E66.ZLY GO~C) tL.-l~rr 4 I ~~ N ,..~ ~- .1 r " d , ~~ ~~~ ~1 'fr' J t ~~ J}} R j /( ~jj / Fy,~s f (tiL'~~ ~~ J Q Y / y - ~7 L ~/ 1 ~t~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ''' / / ~} ~f1 ~y~/~~//~~ IVI . ",C_- ~~~(l~ /LWZ~ (Vf ~, ~`_` Jjp ~ ( ]f e ( N t ~( , {f ~ j J ~~ ~__ .~?, ~~ ([` ` ~ ~~~~ t ' 1 y p~`~UJJJ t per/ /7j 1 ' ~ ~~~1:~ G`-~ f ~ r; 2 ~ ~ t 1'I ~,,1 N 1 J ~~, I1 X11 1 ~~1~F i ~. 4: N W ~ ? ,; -- - a 1 E i ~ `-R ~4 {Y C Q,. r^ f • I ~~~~---~~~ q; Y ~~ Qar ~` ~ __ Nn~ .-_.11 J r , . ~ -M ~5 a`- ' ~rt ~ ,~S ~1 -- _ ; 1 ~~..iJ ~ 1(-~. Gig r2.-! l'e h``~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • J JTJ r~~~' U ~~ °Vti ~.~ ~~,~ .lAd~NNOL ,,,,~ - XlPidV1VFl7 lQ6S ~++ ~~+9 r+M'fi4 x~.~an9f£S17i ZEEE'tt4 4tl£7 09£i'444~ [f X61 [~y,~Tr~ ~~((~...~,~r /~~fT~ 7~T ,,~~~(((rn~ /~(~~~~(~ x~v~a vn~Uatl.~vxa ix ~~11'S~tiLllalWa++'r' A(Ej~11~ .."t.++W' 7nN~N~ f9 i• -~ L,7~~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~rl ~ ~ - ~fii~i~'l~c~ ~~ . c~ ~.Y i 5 `'-~`o t~` l , ~ r ~~r L ~ ~ ~~ / ~ . ~Y~ ~' F; ~I ~ j~ _~ 7 j ~ II!~II ~I I lMNO F ~~~a F ~~ ~ 4 V K II = ~~.+ ~ (s ~ i ~-~~. ,.. • M W ., ~ ~ r rYr 7 ~~ ~.S ~ t! o~fff r J _/1_Vll~f-{~~ 1' ~jC~` G4.ri_~G ~'! VV G `J -~ /~sstcL .~yrz~~r~Y~ fvf.~-~~ ._._- ~, ~J - `f ~^-G~?'~f ~/ frrl ~"WC 1`c".¢ i~~~`.G-iY lc~ ~ ~~~ fz"y~+ t, (J c. . J ~v~t-c~ tea- ~O a'~'L P~ ~~' UGC. FL>~ b ~ r w'• !' + QTY ~~'-' t~~~ / ~n 11 ~j,a~f. ra • r • ~ +. August 12, 1991 ~' Vail Planning Commisaian c/o Town of Vail 75 Soutlt Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $1657 Dear Vail 1lanning Cottttnission, 7'h is letter is a followwup to our letter of July 22, relating to a request far a front setback variance for the Tupy residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivis.~a~,~ , 1901 Chamonix Lane. As we have been residents in this particula for several years, knowing this area well, we request that the variance NOT be granted due to the following reasons. We remain concerned with a greater SAFETY hazard should this variance be granted. 13ufiehr Creek Road is becoming a high traffic road. Vail Pointe Townhomes has already built at least 8 new residences, with a foundation for four more townhames. The Valley addition is presently under construction whiz three more townhotnes, and one single l:atnily. Dirt work has also begun with 8 new homes to be built up Buffehr Creek Road. Buffehr Creek is a speedway for most people as they don't adhere to the speed limit nor the stop sign at Buffehr Creek and Chamonix Lane. There is an even greater concern during tl~e winter when the road is particularly icy and snowpacked. This traffic doesn't even include ttte towct buses ar school buses which utilize the road daily. SAFETY concern during the winter with regards to snow removal. With the request for a front setback variance, the building would only be closer to the road. We believe there would be an increased safety hazard when the Town of Vail snowplows clear the road. SAFETY concern with regards to parking, as well as sufficient parking. We remain to have a concern if the variance is approved with regards to the proposed road intpravemettta with curbs and gutters. if approved, the house would only be even closer to the future road improvements, again, presenting a aafety concern. Lastly, we wish to express our concern for the "hardship" case that the Tupy's have presented. As Mike Mollica of the Planning Department confirmed at the July 2Znd meeting, Alr. Tupy met with him months prior to purchasing Lot 33 and knew full well the lot size, setback requirements, etc, and that variances would be needed to build a larger edifice. As rlr. Tupy was aware of this fact, we do NOT feel this is a hardship at a11, and request that his variance be denied and that building is done within the parameters given without the variance. Tt is also very presumptions to have plans drawn and assume variance approval is forthcoming. ~• `J -..~ ~ A~, I ~ - / ~~I `/~ r4 iOlJ(.A[.r~A ~~ . w C ~ ~ ~ " / ~r.~ L .., A ~.~~ti~ /.~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~.~~, ... ~ ,~_'"y``~. car c~'S~~ ~ ~, ~ .r ~~w° ~' ~~.~ ~~.~ f r~ '~A~r ~' ~~~ ~>' / `~G 4 C~,~.•s~.~x.~ ,+r ~~/ l'~':~' X03 :j ~.~'GL ~r c~/~,~"d'' ~a-;~ ~.,~~=e, ~4.1" c - ~~..~/~-.i-~ / f In "7 ~-c.~L' .e ,~~'1 11,~..~-Q. ~' ~1, ~/ ~ ~ `f' <=sr~'`~'`~~ ~Y`,~-~ / >l 7 ~~r ,. r / rte' ,//•~!~ ~.y ~!~ S;~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend a development plan, previously approved by Eagle County, for Phase ICI of the Spruce Creek Townhouses, 1750 South Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek Townhouses at Vail. Applicant: Michael 1_auterbach/Carl Dietz Planner: Andy Knudtsen .wi~rla59.'.~5~ 'a .. BACKGROUND Eagle County approved a development plan for the Spruce Creek Townhauses on May 31, 1979. In that approval, the County allowed 33 units, each with 1,750 sq. ft. of floor area. The total GRFA approved was 57,750 sq. ft. The first two phases of Spruce Creek have been built out according to the County's plan. Phase I included 12 dwelling units and Phase II included 9 dwelling units. As a result, there is a remaining potential for an additional 12 units and 21,000 sq. ft. of GRFA on this site. A copy of the letter summarizing the Eagle County approval is attached to this memo. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to build out the remaining land that is a part of the Spruce Creek development. The applicant intends to construct 6 single family dwellings with approximately 12,600 sq. ft. of GRFA. The applicant will construct driveways to each of the units. The shared driveways will be 12 feet wide and will originate from a central fire truck turnaround (please see site plan). The applicant plans to construct landscaped berms between the structures and the South Frontage Road. Approximately 84 new evergreen trees and 66 new aspen trees will be planted on the site. None of the existing vegetation along Gore Creek will be removed. The reason this request is before the Planning and Environmental Commission is because of a requirement established by an ordinance passed by Town Council soon after the West Vail area was annexed. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981, stipulates that major changes to development plans for certain developments within the West Vail annexation area be approved by the PEC. Spruce Creek was included as one of six developments which are required to receive PEC approval for any major site planning changes. The Ordinance did not include any criteria to Use when evalua#ing a site plan change, except that Residential Cluster was considered to be the zone district for development standards. As a result, the PEC • should determine that the proposa! will not create any negative impacts compared to tl~e County approval. In the staff review of the proposai, density, environmental concerns, and public improvements were identified as the three major issues of this proposal. I III. ZONING STATISTICS A. Zoning: Residential Cluster B. Site Area: 101,128 sq. ft. C. Buildable Area: Density D. Development Potential: Total Area: 101,128.0 sq. ft. Floodplain: _25,261.8 sq. ft. 40% slope: - 635.0 sa. ft. Resulting buildable area: 74,531.2 sq. ft. 1979 Town of Vail Eagle County Residential Approval Cluster Zoning 12 DUs 6 DUs per acre of GRFA (25% of buildable) Site Coverage (25% of total area) Height Setbacks FrontlSide/ SidelRear Parking 21,000 sq. ft. 25,282 sq. ft. 33 ft. 20/15/15/15 2 spaces per 1,750 sq. ft. buildable area = 10.3 DUs 18,632 sq. ft. 25,282 sq. ft. 33 feet 2D/15115/15 2.5 spaces per DU over 2000 sq ft. of GRFA Current Proposal 3.5 DUs per acre of buildable W 6.0 DUs 12,300 sq. ft. 7,950 sq. ft. 32 feet 26179120114D The parking requirement will be met IV. STAFF CONCERNS A. Density Staff believes that the amount of development requested to be built on this site is the most important issue. The zoning statistics listed in the previous section show that in every case, the current proposal results in less density than what the Residential • z Cluster zoning standards allow. Furthermore, the two standards regulated by the County approval, density and GRFA, allow more density than either the RC standards or the current proposal Compared #o the County approval, the applicant is proposing to construct one-half the number of dwelling units and approximately one-half of the amount of GRFA. Each of the units will be allowed 2,050 sq. ft. of GRFA plus the 225 sq. ft. credit. The developer will not be allowed to transfer GRFA from one lot to another. Because of the overall reduction in GRFA and number of units, staff believes the proposal is reasonable. B. Envtronmentallssues The three concerns staff identified regarding environmental issues on this site include the floodplain, the existing vegetation and wetlands. The applicant has designed the site plan so that the buildings will be approximately 30 feet back from the 100-year floodplain boundary. Because of the generous buffer between the structures and the floodplain, the 50-foot Gore Creek setback is maintained without any encroachments. All of the existing evergreen trees along the stream will be preserved, given the proposed location of the houses. There are two areas of wetlands which the Army Corps of Engineers are concerned about. They are approximately -600 sq. ft. each in size. The Town's position regarding wetlands is that the applicant must provide a letter from the Corps stating that construction on this site is acceptable and that an adequate mitigation plan has been provided by the applicant for the wetlands area. Staff believes #hat the environmental issues have been adequately addressed, with the condition that the applicant provide a letter from the Corps of Engineers. . C. Public Improvements 1. The public improvements which concern staff include the existing overhead utilities, bicycle circulation along the Frontage Road, and the design of the access drives within the sites. In the past, staff has consistently required that developers underground any existing overhead utilities for developments such as this one. In several developments in East Vail, between the Frontage Road and I-70, the developers have undergrounded the section of overhead utilities adjacent to their property. In those cases, the applicants were requesting single family subdivision approvals. They did not need to come before the Planning and Environmental Commission and were not requesting any variances. In an effort to be consistent with past decisions, staff believes that the overhead utilities that are adjacent to this property should be placed underground. In discussions with the applicant, staff understands that he would be willing to pay for his portion of undergrounding in conjunction with a larger effort to place a greater length of existing overhead utilities underground. The applicant has agreed to place enough money to cover the cost in an escrow account. The Town would then use the money, after a plan had been established, for undergrounding as much of the overhead lines as possible. Ted Huskey, with Holy Cross Electric Association, has estimated that the cost of undergrounding is approximately $50-75 a linear foot. Given the • length of the northern property line is 380 feet, the cost to the developer would range between $19,000 and $28,000 far this project. Ted Huskey did say that Holy Cross Electric would prefer to underground a larger segment than just what is adjacent to this lot. 2. The second issue is providing bicycle paths. Staff believes it is reasonable to request the developer to make public improvements adjacent to his property which have been called for by Town studies. The Recreation Trails Master Plan calls far expanded shoulders on the sides of the Frontage Road for bicycle circulation. The staff believes that it may be appropriate to reconsider the Master Plan designation for an-street bike lanes and also consider an off-street path for bicycles only. At this time, staff is recommending that the applicant provide an escrow account for the Town to use for construction of bicycle lanes or paths. This would be used either to construct shoulders, or possibly a detached path. 3. The access roads within the site have been designed with the concept of providing as much landscaping as possible. The roadways have been narrowed to 12 feet in some locations and are as narrow as they can be and still meet the Fire Department and Public Works' regulations. Staff believes that the concept of providing the narrow driveways that access the dwelling units is a good design. Staff believes that the parking supply is adequate as each house has two interior parking • spaces within each garage, two parking spaces immediately in front of each unit and an additional guest parking space off the access drive. V. CONCLUSION Staff recommends tha# the PEC approve the applicants' request for an amended site plan for Spruce Creek, Phase III. Staff believes that the level of development, specifically GRFA, density and site coverage, are reasonable. In addition, staff believes that other issues, such as the environmental concerns and public improvements, have been adequately addressed as discussed above. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Provide an escrow account for the Town to use to underground the utilities adjacent to this parcel. This account shall be $23,500, which shall cover the costs of undergrounding in this location. 1f the surrounding properties are interested in undergrounding utilities adjacent to their parcels, the Town may use these funds in cooperation with other properties in a karger effort. b. Provide $13,300 to the Town of Vail for construction of either the on-street bike lanes on the shoulders of the South Frontage Road or the construction of a separated bike path. • 4 c. Provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for developing a site partially covered by wetlands. d. Provide documentation from Holy Cross Electric Association that the unused electric easement running through the center of the property has been abandoned. e. Provide a drainage plan of the site for the review and approval of the Town Engineer. c;lpeclmemosUautfiac.812 • • I 1 }` ~ F . ~, ~ 1 1' ~~ s ! ~ __ ~~s 1 :: ~ i't ? J~ l ~. _ .f ___. ~~y ~~ ' j ~~k -, _ ~- ~~ i i ~ 7.' _ 1~ 1 ~ f "j. _ iy I ~ Ifni ~ ~ f ~ 1 ~ ~ f ` ~ 1 ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ t T~ 4 ~:.~ ~~.. '~ ~` I ~ 1~ r ti r+~~~~. I ' ~ "~c . ~ 5 i' 1 1' ~ f ~ ~~ 1~ r ~ t 4 r ;,. s i '~ l4 IJ~~~~ ~\ ~~~~'~~~ i I ~ b' ~~: 1 ~/ i__.~f~' 1 ` __ I l ~ ; '~ f ~, ~ 43 ~, ~ ~ ~I i 4 ~ ~ ~a ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ /1' !~ / r ~% ~ ~ r; ' ` ~; ~.~:u,`- I,1 I ~~ i• ' ~. ... RCL[%(189]11! Stiad }. `~ ~' • ~~3 O IV ~ 5~ 3 W d I ._N 3 A 3 ti ._ .`i .. i• i• %/ ~~ \~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~.. ~~ • I• C7 ~~~~Il~ ~ E ; ~~ r"~ ~_ ' ' ~~ i i -- -~ - -^..... .. __ -° r ..___- _-~~ .. _. --- ~. ~, _. ~, ~- I ~ i i \ ~ ~ `I ~ ~ ~'\\ ~ i ~~,, ~ { 1 ~ ~ - -._-_- ~ ~ tf . ~ . ~i ---- ~ ~__ ~; __ i• ~' i ~_ !, r ~ ~- ~~ i ~ ~ l----._- # ~. ~, _ ~' I~ j ? ~~ _~ .._. I - ; ~ i ~ ._----- --~-~---- ---- i ~ I L ~ ~ ~ 1~_ Y. ~ , - ---r ---~_-- ~ -_-. _~4.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, if, ~ f i r E~i ~~ 1.-- 1 • • i• Fi-7,! i _; ~ ------ -- i i~ I ~, ~~---,--~ '-- -... r :. , . ~ --- i ~ I l ~ i , ...._... . :. ~ ; i ; _....:~.::~. i ~ ~ ~ -~ -j , ... _~ ~__~. ~_ _ v t;~ ~~ EXHIBIT A \,~i~4~ ..~ I t ~~ ORDINANCE NO. 13 (Series of 1981) Li.~'o. a_ ~..~ .. ~.':.. 75 s. E;a~7taGe r^_ad nail, ccb~r:.c:o &1`57 office c~ ic..n c:c:~c AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISfiRiCTS ON CERTAIN DEVELOPME;.7TS AI~tD PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN fiHE RECENTLY ANN~:xs.li NEST VAIL AREA; ACCEPTING PRIOR APPROVALS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RELATING THERETO; SPECIFYING A:IENllbiENT PROCEDURES; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS RELATING fiHERETO; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING M,4P FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL: AN1) . SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. WI:IEREAS, the town of Vail, Colorado, recently annexed the West Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on December 31, 19aa; and W)3EREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the 3tunicipal Code of the-Town of Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts on recently annexed areas; and ~rn~nr,AS, Section 31-12-115 (s) C.R.S, 1973, as amended, requires the Town to bring the newly annexed 14est Vail area under its zoning ordinance within ninety (90) daps after the effective date of said annexation; and WHEREAS, because of certain actions taken by and approvals of the Eagle County Commissioners relating to the within specified properties the Town Council is of the opinion that the zoning designation for these areas should recognize said approvals and conditions; and nns~,nEAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the newly annexed .~~,,. West Vail area at a public hearing and has made a recommendation relating thereto, to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said progeny; NOW, TgEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED BY TSE -u~ui COUNCIL OF THE TOWN -.~'; '~`~ OF VAIL THAT: i~..~rl ~ ,ti! ~*,l,`;.• s Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled. %'_,^... -~ The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be .,,.~~• '~~`~° imposed on the newly annexed West Vail area as set forth in Chapter ' 18.68 of the Vail 5lunici.pal Code have been fulfilled. • • YUS'LAVi15 U1 Ll1a 11e5Y1\ ~utxes~u „~5~ tu~~ ur~u. Pursuant to Chapter 1S.G8 of the Vail 3lunicipai Code, the properties described in subsections e, f, g, h & i below are a portion of the A~est Vail area annexed to the Town through the enactment oY Ordinance No. 93, Series of 1980, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, effective on the thirty-first day of December, ].980, and hereby zoned as follows: a. The developments and parcels of property specified below in Subsections e, f, g, h & i shall be developed in accordance with the prior agreement approvals and actions of the Eagle Cauntp Commissioners as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or parcel of property. b. The documents and instruments relating to the prior county approvals, actions and agreements are presently an file in the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and sand approvals, actions and agreements axe hereby accepted and approved by the Town of Vail, c. Ail buildings for which a building permit has not been issued, nn the effective date of the annexation of lgest Vail shall comply with Design Review Criteria of the Vail liunicipal Code prior to the issuance of a building permit. ' d. The Community Development Department may issue staff approvals for minor changes in site design or other minor aspects of the plan for any of the specified developments or parcels. These proposed changes may be approved as presented, approved with conditions or denied by the Staff with an appeal Within 10 days of the Staff decision to the Planning and Environmental Commission, For mayor changes, such as a re~-design of a mayor part of the site, changes as use, density control, height or other development standards, a Planning and Environmental Commission review should be required. The procedure for changes shall be in accordance with Chapter 18,66 of the Vail I~uaicipal Code. e. The following developments and parcels of property shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance: (1) The Valley, Phases 1 through G. (2} Spruce Creek Townhouses. (3} iteadow Creek Condominiums. :: .. <;: ,, i (4) Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Cluh. I (5) Briar Patch, Lots G-2, G-5 and G-6 1 Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, (6) Casa Del 801 Condominiums. I'or any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle Gounty Commissioners" approvals, agreements or actions, the developments aad parcels of property specified in this subsection {e) shall be zoned Residential Cluster (RC}. f. Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 4, shall be subject to the teams of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County I Commissioners' approval, agreement or action, this parcel of property i shall be zoned Single Family Zone District (SFR) with a special pro-- ~^ vision that an, employee wait (as defined and restricted in Section 1$.13.08C! of the Vail h~unicipal Code) will be subject to approvals as per Section I~ 18.13.080. The secondary unit may not exceed oae third of the total Grass Residential Floor Area (GHFA) allowed on the lot as per the Single Family Zone District Density Control (Section 18.10.090 of the Vail Municipal Code) and Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS). g. Lot G-4, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing Na. 2, has been the subject of litigation in the District Court of Eagle County, and a Court order has been issued regarding the development of this property. The Town has furthez approved Aesolution ~5 of 1981 in regard to a subse- quest agreement with the owner. 'Fhe Residential Cluster (RC) Zone District will be the applicable zone on this property to guide the future development of the parcel, woxking within the bounds set by the Court Order and Resolution No. 5, Series of 1981. h. Block 10, Vail Intermountain Subdivision and the Elliott Ranch Subdivision, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle Gounty Commissioners' approval, agree- ment ar action. Block 10 and the Elliott Ranch, shall be zoned Primary] Secondary District. Lots 8, 15 & 16 of Hlock 10, Vail Intermountain, shall be zoned Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNC}S). i. Vail Commons, Vail Dos Shone Filing No. 4, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the •_ ~~ Eagle County Commissioners' agreement, approval or action, Vail Commons shall be zoned Commercial Core III {CCITT}. -'~~ ; °~~ . Section 3. As provided in Section 18.08.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to promptly modify and amend the Official ' t Zoning Map to indicate the zoning specified herein. r Section ~!. If any part, Section subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance fs for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and -the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, E~. and each part, section, sub-section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,. .,.... .. regaxdless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. ij Section 5. ! E The Council hereby states that this ordinance is necessarF for the j E protection of the public health, safety and welfare. ~ ~• INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED , ONCE IN 1'TJLL, this 3rd day of March, 1981, and a public hearing on this ~ r ~ ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the ToRn Council of {` i~ the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 17th day of bfarch, 1.981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. ~ - ~ ~ ~ i ` .- i ~ ~~ ~ { ATTEST: Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY.f~arch 17, 2981. / '-~ ~ ~' ,~/'I ~: ~~/ ~~~ tiayor ~ (/ ~ ATTEST: i ! >=AG1_E, COLOFiAD0:8'163't ThWLCPHONE 303/328-7311 F~OARD OF COUNTY con~frltsstoNEl~s i Ext 241 i AD1JIfNISTRATION Ext 241 ANtt,~AL S#-!f<LTER 949-4282 -- ASSESSOR ___ Ext 202 -- f1UILDtNG tN fN51 E4TION --- Ext 226 or 229 "" CLERK & ~, RECORDER Ext 2 i 7 COUNTY •-- ATTORNEY Ext 242 - _ ENGINEER • Exi 236 _ trNVIRONMENTAL -•- HERLTFI• Ext 238 • _. EXTENSION AGENT - Ext 247 ~~ LIBRARY _ Ext 255 ~UBLfC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 - Vai1476-5844 PLANNING _ Ext 226 or 229 -. PURCHASIiVG/ PERSONNEL - Ext 245 "' ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 - SI~ERIf=F Eagle Ex# 21 1 - Basatt 927.3244 Giin~an 527-5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 32$-G31.8 TREASURER Exi 201 ~~f ~ ~~ ~•~ ~~ ., •N ~1 . ~~ - ~+f :.~. ~~t' U Ca r1 Dietz ~~•v-~ P.0. Box 388 ~ ~° Vail , Co. 8,157 ,~~R~: Fi1e No. 5u-112-79 May 31, 1979 -~ -Spruce Creek At th eeting o 4 May 1979, the Board of County C 7ssioners approve your preliminary pi an for 33 units f 1750 sq. ft. per un't This approval was granted wit~l the agreement tha e path easement t~rould be granted ~.ut t ft. setback froth the high water mar~C of Gore Creek would be strictly observed. If you have any questions, please contact this office. B/jk ~~ / ~• _ ~ J Thomas Boni Asst. Director of Planning CC: ~Qard of County Comr[liSSioner5 MEMQRANDUM T4: P~annmg arld Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit fnr an outdoor dining deck at the Siamese Orchid, Vail Gateway Plaza, 12 South Frontage Road/Lot N, Block SD, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Chaff Kulvet/Siamese Orchid, Ltd. Planner: Mike Mollica ,te :s`~:..~,, ~.....: p; y'r3.~.!~.:dc.~ Ya. .. .. rv °.r. ..o- ,~.N:'~ .. .:, ~~.... ~~. .. ., :.:.o-~i.. .c . ,o~.tc.~w'. f&.~G.S~ o-:~~:~.'~:..<:x..•. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the Siamese Orchid Restaurant, located at the southwest corner, and an the . ground level, of the Vail Gateway Plaza Building. The Vail Gateway Plaza Building is in Special Development District No. 21, which requires a conditional use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The surface area where the deck would he located is presently colored, scored concrete and the dining area would be located along both the south and west facing elevations of the restaurant. As proposed, the outdoor dining area would include 10 tables, which would accommodate up to 32 people. The conditional use permit is requested for both summer and winter use. The dining area would consist of six 4-top tables and four 2-top tables. Five of the 4-top tables would include umbrellas which would be solid burgundy in color. No advertising is proposed for the umbrellas. Also proposed around the southern perimeter of the dining area would be a rope fence, approximately 3-1/2 feet in height. The fence is a State requirement in order to serve liquor on the premises. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The Town of Vail Zoning Code does not stipulate the need for any additional parking spaces for outdoor dining decks. None of the other zoning or development standards would be affected with this t,~.,t,osal. • III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS U on review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends p approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the T,; -r.., The underlying zone district for the Vail Gateway Plaza is the Commercial Core I Zone District. As stated in the Municipal Code, the purpose of the CCI Zone District is to: "maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments, in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Care I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and • architectural qualities." The staff believes that the proposed outdoor dining deck for the Siamese Orchid would be a positive addition to the Vail Gateway Plaza Building, and would further the goals of the CCI zone district, as stated above in the purpose section. 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. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed outdoor dining deck would have no negative impacts on any of the above-listed criteria. . 2 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and cantrol, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The staff believes that the proposed dining area will have no negative impacts on traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, etc., in that the dining deck is proposed entirely upon a pedestrian area (i.e., sidewalk). We also believe there is adequate pedestrian and handicap access fi„~,t the parking garage and south entry of the Gateway Building, around to the main entry, located adjacent to the 4-way stop. A minimum of 5'-0" in width will be maintained for such access. The concrete surface on which the dining deck would be located has a snow melt system built into the concrete. Hence, snow storage and snow removal during the winter season should not be a problem. 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 surraunding uses. Staff believes the proposed outdoor dining deck would have a positive effect upon the character of the immediate area. We believe it will enable restaurant patrons to be outside which, in turn, will add activity to an area which historically has not had much outside activity. We believe this nutdoar activity, in conjunction with the brightly colored awnings, will add interest to a corner of the Gateway property which has, to date, only been used for loading and delivery. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findines before. ~rantina a condirional use vermit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this C3rdinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. . 3 C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of • this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, as we believe the findings in Section IV of this memo have been met. Staff recommends the following condition of apr~~aal: 1. Because it appears the placement of the dining tables along the west facade of the Vail Gateway Plaza Building is very tight, the staff would like the opportunity to meet with the applicant on-site to determine if the northern- and southern-most 2-top tables should be eliminated. Staff would prefer waiting until the 4-top tables are located on- site before reaching a final decision whether to eliminate the previously-described 2- top tables. c:~pec~nemos~archid.812 • • 4 . _ ___~ .._~. 1__ _' _ ~ ~~^ 'N 1' ~~, - ~;~~ _ -~ j I--...~~.~...._p_-- j .. _ CIS .~ 5~-0r I ~WNy`I~ ..1r .. • ~ "L a~a~. s `~ ~ f ~~ \ ~ti : I ~ ~i AMA ~. ~~~~~ - .. ~5v, rKV~ dTaC~ Dc V~LSL '~ • . . /, ,~' ~ % f ~ \ ~ \ , ~ R `ti h e' ~ I lL a ~ 1' I O - - ~[ _ ~. ,~~~ _.. r, I -J l I~~ V ~~ -''I - s~ a~'-~' E~ a~.aa ^i /`~. _~ i I ~ ~' ~~ i ~, ~I ~~ ,6w~ I ~- oa 4~ - ~-- u.nBrs~cca r#' ~ ~ Y ~~ ~~ r 3o••.rAB~ ~6~ - 24M 7/4~1.F ~4~ ~y ~_~vr~.~F~.bfGE~ ~Z 'r.-F«G~W - ~Ti~ S~ATIN%~ ~LLN Z~-r n ~J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devei.,t,,,,ent Department DATE: August 12, 1991 Revised August 12, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. SUB7ECT: A request for a site coverage variance for Super Star Studios, Gorsuch (Clack Tower) Building, located within the Commercial Core I zone district, Lots C, D and E, Block S, Vail Village First Filing/263 E. Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Paul Golden Planner: Till Kammerer race. rL?'. 41. "i7i'ki`... ,w, r yi' ' ..:Ci:'.r rrr?rfy~,z7T:R•. ~:rEr tt'4•';Yr': .'z 4r !w vr^N~ `~rf fi`~ .~ ,°;~ °T~ '~ o o~OO ,y~i,~tfi.,r~'.r:F r.:fiv%'c~if a r ~ a- ~ a^~r r. °f '~'A': adF.9,. ; ~ oI ~+"rs;° ~'~ f,°~~a'ia"'' .A kC ft; ... ,, r,$,r .. ~1.`i~!.~ ~~ ~A' k.~ir' X :.3:sr.:.~a ~l!~. ~~:Y`:aa: ~rY~ oid~' ~- r, ~~~r. .~lr''~:'?i`r.~~. ~ r.#.'~r' :t,.~'r.~ h'.~ . .. ;i:'°.".o-,'.•'.` ''~b~~,r~+ '. '3f ~'t'rr'''.k`F a, . ~ •A: "F :..a%yy.:'»l~.% s' .~:o.:.$ `!.. %~ ~eha.iu;'~ i' '<fi"rr; ' a r r r~ :% !" i ~. o '=£? to'2"~':~~,r~~~ r °°r~~ Yr,~x-1~fy,'~ a9<4~r.` rrk'~~~..r,~~r'rlr~~r~TFi`''°ca:Rr~lraiYl,;Y+'.~,r', $ ~Caj~?$''Ir,r~:a?~ir~~:tx:~fc: U ,~ ~ ' ' r4 .s. .cb:~v~rv.~. ~.cT~.F`::;k:':d}.ro-¢J.~J~:t.{4:. £•,:.,r y. r rr . ~:..,, a .. r 1r.. • r1i .m r...... r.... ~. A. A/s.W.~... ... ~ ~ s~r.~f'.r. Ari0. e~:~rf /~ r~'AJa ~rF:~P.~rFr.. f .../...::viu •r++ Ylv.l'Sn I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant proposes to add 28 sq. ft. of site coverage to the Gorsuch Building in order to construct two new window spaces for the display of promotion materials for Super Star Studios and for the display of promotional materials for Gorsuch Ltd. The new 3'-6 114" i x d'-1" Super Star Studio window would be located immediately to the east of the existing Gorsuch entrance, and at the top of the stairs leading dawn to the basement retail space occupied by Super Star Studios (see attached rendering}. The promotional material to be displayed would be in the form of two T.V. monitors which would be set back 3'-0" from the face of the glass and therefore are not covered by the Town of Vail Sign Code. Because the T.V. monitors will be set back 3'-0" from the glass, they will not be considered to be signs but simply window displays. The 3'-6 114" x 4'-1" Gorsuch Ltd, window would be located immediately to the west of the two existing Gorsuch display windows which are located immediately west of the Gorsuch Ltd. entrance. The Gorsuch. Building is located in Commercial Core I. The site coverage allowed in this zone district is 80%. The existing building's site coverage is 87%. Under this Y..,t,osal, site coverage would increase to 87.4%. Therefore. in order to allow the construction of these two, window additions totaling 28 sa. ft., the applicant is requesting an increase in site coverage of 0.4%. The applicant will also be required to obtain exterior alteration apy..,~al prior to the issuance of any building permit. The applicant has elected to have each of the required approvals (site coverage and exterior alteration) considered at a separate PEC meeting. • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: 8,960 sq. ft. Zone: Commercial Core I Site Coverage: Allowed: (80%) 7,168 sq. ft. Existing: (87%) 7,800 sq. ft. (which is 632 sq. ft. over allowed site coverage} Proposed {87.2%) 7,828 sq. ft. (which would be 6G0 sq. ft. over allowed site coverage) III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.Q60 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. To the north, south, east and west are restaurant, retail, commercial and office loses. To the west, across Bridge Street, is Pepi's Restaurant and Bar. To the • south across Gore Creek Drive is the Golden Bear jewelry and clothing store. To the north is the Slifer, Smith and Frampton Real Estate Office and Slifer Collection Interior Design and Home Accessories businesses. Ta the east are the Vaii Rowhouses. Staff believes the proposed site coverage variance request would not negatively impact other potential or existing uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The applicant's business is on the north side of Gore Creek Drive, in basement retail space of the Gorsuch Building. The applicant believes the business' basement locarion is a hardship (please see applicant's Request for Variance which is attached to this memo). Staff believes it would be a grant of special privilege to approve a site coverage variance for this lot as there are no unusual or unique circumstances on this property which are not found on similarly zoned properties elsewhere in the Village. • 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 requested variance will have no impact on any of the above-mentioned criteria. B. The Plannine and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantine a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 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 int:,~~,~~tation 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the site coverage variance request. Staff does not believe this N~.,yerty is encumbered with a physical hardship or unique circumstances and that the project does not meet the findings for a variance. c ~pec4nemos~suprstar.812 • C • Request for Variance Related to Site Coverage My wife and I have operated Super Star Studios for one year. We are proud to say it is a clean, healthy form of inter- active entertainment that is tailored far families and youths. We request that the proposed 34 square foot addition to tl~e Gorsuch Building be allowed even though it does not meet the criteria set forth in section 18.24.150 concerning site coverage. The variance requested seems justified for the following reasons: There are other buildings within Commercial Core T tl~at have expanded aver the 80~ guidelines. Secondly, the unique features of the basement space da not allow for a storefront of any kind. This has proven to be very detrimental to business. Previous tenants of this space have failed due to lack of visual exposure. Super Star Studios has attempted to exist far one year without some form of a storefront and is an the verge of failing as well. By adding 34 square feet of exterior display window space, Super Star Studios will be able to promote its business as all the other storefronts do in Commercial Core I. The actual design that is proposed is tasteful and will improve the appearance of the Gorsuch Building. Finally, it seems the purpose of any town code related to resort business is to assure that quality shops be a7_lowed that round out the shopping and/or entertainment experience of its guests. Our business meets that criteria and should be given a fair chance. 2 r ~cQ.~v~ . ~. ~ C~ \c~-e~ Paul Golden, Owner Biane Golden, Owner Super Star Studios Super Star Studios r~ u ~• -----~- __ ~.--.- _-----~ __ _ 1 ~~1__ . -J-~- Existing Entry No Scale Proposed Partial Elevation ~f /4' 1'^0" (~ 1 ~ v/ W _. r~ _ _ _Y~_r ~~ Proposed Entry No Scale • Existing Partial Elevation - i• i• ~I ~ ~ 4 1 lil ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~' ~ _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -.~~r_b 0. I ~ it Ni 4I ~~~~ ~~ r ~ ~ '~ -~ ~ / t `~ ~I', r ~, _ ~ i } } I ~ ~I air ,I Tr ~~~ ~ k ~~€ ~~~ pl ~~ ! .\ . ~ ~ l(1`, G w O 0 w ~_ F ttl G, d, w ~~. ~: ii~ ~ ~~ j t ~, ~ ~,_ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~'~! i ~ `ii ~s I~ ~.~~ E I, ~ ~ i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~I d ~~ ~ f ~~ ~ ~ 0 v 4~ J III I~~'~ i~ ' I -r! 1 2/O1 f ?S~ r , ~ t t ~ I _ `I YlT ~~ ,I ~' ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ '-; ~~~ I 3 ~. ~~~ ~ ~~~ `~ ti 1 w~ t~ I t "_ T r°~ I ~ ~ t f i ~, 7~ ~~ ,i + Nl ,~ _ f r I r ~ ~I i~ ~~ ~QQ i i3 ~_~ - Ii •C~ C a a 0 c% \. cn _. .~ m a 'a 61 H O a 0 ~. a 0 w i• I• p r~ ~$ f? r`y I O _ 1 ~ '' ' 'J .~ / t r4 ~ ~ rV r~ ` -r ~~ _• ,~ O~ ~ 0 ,~ ~~ r rl ~ - ~ ~ ~- /~"~ ~.- i r--; ~ ~~. ~;; Irj ~~\ ~. ~ '~+ ~ ~~ } ~~ _ ; ; - -- .~~- ~ ~~ ,f _-= _-_=~ j .. ;~ / _ /,/ r+~ r+ ~ r+ ~ +~ ~; ~~ ~~ 3 s 3 J ~ I _.L ~... . 1 -;7( ~~ Y 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Plannin and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 9, 1991 SUB7ECT: A request far a major amendment to SDD No.4, carnrnonly known as Cascade Village, Section 18.46 -Area D, in order to adjust the Phasing Plan for site improvements to allow for an addition to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 South Frontage Road West, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners Planner: Shelly Mello .c, y ,, .,:-r. ..•.,.,... e ,;.>a:£~.m. ,.. ..,. . i .. :~ ?..F ! S., ~~odor~er .z.'~..v,.;..,ht I. BACKGROUND In December, 1990, a major amendment to SDD #4 was approved which changed the phasing plan and allowed fora 400 square foot expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building with the • condition that the utilities an the property be placed underground. The applicants at the time of the amendment would have been responsible for $15,000 of the expense to underground the utilities. Holy Cross Electric had previously committed to the remainder of the expense of $210,000. This arrangement was made prior to the December, 1990 amendment. The Holy Crass commitment was based on the proposed development for the project which included the Brewery. When Holy Cross was approached by the applicant to complete the project, Holy Cross was unable to commit to their original funding because of the decrease in proposed use as a result of the Brewery project being delayed. As a result, the applicants will be now required to pay $35,000 in order to underground the lines, an expense they are unable to meet. II. THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to SDD#4 in order to allow the conversion of an existing exterior deck, to 400 square feet of interior office space, without meeting the conditions of approval set forth in SDD #4. • A major amendment was approved in December, 1990, which relieved the applicant of all ~' conditions except the und~~~~ounding of the utilities on the property. Additional landscaping was also approved as part of this amendment. The proposed deck enclosure is part of the 28(}0 square foot office expansion approved by the PEC and Town Council in March, 1990. As approved, any portion of the remaining 2400 sq. ft. of the approved office expansion triggers the remaining conditions of at,t,~.,~al, AYr..~~al of a rnaior amendment to SDD #4 is necessary in order to allow the expansion without the utility undergrounding requirement. III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRi i trRIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District {SDD) development standards set forth in the special devel~rY..ern district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhaad and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The approved office square footage {2800 s.f.) will not be increased by this amendment. The proposed enclosure does alter the approved architectural plans. However, the proposed enclosure will be consistent with the architecture, scale, bulk, and height of the existing building and will not negatively impact any of the other criteria listed above. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposal does not change the uses, activity or density of the approved plan. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The site currently contains 53 surface parking spaces. With this Phase I addition, 1.6 new parking spaces will be required. The new parking requirement will be 42.2 or 43 parking spaces. No new spaces will be built, as the site currently has 10 excess parking spaces. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, T~~ ~r.. policies and Urban Design Plans. • Section 1.1 of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan relates to this proposal.. ' ~ "General Growth/Develonment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident." E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlar geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. No hazards are present on the Gien Lyon Office property. The site is affected by the floodplain, however, the development is not proposed in the floodplain area. 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. No changes are ~,~,~~,osed in this area. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. No changes are N~..~.osed in this area. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. No changes are proposed that would affect any of the above issues. The applicant agreed to upgrade the existing landscaping under the December 1990 approval. The staff would request additional landscaping be required to further screen the parking. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The December, 1990, amendment changed the t,~.,YOSed phasing plan. Rather than the entire 2800 square feet of office expansion being constructed in a single phase, the amendment allowed Phase I to be split into 2 pieces. Phase iA includes the 400 square foot deck enclosure and the undergrounding of electrical utilities. This amendment would delete the undergrounding requirement. The remaining 2400 square feet of Phase I will be completed at • ~ an unspecified later date. In addition, the remaining conditions, including the undergrounding, as stipulated in the 5DD for Area D, will be completed at the time of construction of any of the elements included in Phase I or II, IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All development standards have been met. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends aYY...~al of the request with the condition that a more extensive landscaping plan, which screens the existing surface parking, be part of the devel„Y.~~ent plan. The staff feels it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to underground the utilities at this time, due to the expense and the limited size of the expansion. We also support the applicant's desire to add landscaping around the existing surface parking lot, but feel that a more extensive landscaping plan which will screen the surface parking better should be a condition of this approval of this amendment. If addirional landscaping is required by the PEC, it will be reviewed by the DRB or staff. c ~pcc4namns~glettlyon.8l2 • < a, _ T sic ~~ '"- r -i ~' -~ " fir. _ ~ ~ -~ ` - d ._ . -:_ '' _ . •~ :- ~ . 1f ~ _ ~ ~ { p, t r ~ .. ~,. _i r . ~ Y ~4',~' .. ~ c s ' ~ ~' . ~'_' ~ - ~ . - -,rte-/~ i x f i,.. ~ ' ~ '}• i ~~~ ;r~;. fib'' 3~,`.'t '~. _ ~ - • ~~ ~fJ ,~ ~ 1 ~ tit t<, ,? ~ ~. "' `+q t F JT~, ~`' 1 . / ' ~ 1. Y F f /~~ i~' ~- t F+~~ - y ,1~.~ ~ l~~.y ~_ „` `+tS~ l ~ 4 3" J ~.1 'sa. ~yF~ ~' (t'F -_ ~ ~ g' .yr ~ ~ ei 1^ ~ > t l~ s .Y~Y ~ YSF .C+ '.~ ,..:..i'~' • _. .•..F.tii Ye.rr4y,~y~ ?~v. s, - bs"'C.' . - - ....IPA` .x d~ as~ '~ s ~ ~ 5 f Z ~... ~.._._ t' I ' ~~ ~-._. --- • 4 { ~ ' y ,. r~ r ., I t ~~ 1 I t ~l { ~ ~ i` % ~ j !~ `1F~ ~ _ . f ~ i V r r r '1 ~~ ,~ ~ ~ l .._. _~: ~ J~ ~ ~ ;zN ~~ . , ~ ~, s ... i E' r ,x i~ ,: f• ~~ 1 . ~: ~.. i .= ,. ; ~t :: •4; ~/ j . aJ,-,i x~~. • S MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Dsvefopment Department DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to extend for one year the Packwood Realty, Inc., irrevocable latter of credit for Vail Point Condominiums, Phase li, 1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Third Filing and Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Third Filing. Applicant: Steve GenslerNail Point Condominium Association Planner: Jill Kammerer pA' 4rw: .: r..~.~:.r« 3 ,oc•,~ckisi+. 1f . ~ ° ndA;'"'r . ~ ''~ dau.},;~~`" .°,~5~~'.c`f'•r.,u?~'~i".rc:.'r..'~ Steve Gensler, developer of Vail Point Townhomes, has requested aone-year extension to an irrevocable letter of credit in order to allow an additional year to fill and revegetate the remaining foundations located in Phase II of the Vail Point Condominium project. Phase I! improvements were to be completed by September 9, 1991. Under the proposed extension to the letter of credit, the developer would have until October 1, 1992 to complete Phase it development. All of the Phase I development has been completed, and Certificates of Occupancy have been issued. The applicant has made substantial progress. in completing Phase II improvements. Twenty units are in Phase II. Ten of these units are under construction and one of these units has received a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. The foundations which are to be filled and/ar revegetated are associated with the remaining iD Phase II units. Mr. Genstar has indicated the delays which have occurred in completing the Phase li improvements are the result of problems with soil conditions and the amount of uncon#rolled fill. These soli conditions are tl~e result of the previous developers' construction activity in 1981-82 in the area where the amenities package is to be constructed. Staff is supportive of the applicants' request to extend this letter of credit until October 1, 1992. As a result of the soils and engineering analysis of the site, it is likely the applicant will be basic before the PEC at some later date to amend the Phase II development plan to modify the location of the amenity package {pool, clubhouse and tot lot) at some later da#e. c:lpeclrnemoslgenslar.812 • MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Deparhnent DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request far a wall height variance for the Samuels Residence, Lot, 11-B, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing/224 Forest Road. Applicant: Bernard Samuels Planner: Mike Mollica •'a .-.. frr3X` y. ~ ? ~ ~" ~g x ' ~ ~.! •7~. '~~~.~:ty.?~::Sf ~:cf~:<y:'' v o o '~ ~ ~"/ ]~~~",'/ue,~°~kJ~ r~,4S~' µ~~JE~ro~w'. 1.~ f~.~'~r~ E~`~ s T~~+ Yl~nr. ~:NF:~:•.: ~' r :~ r:"•.+'~ ~}:^fa~ : ' fx+fii+ 1~ 'o nr. ..... n....:3rr :. .. .. P.N'/.i!(.Mld<~G:$:4E .. ~i,.'C~:.~?! Ar'~! q I. DESCRiYIiON OF THE VARIANCE REOUES tali The applicant is the owner of Lot 11-B, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, and is requesting a variance from the maximum allowable wail height to provide for the construction of on-site surface parking. The property has an existing two story residence located upon it, and • parking is currently provided in the form of two surface spaces immediately north of the structure. Access to this existing surface parking is provided via a 10-foot wide asphalt driveway, which has an average slope of approximately 22%. The driveway slope exceeds 26% at the lower, or northern portion of the drive, just south of the connection to Forest Raad. The proposed parking scheme would provide for two on-site, surface parking spaces and an enclosed trash facility. Access to the parking area would be provided by an asphalt driveway, with an average grade of 10%, connecting with Forest Road. The parking azea wauld be located at a right angle to Forest Road, and would therefore solve same of the problems which are currently encountered with the existing switchback configuration of the driveway. The existing grades, in the area of the proposed surface parking, currently average approximately 3$%. Although the applicant is proposing to step the retaining walls on the south and west sides of the parking area, a variance from the maximum allowable wall height is still required in order to provide surface parking in this area. Section 1$.58.020(C) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for a maximum wall height of 3 feet within the front setback area, and up to 6 feet on any other area of the property. This section of the Code reads as follows: "Fences, hedges, walls, and landscaping screens, where not restricted by covenant or • other legal instrument, shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area and shall not exceed six feet in height on any other partian of a site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls, or landscaping screens may be authorized by the zoning administrator where necessary to screen public utility equipment." All of the proposed retaining wails would be located within the front setback area, and the maximum retaining wall height proposed would be 7.8 feet. This situation would occur at the southeast corner of the t,~.,rosed on-site parking area. Hence. the apvlicant is recauestina a variance to exceed the maximum allowable wa11 height by 4.8 feet. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. This lot is located within the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. B. All of the adjacent properties, to the north, south, east and west, are zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. Forest Road is located immediately to the north. C. The applicant is proposing no modifications to the existing single family residence, and hence, there will be no change to the GRFA, site coverage ar any of the other development standards. • III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Secrion 1$.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Cade, 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 is proposing atwo-tiered retaining wa11 system for the south and west retaining walls. This stepped retaining wall would allow for landscaping to be planted within the 3-foot step. The applicant is proposing to plant a minimum of eight 2 to 2-112 inch caliper aspen, and additional shrubs, such as juniper, honeysuckle, Mugo pine and potentilla within this area. Please see the attached site plan for the specific locations of the plants. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to face the south and west, lower concrete retaining walls with a rock or stone veneer. The entire east wall and • z the upper south and west walls would be stucco with a matching stone cap. It is the staffs osition that the requested variance, if approved, would not P adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties, and would not block or impede views from any surrounding N..,~,erties. We believe the applicant's proposal to step the walls, to add landscaping between the steps, and to utilize a rock veneer and stucco facing on the retaining walls, to all be positive solutions to a difficult site planning problem. 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 existing vehicular access to this site is extremely, difficult, due to the fact that the average slope of the driveway ranges fi.,~~~ 22-26%. The applicants are proposing a new driveway and surface parking area, with an average grade of 10%, which the staff considers to be a reasonable grade considering the existing conditions on the site. We also believe the ~,~.,~,osed retaining walls are necessary to support the steep grades adjacent to the surface parking area. . The staff does not believe the granting of this wall height variance would be a grant of special privilege because of the steep topography on the site, which we believe warrants some relief from the development standards. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff finds that the requested wall height variance will have a positive impact on the issues of public safety and traffic facilities. We believe that the reconfigured parking area, which would access Forest Road via a right angle, is a much safer solution than the existing angled driveway off of Forest Road. The Public Works department has reviewed this proposal, and their comments have been incorporated into the final design. A revocable right-of way permit has also been requested far the improvements which are located within the public right-of--way. These improvements include boulder walls and a concrete stair and brick paver walkway system that would Yl.,~ide access from the surface parking area up to the residence. The revocable right-of-way permit will subsequently be reviewed at the staff level should the variance application be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. • 3 B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shad make the following • findings before arantina a variance: 1. That the granring 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 int;,~~,~wtation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in pracrical 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 r~.,Yerties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends arr~..val of the applicant's request for a wall height variance, according to the drawings submitted by Kathy Langenwalter, AIA, Sheet 1 of 1, dated August 5, 1991. It is the staff opinion that the property is encumbered with a physical hardship given the existing topographic conditions on the site, and we also believe granting the request would not be a grant of special privilege, and that the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff believes that the findings in Section III(B) of this memo, which are applicable to this variance request, would be findings 1, 2, and 3(b). It should be noted that the following must be completed prior to the issuance of a Town of Vail building permit: 1. The proposal must receive final approval from the Design Review Board. 2. A revocable right-of-way permit must be secured from the Town of Vail. c:~pec~rnemos~amuels.812 4 • EXISTING RESIDENCr= r ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~a' `*~, `~,,,~ , I L, _ ~ ' +f ~b r •~ ~- - - ~wr~ ;~ -gyp , {z ~C__- ~-- . ~ ,b ~~ ''~"` ~~~ Ate. ~ '..n;.4 , . '~_ ~ ~~.~- ~ ` ~ ~ ~ 1 ~, a. - , k2 ~ ~~~ ~.gs \~~ !'~ MCI / ~~ ~ a ~ -_ -_ .- ~~_ _ ~ ~ , ~ ~:~ --- ~ -`~ -- _~ ~~ _ ~~ ~_ ~' -- -- ~- L~ i+ 1 r~ ~~ _-- ~ ~j~ Iri ~° ~-- ----- 5Z -- I~ f ''-- ~ __ ~ , \~~ -~ AS ___ ,~ • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.58A20(C) -Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening of the Town of Vail Zoning Code Supplemental Regulations, regarding enforcement of covenants restricting fence heights, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer R. ry,~ ,.~e,.,,~ Ff~iG°` io~~0<t°%°*d° 10~ '°7,ir~` '~~~ka~f,~cc°4'''a"~~G:~{~,G .iy~ '%r;•r,.;c: c;.;;;•{.r~: y ~ i.~ r ,; $'J$~ .0~~:. ~.. 3'~+,~,$r ~OI'./~fi%h.'''~ry [i' °G h~ ! ~~iNR1:vw. .. . ~ . ... :.a ':.o-$o-?~.s~~^~°~:~.~~:$:'~7s,'°k,=H~A i ~A}~ ~': f. YE./e4 W°. Rv¢i~' !l~~i~.llvC6.Ot~. 11i~. .. ~Ix' Section 18.58.020(C) of the zoning code reads as follows: "f=ences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens, where not restricted by covenant or other leaal instrument, shalt not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided ..." . The Town of Vail does not enforce restrictive covenants or any other legal instrument to which the Town is not a party. 1=or this reason, staff requests Paragraph C be repealed and re- enacted to read as follows: "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet in height within any required setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided ..." c:Ipeclto~Ifences.812 • -+ .. MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to create a new Chapter 18.57 of the Municipal Code - Empbyee Housing, to provide four types of employee housing units and to set specific developmentlzoning standards for employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica/Jill Kammerer ` ~~ ~~ ~ t4d'r- - - ` ~ ~ >.c4~c.' '~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ c.:t 1' .o:. . 5 a ~t°~~'~~d3~ .,yiuo> ,~~ ~ ~o~s x .o . A3?~: ">~ rv r.~ 4oGa~xr .3rf^ ~i.. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY In January, 1990, the Town of Vail, assisted by the consulting firm of Rosalil, Remmers, Cares (RRC}, of Boulder, Colorado, began the task of developing an affordable housing study for the Town. A goal of the study was to provide a series of policies and recommendations addressing the community's need for expanding the supply of affordable housing for both • year-round and seasonal, local residents. The Town Council immediately established a Housing Task Force. Council appointments to the Task Force included representation from the Council, the P{arming & Environmental Commission (PEC} and members of the community at large. Following months of study, work sessions and public hearings with the Council and the PEC, the Town of Vail Affordable Housimg Study was umanimously approved (by a vote of 6-0} by the Town Council on November 20, 1990. On March 25, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission, by a vote of 6-0, unanimously recommended approval of the staff's proposed changes to the zoning code for the provision of employee housing units. Since that meeting, the staff has re-evaluated the organization of the different types of employee housing units, for inclusion into the zoning code. Attached is a draft Ordinance which provides for the following: ~ . The creation of a new Chapter 18.57, entitled Employee Housing. 2. The addition of two new definitions, which shall be included in the definition Chapter of the Municipal Code (18.04), entitled "Employee Housing Unit" and "Bathroom." 3. The provision of four types of employee housing units and setting forth the details with regard thereto. The employee housing unit types shall be designated as Type I, Type II, Type 111 and Type IV. C I}. DISCUSSION • A. Currently, the application fee for a conditional use permit is $200. As proposed in the attached ordinance, the Type II, Type III and Type IV employee housing units would all require a conditional use permit. The issue here is whether the Town should waive the conditional use permit application fee for the three types of employee housing units listed above. Staff believes that the fee should be waived. B. The 250 Ordinance, as set forth in Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code, currently provides for an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA to dwellings which meet certain standards. One of those standards is that at least 5 years must have passed from the date the dwelling unit was issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, or a minimum of 6 years must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the construction of the dwelling unit. The issue the staff would like to raise for discussion here is whether the Town should allow the immediate use of the 250 Ordinance to those applicants who would propose to apply the 250 sq. ft. of GRFA to employee housing units, as stipulated in the development standards set far the Types I, II, 111 and iV employee housing units. Staff supports the use of the 250 Ordinance without the 5 year waiting period. C. Attached to this memorandum is a fetter from an outstanding member of our community, Ned Gwathmey, dated July 15, 1991, to Kristan Pritz, the . Community Development Department Director for the Town of Vail. Mr. Gwathmey's recommendation is that an additional incentive, besides the proposed density bonus, should be granted far those applicants proposing fo add an employee dwelling unit on their property. Mr. Gwathmey recommends that GRFA bonuses be granted to those requesting such employee housing units. The issue for discussion here is whether the Town of Vail should provide GRFA bonuses for applicants proposing to add employee dwelling units on.their properties. One idea for providing this incentive would be for the Town to grant a GRFA bonus of up to 100-150 sq. ft., and it would be required that an applicant match this GRFA by utilizing some of the allowable GRFA for the property. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In order to implement the phase I recommendations of the Town of Vail Housing Study, staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance. The recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be forwarded to the Town Council during their review of the Ordinance. We recommend approval of the changes as written in the attached draft ordinance. Staff will include the above items II(A-C) in the ordinance once the PEC makes their final recommendations. capecltovlhausing.e i 2 • 2 .. .~ -. ~~ July 15, 1991 Ms. Kristen Pritz, Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vaal, CO 81657 Re: Affordable Housing Units Drafted Ordinance Dear Kristen: The draft ordinance, specifically AHU Type 1 for Affordable Housing in the primary/secondary zoning, lacks any incentive other than allowing a second or third kitchen. I suggest many • owners would add a unit which would meet all the conditions and be available for long term rental if square footage in excess of GRFA, 425, etc., were to be given. T suggest an employee unit cannot be much less than 40D square feet and that the allowed 425 per unit not be applicable. T have a number of clients who are absentee owners and would build caretaker or au pair units but not at the expense of reducing their accommodatians. Y think we should encourage and give incentives; otherwise, the time/energy/paper is wasted. The end, i.e. employee accommodations, is worthwhile. Please don't hesitate to ca11 if you want additional free advice. Sincerely, ARNOLD/GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. Edward M. Gwathmey, ATA • EMG/ad copy to: Steve Kirby Mike Shannon Walter Forbes • ,~ r'~ town of nail 75 south frontage road nail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 (303) 479-2139 August 12, 1991 Mr. William A. Wood District Ranger U.S. Forest Service Holy Cross Ranger District P.O. Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645 Re: Private Development on Public 1Lands Dear Mr. Wood: office of community development I am writing to you on behalf of the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and the many Vaii area residents who are concerned about continued private development within the boundaries of our public lands. I understand that there is a fine and sometimes unclear line between the rights of a public land agency and the rights of those owning private property within a U.S. Forest Service, BLM or National Park Service area. However, we urge you to continue to work for federal legisla#ion which would provide for continued federal acquisition of private parcels and mining claims throughout public land areas. From a regional perspective, we have experienced inholder impact frequently within the White River National Forest, including the Eagle's Nest and Holy Cross Wilderness Areas. Currently, we are facing further private development with the proposed construction of private cabins on mining claims located south of the Beaver Creek ski area. As you know, such development directly effects the many natural elements of a region and significantly diminishes the wilderness experience for which these lands are intended. Inholder property rights have long been the subject of debate and concern for federal public land agencies. As residents of a mountain community and commissioners charged with the mission of minimizing the impact of development on our region's natural features, we join you with concern regarding the matter. r :. ~~ Mr. William A. Wood • August 12, 1991 Page 2 As you work to balance the many uses of our public lands, we support the preservation and protection of the natural state of these lands for future generations, as well as our own. Thank you in advance for your efforts, and please keep us apprised of your perspectives and progress at a federal level regarding this issue. Sincerely, Diana Donovan Chairperson, Town of Vail Planning and 1=nvironmental Commission cc: Vail Town Council Ron Phillips Eagle County Commissioners Eagle County Planning Commission • • • • .w MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Housing Authority FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Joint worksession with the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Housing Authority concerning employee housing requirements for Special Development Districts (SDDs) and the proposed zoning code amendments related to providing employee housing. Y. J~' r .~tE".'.str•~v'c`~~van~,xv3.;•,~.9;:~.'d.'!rkFx"tY#~c.'Cy'''~`~:3+•~ur ~:^.`.~~:a:! o`.rS':ocy„v..:• :#%l.`.~3;~p~•~'~i'?i' ~~iA`~° 'b~.`'~,od•~~h 'fl`.^~F'.~`'.~'~...^7I~'~F~ Y,~'pr ?r !~ry:i:'Y;jr S<: ~;~,fyCCx_y.~. o} ::::::.::...:: ~~r~::..v~..~y;.,~,,.~.~5.:?rv,..!~.: ~• ~:rb~',~j`'° °'¢~~'~?~r,.~.,•.f ?$ .~~~3~.' ~ b':& •~ ,~iF~;yc~.E•rk.~.ooo~ gib, r ~' +Gi ;{ ~N ,7. '{:....:.4 ~ • i< ~~.~,q.:~¢q,S.~J;: s4'.~{I{ ~ ctr {u~',,r~~.ny':['~j+~` S ~~l%"'~r`Sc` : n' C~ ~o e~~~n /~'.ht~ y..~yy'f ~~...xfh:../.Sf~.... ~: ~r .:.1:`. n.:u:..G:~.i~:(~..+.::f n-:,.......,.. 53,.... 'a::s..:,,.:.,~,:hi.4camw3:~sv:,~.~#~~iY::„~: ~~no-u.~'S'obakv:cW:',a~..^.i Attached to this memo is the draft report from Rasall, Remmen and Cares concerning the suggested approach to applying a formula for generating employee housing, based on the type of commercial andlor residential development. This information will be utilized in a zoning code amendment concerning Special Development Districts. Below is a list of questions which will be helpful to answer in order to proceed with revising the employee housing section of the Special Development District chapter of the code. 1. What type of projects should be required to provide employee housing? Any SDD? SDDs which exceed allowed residential andlor commercial square footage? Variances, etc. • 2. What percentage of employee housing is appropriate to require? 3. Should a developer be able to satisfy an employee housing requirement wi#h payment in lieu or a donation of land as opposed to actually constructing a unit? 4. Should a developer be able to place restrictions on existing units in order to satisfy an employee pausing requirement? 5. Is it appropriate to include provisions that relate to the amount of rent that may be charged for required employee housing units? 6. Should required employee housing units only be used for long-term rentals, or should for-sale units to employees in the Town of Vail also be allowed? The Council and Planning and Environmental Commission have discussed these issues in general. The purpose of this worksession will be to get definitive direction an the above questions. [. ~ .1` • RC}SA1.L REMMEN CARES PLANNING, URBAN DESIGN ANp RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kristan Fritz and Members of the Housing Authority FROM: Chris Cares Rpsa~tPEr.^~"AL"NaNE'JCARE~ iNr ?:2F PEFRL. STAEE' ..".1 raL'.. Soil ~.p~R CC?LCP~ApO 8~~'372 ~~^3: 4.fg-E^~2 1ltE: Suggested Approach to Applying a Formula for Employee Housing DATE: July 1S, 1991 (Revised) Attached is the report describing the results of the Rosall, Remmen and Cazes, Inc. (RRC) analysis of commercial and residential employment generation rates. The report documents the levels of employment that are found in resort towns based an a comprehensive analysis conducted in 1990191. Its purpose is to provide background information and the more technical underpinnings for the recommendations that we are presenting in this Memorandum. In the discussion that follows, we have identified what we consider to be important considerations for the Town of Vail as you consider alternative formulas for evaluating and regulating new development in the Town. On page 4 of this Memorandum we have presented a chart that summarizes the results of the Background Analysis Report and suggests ranges that might be used as standards by the Town of Vail. It is anticipated that a chart similaz to this, but without the specific identification of RRC findings, might be adopted into the Town's Land Use Code. The chart could either be a part of the SDD requirements, or "free-standing", meaning that it could be used to determine requirements far other processes beyond just the SDD section. Clearly, we need the input of Larry E, and others, but our intention was W present the numbers in a flexible format. A first consideration is whether you want to impose requirements on just new cammercialllodging construction, ar on new residential that exceeds the amount of development allowed by the underlying zoning. The rationale for just commercial/lodging standazds is that these types of development are the source of both permanent and seasonal employees. Typically, unmanaged residential units result in construction employment during an interim period, and the expenditures for this development creates ongoing economic impacts in the community; however, once constructed, unmanaged residential units do not usually have employees. • ROSALL REMMEN CARES PLANN'~NG URBAN DESIGN AND RESEARCH We suggest that Vail adopt an approach that uses a formula that will apply to only new commercial and lodging related construction at this time. In other words, we believe regulating the commercial side of the equation is the most logical and expedient way to create standards. We have also identified some typical residential employment rates in the standards that aze attached, based on code provisions from other communities. This is to provide you with measures should you wish to include residential generation figures either at this time or at some later date as part of another section of the code that expands on SDD requirements. In a further consideration, you may also want to insert a section into the SDD Code that requires construction impacts to be addressed; however, it is our opinion that to try to create a formula to address what amounts to a seasonal problem, and one that is often of limited duration, is difficult. As shown in the attached report, there is wide variation in the numbers of employees that are typically generated by various types of commercial activity. As a result, we believe that the formula should differentiate between several categories of commercial activity. Ideally, you would identify enough categories to cover the majority of applications, but not try to create so many subcategories that we imply a level of precision in our measurements that we do not actually have. In addition, we feel that the requirement should be expressed as a range (as Aspen does it) with the opportunity for a particular applicant to justify the anticipated employment activity that will be generated by the proposed use, or mix of uses. We have chosen the categories of employment that are shown in the chart {for example, retail- grocery, liquor, convenience; or office-financial) based on our analysis. We found that there is wide variation in the employment generation rates that are found in resort communities within a single broad category such as "offices." Many codes do not make this distinction, but we felt that it was important in Vail to anticipate that employment rates will vary between, say, a grocery store and a ski shop. Both might be called "retail" but the standards should anticipate the diversity that exists, and ideally should be tied to the actual data collected from the resort towns. We have shown a fairly wide range on the table that follows below, which could be adjusted to be made narrower, closer to a "mean", or average. The range around the mean could be utilized by staff as a standard basis or criteria in the review. The applicant, if he/she believes the particular mean is not representative of his project, could then prepare and submit a report which documents anticipated employment as a part of the SDD (or any other Town process) application. Because one can anticipate that there will be pressures to underestimate employment it may be desirable to provide some guidelines in the code as to content and expertise required to prepare a report. For example, the report should present anticipated gross square feet and an estimate of "usable area. " This should then be tied to estimates of employees expected to be generated by the type of use. Finally, the applicant should be required to indicate why the requested standards deviate from the adopted Town averages (if they do), and to present some documentation of rationale based either an current local employment, examples from other comparable communities andlor land uses, and any other documentation that is deemed relevant. The report could be required to be prepared by a "qualified professional" (many ordinances have this requirement). The report would then be reviewed by the PEC and Town Council as part of the overall SDD. ROSAI.i_ REMMEN CARES PLANK?NG LfRBAN DESIGN ANU RESEARCH In the numbers that we have provided to you it is important to remember that the estimates were prepazed during the peak season. There is also multiple job holding that occurs, meaning that the new employee at a retail shop is likely to be working a second job. We have taken the multiple job holding into account in our standards, but have not tried to reconcile differences between summer and winter employment. We suggest that this be done through the percentage standazd that you adopt {3S percent, 30 percent or whatever). On the following page we have presented several categories of uses and a range of employment figures to serve as a base for discussions. As shown, we feel that it is important to differentiate lodge units from other types of new construction, especially in Vail, and these employment impacts are probably mast easily measured using numbers of roams. Further, we find that there are three identifiable "tiers" or thresholds of lodging employment that should be anticipated. Our formulas take the existing "real world" variations into account. We hope that this outline of standards, together with the supporting report, assists in your discussions concerning the appropriate requirements and approach for the Town. There is considerable data available to support our conclusions and we will be happy to provide additional information should the need arise. n LJ • L~ • RQSAt_t_ REMMEN CARES ~LAfVN~NG URBAN QESiGN ANA RESEARCH SUGGESTED EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES AND RANGES FOR VAIL ExPRESSED AS EMPLOYEES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET RRC RESEP,RCH OVERALL SUGGESTED AVERAGES RANGE BarlRestaurant 5.711000 s.f. 5-811000 s.f. Retail and Service Commercial 5.911000 5-811000 Retail: Grocery/LiquorlConvenience 1.8!1000 1.S-311000 Office; Real Estate Office: Financial Office: Professional/Other Conference Center Health Club ', Lodging* Local Government Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) Multi-Family Single Family Other: To be determined through the SDD process, upon submission of adequate documentation and a review of the application materials. 7.411000 3.111000 6.611000 NA NA 1.3/room 6.511000 i0.6/1000 NIA NIA 6-911000 2.5-411000 5-811000 111000 1-1.511000 .25-1.25/room 5-8!1000 9-1311000 0.4/unit 0.21unit * Lodging/accommodations has particulazly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and ievel of servicelsupport facilities and amenities provided. The standazds present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated that a definitive report will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. C7 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RA 1 ~'S A Background Analysis Based on Survey Research June 1991 :. RO$ALL RF141MEN CARFS EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES INTROD[7C'I70N This report summarizes the results of survey research conducted in several ski/tourism communities. It reviews the results from questionnaires addressed to employers that, among other topics, explored the relationship between the number of square feet (s.f.} in the commercial establishment and the number of employees working in the particular business. These surveys were conducted in Eagle (135 interviews), Routt (174), Summit (242), Pitkin (169), and Blaine {Sun Valley/Ketchurn-162 interviews} Counties and Estes Park (224}, The sample includes 1,147 commercial and governmental establishments ranging in size from the smallest to largest in the various counties. This information is presented to the Town of Vail to assist in discussions concerning the appropriate standards for adoption into proposed Code amendments, with particular application to the SDD process. A number of different "cuts" at the data are presented that aliow overall total measures W be developed, along with some figures describing the situation in Eagle County, and specifically within the Town of Vail. In addition to the various commerciallemployment figures, several other attachments have been provided. These include: ~ Excerpts ftam a report that provides an overview of "linkage" programs and describing the status of such programs in a variety of communities. Linkage is a term that is used to describe codes or requirements that tie new development to • requirements for providing funds ar mitigation to meet the identifiable impacts associated with the new development. Such programs are in various stages of evolution, and are relatively uncommon in the mountain towns. Nevertheless, there are proven examples that merit attention. A summary of the current Aspen and Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines for determining "Generation of Employee Units" by various land use categories. An excerpt from a field survey of establishments conducted by the Director of Community Development in the Town of Breckenridge. It is showing employment levels that are similar to those being obtained through the RRC study. ~N'bINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As shown in the Appendix tables and in the graphs on the following pages; there is wide variation in the number of employees generated by the vazious types of commercial activity. For example, the Figures portray the average number of employees per 1,000 squaze feet by business type, and they also show the average number of square feet per employee (both calculations combine two different measures of commercial activity}. The average number of employees in retail businesses in the skiltourist towns surveyed is I1.3 but the number of reported employees ranges ftam 1 to 155 per establishment. Obviously, it is difficult to generate a single measure that will perfectly describe • the situation within the wide range of retail establishments that exist. Similarly, the average number of employees per 1,004 s.f. was found to be 4.35, but it also showed wide variation. ROSALL REIVIMEN CARES PAGE 1 EMPIAYMEN'C GENERATION RATES . The figures portray results based pTi Ehe aggregate of all the resort communities. Although there was discussion of developing standards based on just Eagle County or Town of Vail employment patterns, the wide variation in businesses makes it difficult to develop a measure based only on local data. The regulations that were adopted in Aspen reflect the variations in employment levels by establishing ranges rather than fixed measures for several of the employment categories. On the other hand, some communities have chosen a single standard that they apply to all categories of business. Based on the data, the Town of Vail may want to consider an approach that uses a range. The results summazized in Figure 1 show that bar/restaurants, real estate, and construction all have relatively large numbers of employees per square footage. In general, the employment numbers from the resorts are somewhat Higher than same traditional measures that have been generated in other types of communities. We attribute the higher figures to the ski economy in general, and to the fact that these surveys were conducted during the peak winter. months. The retail economies in the ski fawns have been strong over the past several years resulting in relatively high employment levels per establishment, especially for those businesses that aze centrally located. In addition, it should be remembered that we are measuring the fatal number of employees at a .point in time. Many of these individuals may be working multiple jobs {we found an average of about 1.35 jobs per person) so there is some double counting that is taking place when the entire set of businesses is considered. We suggest that the tables that aze adopted in Vail should reduce employment levels to address multiple job holding in the formula itself. This calculation has been done in the table that was provided to the Tawn under separate cover. ~~~ RSAfl-iEN CARF~ PAGE 2 kT~v[Pi.OYMEPI'I' [3ENERATION RATES • • FIGURE 1 EMPLOYEES PER GROSS I ~QOO SQUARE FEET 10 9- 8 7 l w a a 3 2 1 Q L to V Syr C 4 a` ~ ~ 4 G W ~p ~r, ~ n ~( _ m FIGURE 2 SQUARE FEET OF COMIvvIERCTAL SPACE PER EMPLOYEE • ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 3 FMPLC?YMEPlT GEI~fERA'rION RATFS In addition to compiling figures on square footages, RRC tabulated data describing the employment pattern within the County and the Town of Vail. These results aze based on data provided by the State describing all businesses in the County that maintain unemployment insurance. These results show that within the County, the retail sector represents about 33 percent of all businesses, and about 27 percent of all jobs. In the Town of Vail the retail sector represents about 40 percent of businesses and about 30 percent of jobs. These results are useful and important in that they indicate in which sectors most of the development activity will occur. F~GUAE 3 Town O~ V~[t,/EACta CoUt~rrY EtvIPI.oYIumV'i' BY SIC COMPARED • • <096 3596 3096 .«~.~o«...+.+w.~ 2596 ",,.,. r c.:.sw ;,.a 2096 1596 ia% 596 096 ~~ ~ ~ CwMKT X ~! t , ss ~ T~.n of Yd !~ w * ~ Camty % el Jobs ®Tswn et Vsi % of Jobs The measurements for lodging should probably be based on rooms rather than square foatages. Again; the data indicate wide vaziations with several facilities having about one employee per 10 rooms, while others are at more than one employee per room. Vail properties are especially likely to have higher employment ratios. As shown in the attachments, the Breckenridge research showed .8 employees per room. Overall, the RRC database showed 1.09 employees per room. However, if just the permanent full-time employees are considered, the ratio drops sharply to .26 employees per room, or close to the one employee per three rooms figure that has been used by some professionals in past estimates. R05AE.E. REMMFN CARPS PAGE 4 • TA6LE II GOUNTIf CJILCULATiONS OF t MPLOYE~ G1;NERASiOH UNRS t..nd tine Category Residential Tourist Accommodation! Lodge Com m erdal • Protessionsll Ottice Retaill WholesalelServices Warehouse Manufacture tiestaurantl8ar Uttlltiesd~uasi Qovemmentai Other q.aRiFlcanoKS FoR gn!lcout~rir GENEiiATIOH: Employees Generated See Dcwpancy Standards 0.2 l0 0.4 employees per room 9.9 employees11000 s.t. = Zs~~ 3.5 employees11000 s,t.. ZS•s~ ~ , 0.4 empioyeesJt000 s.f. ~ 7$0 >~ 1.5 to 4,0 cmpioyees11000 s.f. 5,0 la 10.0 employees/1000 s.f. 1.5 to 2.5 employees/1000 s.t. Based on review of APCWA a. The abave l=mplayee {3eneration cxiculatian figures are intended to be tonsisteni with Section 8.109. Affordable Housing, of the qty Code and Sedlan 5-510 of the County Code. b. Employee generation for commerdal uses ahati 6e based an net leasable square footage (see De[iniHans] and shell be verified by review of the APCHA. a Affordable housing may be provided on the same site or on an alternate site from the proposed development, provided That credit shall only be given for dwelling untta located within the qty of Aspen ar the Aspen Metro Area, as thta area is atrrentiy defined by th6 AspenlPitldn County E3rowth Management Policy Plan. Appplicants proposing to provide affordable housing on an alternative site shall be required to demonstrate Its feaalbility through demonstrating that they have en In3erest in the property or dwelling units. and by spadfying the size and typo of units to be provided and any physical upgrades to ba accomplished. d. The Aspen qty Code tlrowth Management Section 8.106(3(4](d] refers to the Provision of Affordable Housing. This sedlon allows for the ^dvlce of the qtY Caundi's housing designee to be used io the deterrrrinatlon of the number a! employees the propo d devetopment is expeded to generate. The standards for employee genaratlon represent the rartauh levels of service which retied the types ni lodge aperatinns to exlatence or proposed for the qty of Aspen. This section allarva that the applicant be gtvert the opportunity ' ~ THE HOUSING/EMPiAYMENT FIGURES Fi2OM SNOwMASS VILLAGE Job generation rates end therefore; the number of employees generated as a result of development varies by the type of land uses which comprise the development. xn order to adequately determine the number of jobs which w~.ll result from a project, Lhn followwng job generation rates shall be applied to each type of use ~.n the development that creates a Winter time impact on the community. • • _Tvne of Use Commercial Office Multiple Family Single Family Hotel/Lodge Room Ski. Area Restaurants Ski. Area Miscellaneous Conference Center Health Club Others ~ia}~~r of 5.37 Jobs 3.78 Jobs 0.50 Jobs 0.30 Jobs 0.44 Jobs 4.58 Jobs 82.5 Jobs .7AhS GenPrBted per 1,000 interior square feet per 1,000 interior square feet. per Un_t per Lot per Room per 1,000~interior square feet per 1;000 skiers at one time 0.97 Jobs per 1,000 interior sq~~are feet x.47 Jobs per 1,000 interior square feet To be determined through sub- division or Planned Unit Development Process. B, T3>le number of jobs generated by all types of uses, as determined in Section A, shall be divided by 1.3, the average number of jobs per emgloyee, which will determine the number of new employees which will be generated. by the development. C. The Town Council has determined that it is desirable to house 60~ of these new employees in Snowmass vil~.age.~ ~ '} 4 work Sheet Employees Req:~ired for Vazi,ous [,'se Types • ~cc.GIF-~~ ri d~a~ Restaurants 6 examples 22.858 sq. ft. 126 employees 1 employee pet 1$x..43. sc~. ft. Retail General (2 ex.) 1.310 sq. ft. ~ ee er 131 s ft. to employees 1 employ p q• Ski Shops (6 ex.) 25.982, sq. ft. 79 employees ~. ernplayee per 341.54 sq. ft. Tatai Retail. 8 examples 28.292 sq. ft. s9 employees ~ ~. employee per 33,7.s8 sq. ft. 5 ex. (bank} ~~ 9.66 sq. ft. ~o°~V'' 44 emp~.oyees ~ 1 employee per 218 sq. ft. `D~ Fatal Retail anc3 offices, 14 examples 42.22Q sq. tt. 166 employees ~ 1 employee per 254 sq. ft. hotel Commexcia,~ {restaurant/retail/office) ~.o7s sq. fit. 252 employees 1 employee per 222 sq. ft. offices 6 examples a 3.928 sq. ft. 77 employees = 1 employee per 380 sq. ft. r~ U Hotels 3 examples ?33 rooms 592 employees ~ .8 employees per room r .~1~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 26, 1991 r AGENDA 2:30PM Site Visits 3:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Publlc Hearlnq 1. An appeal of a staf# decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops Condominiums, Lot f>, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Fllingl452 East Lionshead Circle. Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike Monica 2. A request for an exterior alteration of Crazy Shirts, Unit 2, Bridge Street Condos, Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge StreetlLot D, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Mainland Co., Inc. _~ Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District Na. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums/600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 ~4. A request for an exterior alteration for the May Palace, 223 East Gore Creek DrivelA part of Black 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Henry Woo Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 5. A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block #, Vail Village 1st Filing/395 Mill Greek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 6. A request for a side setback variance for the Bigelow Residence,. Texas Townhouses, 43 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 4B/Lot 4, Vail Village Fourth Filing. Applicant: Thayer Bigelow Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY 7. A request for a worksession to rezone property from Primary/Secondary to Low Density Multiple Family, generally located at 2239 Chamonix LanelParcels A and B, generally located north of Pine Ridge Condominiums. Appiicant: Erich and Lily 5chmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY 8. Appoint PEC member to serve as PEC representative to the Design Review Board. 9. Reminder of August 27, 1991 joint warksessian with Tawn Council and Housing Authority to review Rasall, Remmen and Cares report regarding number of employees generated by commercial uses and presentation on Employee Housing Unit zoning code amendments. The information on number of employees generated is proposed to be incorporated into the Employee Housing Unit SDD. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 2fi, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donavan Connie Knight Kathy Langenwalter Jirn Shearer Gena Whitten Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Amber Blecker Absent Ludwig Kurz The public hearing was called to order at 3:25 by Chairperson Diana Donovan. Ludwig Kurz was present to relate his opinion on item 1 to Diana, then left before the formal hearing. 1. An anneal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops Condominiums. Lot b. Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filina1452 East Lionshead Circle. Annellant: Treetops Condominium Association Staff: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica related the background of this appeal. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, clarified that whether or not a DRB ap~,~., gal had been given did not relate to the variance approval. Martin Shore, attorney for the Treetops Condorniniurn Association, said it was his understanding the variance was for gross square footage, and that 10 balconies had been approved in 1987. At this time, 7 of the original 10 units' owners had placed money into a fund for the construction. The Association was trying to finance the other three enclosures. If that was not possible, they might request a change to allow them to only build the 7 enclosures. Larry clarified that if this appeal was successful, it was questionable whether the variance approval for 10 balcony enclosures would cover this application since it had been changed. Bill Pierce, architect for the appellants, said that they were still requesting the original 10 balconies -that this was the same variance request. Diana Donovan reiterated this appeal was for the 1987 variance, and there were no changes proposed to that approval. Mike continued his explanation of the request, stating staff believed the variance had lapsed, and read Section 18.b2.080 of the Town's municipal code. He said staff did not believe that landscaping was a condition of approval for the variance request, but was a part of the exterior alteration approval. Therefore, construction had not been started within the one-year time limit on the variance approval. He said no funds had been expended for construction of the decks or balconies. Diana asked if there had been DRB approval of the Y~.,t,osal since June 1, 1987. Mike said • that an application had been submitted in March, 1991, which had triggered staff's int~;.~~etation regarding the variance. Kathy Langenwalter said she remembered seeing a DRB application for the balconies in 1987 while she was on the DRB, but that it may have been a conceptual review at that point. Mike said staff could find no record of any application, but also stated that even if the DRB had approved the proposal in 1987, that approval would have lapsed as well. Martin Shore said that the law was not the issue in this case, but it was a question of equity. He said there were mistakes on both sides, with the code stating staff "shall issue a variance permit," but staff had never done so. He believed the permit should have been issued if the code stated it was necessary. If that permit had been issued, and contained the language that construction "must commence within one year," there would not be this appeal. He said that the Association had done part of the construction associated with the request each year. Regarding whether the landscaping improvements were part of the original approval, he referred to a letter from Kristan Fritz stating that the site improvements were an important part of the PEC's decision to ar~.,.,ve the variance, and that it was important for the general site improvements to be incorporated into the plan. The Association believed those improvements were part of the approval. Mr. Shore indicated the Town should consider this appeal as precedent setting, but said that denying the appeal would be a dangerous precedent, in that the Association had ah-eady spent a considerable sum of money, but were not going to be able to complete the project. He also . said that when they took out the building permits each year, there was no discussion of an expiration of the variance. Carlos Phillips, Vice-President of the Condominium Association, and Board Member, said he owned three units in Treetops, including 2 in one of the stacks to be enclosed. He said he believed the Association had been a good citizen of Vail. He remembered that the Association had authorized the variance application in 1986, prior to the application being made. He believed the Association had completed the necessary conditions of approval and that the variance should Brill be valid. Gary Klein, a Board Member, submitted letters in support of the variance. He was an original owner at Treetops, and had found the ground-level patio to be basically unusable. He was not on the Board when the approval was original granted, but had been in favor of the application. He said there had been great disagreement within the Association about the construction, but now the majority supported the project. Gena Whitten left the meeting at 4:OOPM. Mr. Klein continued by stating the Association had made the requested landscaping improvements to the grounds, and they wanted to complete the project by enclosing the balconies. • Larry Eskwith asked if the Association realized that a variance was granted in June, 1987. • Gary replied that yes, they were aware of that. Larry then asked why no building permit had been applied for. Gary said there had been a battle within the Association at one meeting, creating bad feelings between members. They proposed phasing the project, and were able to get a majority of the members in favor of that solution. Gary said the disagreements sometimes were bitter. Larry questioned if there was a misunderstanding that a variance had been granted. Gary said there was no question in his mind, but perhaps there had been in the minds of others. Bill Pierce said it was his understanding the variance was conditioned upon landscaping, a change in the roof pitch, changes to the facia, balconies, overhangs and siding, and that there were substantial changes necessary in Phase I to make it appear like Phase II, the area where the variance was granted. He said the Association had acted in good faith, spending approximately $45Q,000 for the changes required as conditions of approval. Even though staff now contended that the improvements were not conditions of approval, the minutes of the meeting where the variance was approved, as well as letters from staff subsequent to that meeting, said the irnr,~~~ements were part and parcel of the apY,.,ral, and were not insignificant. He reminded the Commissioners that a condominium association never agreed 1d0% with anything, and that it was usually difficult to get any consensus, but that they had received majority support, and funds had been allocated to proceed with the project i.n phases. He did not think that the internal politics of the Association should affect the appeal, referring to the • minutes of the Association's meeting regarding the improvements. There had been approval to pursue the variance originally, and after it was granted, funds had been expended to satisfy the requirements of that variance. The fact that a "variance permit" had not been issued was a technicality, but it was also a technicality that the balconies were not constructed first; there were improvements made every yeaz since the variance was arr~.,ved. Kathy Langenwalter asked what had occurred at the DRB level. Kristan Pritz replied there was a letter in the file from Linda Averich, of the Treetops Condominium Association, which approved pursuing the variance in 1987. Since 1987, there had been approval to re-roof the property in September, 1987, for exterior renovations in August, 1988, along with other approvals. In Phase 1 (not the building for which the variance applied), there had been changes made to the planters, stucco, gutters, landscaping, the removal of the horizontal deck railing, and new. deck railing was installed. In Phase 2, two doors had been installed, wood awnings were removed, there was stucco applied, the wood balcony rails were removed and repaired. In August, 1988, drainage changes were made. In 1989, a PVC conduit was replaced, and in 1989-90, minor repairs were performed. Kristan asked if she had missed any changes. Bill Pierce said the dumpster had been enclosed, and the driveways rebuilt. Kristan clarified that those changes did not require building permits. Bill pointed out that they had been conditions of approval for the variance, and were one part of the continuing program of improvements. • 3 Mike reiterated that there were no conditions of approval on the variance, but the conditions . referred to had been for the exterior alteration approval, and noted that exterior alteration approvals did not expire. Mr. Shore said the owners had believed there were conditions on the variance approval, and stated that the Town had never inf.,~~~,ed them that the approval expired if not begun within one year. Connie Knight questioned the Association's minutes where there was discussion to remove the balconies fram the other improvements. She could not see where the two items were linked in the Condominium Association's meeting minutes. Mr. Shore pointed out where the two were linked in the discussions. After a discussion of various factors of the Association minutes, Connie commented that it looked like the Association viewed the site imt,..,~ements as normal condominium expenses, not a condition to satisfy any TOV requirement. Kristan said it looked to her like the Associarion was not guaranteeing that the balconies would be constructed, and were doing the other improvements because they needed to be done, not because they were a variance condition. Diana said that the Association may not have known the c.,.~~ct words to use in their minutes. Mr. Stone referred to page 9 of the Association minutes, where phases to the project were discussed. Jim Shearer asked if the appeal were granted, could the Association persuade the other three owners to also enclose their balconies? Carlos Phillips said there was one owner in Stack C who was opposed. Jim also asked how a new expiration date would be established if the appeal were granted. Diana questioned the definition of the term "diligently pursued." Martin Shore did not believe it was reasonable to expect a license in perpetuity, and asked that a date be set at this hearing. He also said the question of how many units would actually construct the balconies was an Associarion issue, and did not apply to the question of the variance. Diana said that all needed to be constructed, or the PEC approval did not apply. Kristan stated that the approval only applied to the enclosures originally proposed, but if they were constructed in the original area of approval, not all 10 would need to be constructed at once, pending DRB approval. Jim asked if the verbiage on the variance permit -said "diligently pursued." Kristan replied that no variance permit was issued by the Community Development Department, and that it is a problem in the code. Jim asked if it is ever spelled out to recipients of variances, or if they are notified in some way. Kristan said the only place it is addressed is in Section 1$.b2.0$0 of the Code. Chuck Grist asked what would happen if 9 of the 10 originally approved units constructed the balcony enclosures. Kristan said they could build if an active variance was in effect and the DRB approved the design. if the variance then expired, the 10th balcony enclosure could not be built without a new variance request. Chuck asked, then, if 5 could be constructed, and 5 not. Kristan and Mike both replied that could happen, as was outlined in Kristan's June 29, 19$7 letter to Tom Briner. However, if a building permit were taken out to construct all 10 • . units, and only 5 were constructed {or any number less than 10), no final Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. If only 5 units were given a building permit, then it would be acceptable. Chuck asked the appellants why they did not re-apply for a variance. Diana said it was a money issue, and Bill Pierce continued that it was also an issue of time, and that there was no guarantee they would receive it. Gena Whitten returned to the meeting at 4:50PM. Diana commented that this was a very confusing issue, and related that Ludwig Kurz had asked her to express his opinion upholding staff's decision. She said she was not sure what to do, since staff had not entirely followed the code with respect to the issue of notifying the applicant of the one year time limit. Her recollection was that the variance would not have been apt,~.,~ed without the improvements being made, but that perhaps the Commission had erred in not specifically stating they were conditions of approval. Kristan stated that the staff felt they had to take the posirion that the variance had expired because of the one year time limit. However, she expressed staff's willingness to see a compromise reached through the PEC review of the issue. Perhaps a one year extension r~~~~t the date of this hearing could be allowed. The Commission asked for an executive session to confer with the Town Attorney at 4:55PM. • The meeting was called back into order at 5:15PM.~ Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold the staff's decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/452 East Lionshead Circle, stating that the one-year time limit for the variance had lapsed, per Section 18.62.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. It was further stated that it had been the policy of the Town of Vail that no variance permit was issued when a variance was granted, and that the one-year time limit began when the Planning Commission voted to approve the variance, unless the decision were called up by the Town Council for review. In that case, the time would start when the Council upheld the PEC's decision. The motion was seconded by Chuck Crist. It was approved 4-2, with Jim Shearer and Diana Donovan opposed. Jim stated he agreed with the principle of the staff's decision, but believed that a permit should be issued when a variance was granted. Diana said her opposition to the motion was based on the fact that this was a very grey matter, and she believed the conditions had been met. Kathy Langenwalter added that she believed the appellants were aware they had a variance apYL.,~ed in 1987, and that a specific variance permit was not needed to inform them of that fact. 5 2. A request for an exterior alteration of Crazy Shirts, Unit 2, Bridge Street Condos, . Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge StreetJLot D, Block SB, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Mainland Co., Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums/6{)0 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 4. A request for an exterior alteration for the May Palace, 223 East Gore Creek DrivelA part of Block SB, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Henry Woo Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEr i ~,MBER 9, 1991 5. A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing/395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1.991 • (. A request for a side setback variance for the Bigelow Residence, Texas Townhouses, 43 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 4B/Lot 4, Vail Village Fourth Filing. Applicant: Thayer Bigelow Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY 7. A request for a worksession to rezone t,l.,~erty from Primary/Secondary to Low Density Multiple Family, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane/Parcels A and B, generally located north of Pine Ridge Condominiums. Applicant: Erich and Lily Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY Kathy Langenwalter moved to table the above items, numbered 2-S, per the indicated dates on the agenda. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, b-0. 6 8. Appoint PEC member to serve as PEC representative to the Design Review Board. After discussion Jim Shearer moved that Chuck Crist serve in Se tember, Connie Kni ht P g serve on the Design Review Board in October, November and December, and Diana Donovan in January, February and March. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. It was approved, 5-0. There being no further business before the Commission, it was adjourned at S:25PM. • 7 • MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FR: Larry Eskwith DA: August 21, 1991 RE: Appeal of a Staff decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops Condominiums I. FACTS On June 1, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) of the Town of Vail voted unanimously to approve a density variance and an exterior alteration in order to enclose eight (8) balconies and two (2) decks at the Treetops Candominiuxns. The approval of the PEC was called up by the Tawn Council, and was reviewed on June 16, 1987. At the hearing, the Town uncil upheld the PEC decision by a 4-1 vote, making the decision to grant the variance final an ~~ 1S, x9$7. No action was taken by the Treetops Condominium Association in furtherance of their variance after it became final. No Design Review Board {DRB) application was filed for the approval of any plans to enclose eight (8) balconies and two (2} decks as permitted by the variance, and no building per3nit was ever applied for or obtained. On April 11, 1991, Treetops Condominiums filed a DRB application in order to obtain a DRB approval for the enclosure of the ten balconies which were approv hraugh the granting of the variance in 1987. The Town Staff has taken the position that th approval which was granted nn June 1, 1987 anal made final on June 16, 1987 for the enclosure of the eight (8) balconies and two (2) decks at Treetops Condominiums project has expired, and therefore their application to the DRB was disallowed. The Staff based its decision upon Section I $.62.080 which provides a variance permit "shall lapse if construction is not coznrnenced within one (1) year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion". Obviously, almost four (4) years have passed between the issuance of the variance to the Treetops Condominium Association and its application to the DRB. II. ISSUE As the variance which was issued to the Treetops Condominium Association in June of 1987 expired, requiring Treetops to obtain a new variance if it wishes to proceed with the construction of the balcony enclosures. III. DISCUSSION The case law in Colorado is silent on this issue. But case law in other states makes it clear that it is not improper for a zoning commission to require a new application for the failure of an applicant to commence construction of a variance within a specific period. Ramsey Associates, Inc., Bd. of Adjustment 290 A 2nd 448 (1972); Alderdell Co. v. DeLorenzo 534 NYS 2nd 698 (1988 2nd Dept.; Kolt v. Zoning Board of Anneals 553 NYS 2d 24 (1990 App. Div., 2d Dept.). It is apparently the applicant's argument that because they have made certain landscaping, sidewalk, drainage improvement, and repairs on the structure, that they have somehow obtained a vested iritereste~ in the variance that can not be taken away even though they have not commenced construction on the variance within the one (1) year time limitation. This seems to be a totally fallacious argument. The variance did not set forth specific conditions which had to be met by the Association, and even if it did, simply proceeding with certain repairs or landscaping improvements would not cause the interest in the variance t[s vest. The applicant has had almost four (4) years within which to commence construction on the variance. 'T`his is not a situation where the ane (1) subsequent to the Town Council's appointment of the commission's grant of the density variance as required by the above ordinance (Section 18.62.080). However, we are advised that it is not unusual far the Zoning Administrator to not issue a written variance permit, and we presume that this omission has no substantive effect on the validity of the variance." I would argue that the applicant's presumption, as stated in this paragraph, is correct. It is not customary for the PEC or the CDD to issue a specific permit after a variance has been granted by the PEC. It is also clear that the applicant never expected to receive a permit and it has never requested one. I do not believe the applicant can. have it both ways. If indeed no permit was issued, then he was never given a valid variance. On the other hand, if a permit was issued then the one year time period has run. In my opinion, it is not essential that an actual permit be issued by the CDD after a variance is granted. Customarily this has never been done, and applicant's are pez~aaitted to go forward with their applicaLiorz Lo the I~It13 immediately after the variance has been granted. IV. CONCLUSION In summary, it is my opinion that the Town Staff was correct ixx the determination that the variance which was granted to Treetops in 1987 has expired because construction of the variance was not commenced within one (1) year of the date of issuance. I do not believe that there is any legal validity in the applicant's position that by doing certain landscaping and making certain repairs on their property that they have somehow obtainod a vested right to the variance that lasts in perpetuity. They have waited four (4) years from the date the variance was granted without commencing construction, and they should be required to go back through the variance process if they wish to go forward the variance at this time. The applicant's argument that because no written permit was issued so therefore the period of limitation never began to run is equally flawed. The applicant knew a variance had been granted, and the variance was granted in the same way that all variances have been granted by the Town of Vail. The applicant, in its own letter to me of April 10, has admitted as much. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence A. Eskwith ~ Town Attorney • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1991 SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to the Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/452 East Lionshead Circle. Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association Planner: Mike Mollica :u:.: •. ~crmx •> >••~ : ~f;~; g:xr .r.•a;~lJ,`~r%t.;c4.re~?:': "'~/':'S:>:'%rac.4•n:.?:;<~"}i:#.•:G~;:i:.~a:;f,: ~.:•Ev v~.6 y x :r'i~r:4::hYbY' 1 f,W "': ~•:~i`.!?r'06,:h. ; f!^.,^~~•ri •~i ~4:4:x :aG.".lF ~p%'!}Li? y:rF"rii' ~•:~.4,-.: ..-$'r~vir. 1.v,.:..:..~,:r ~~:r'W. '+~,rW .::.,9 ri :f :rW. v. 3+.G.:1•i.:ri. : r{ry,.. , ~:::vi'$~j. i r •,fi f.. ~, ~',F~~:i4. .r ~ yF ¢..4. ~l:. .:4fge•.ri: :{.. .\#F:..?: r.l•.?;. ~: rr?fr lr-,r.....fe~.:r f'•'S:Ji?J'W1-~~.?:S?;r.\? ~ vr.~::+.t9~ $'~~''r''ti?F: xfi:.. ~:i.~':,6Gl~ :~1: :5n,:¢:r.B :E:d1rJ.:9~Y, :-s.,~.a o.:y.. rf..:Irp:4;.f .~ ~..f.. ,:2. ;•;•: 5. r i'C Nr ~~:r :r~:~~r ./,::o.~.,~.:r.?.,~r '/.r..6~~:c:f r,.l. ~•.?,...•,.5 ..~:, .f: r: ~.,~+$: -r++?`s P/r.;r ~`.r.:: y: {rv.. f. f ra•3•x}r .C .cr.y:, ~, 6~', :..'~::f:c,..yl:'L::r^j~~. $i$.::~: t ~7i:,r : a r f.:c?~F.:c-: :a r... c"r :: :;.. ., ,?,. :•r.?*. ..G:,.,k.9%.r.%i; .J:..`:o-,..,r, ,rte: nbr~:G..; ., ; r r.,.}i,.€s..<~:xr : `}.'$:.-C.f~ :~ r~:&..:~:,..~.s,':s``~~,::r :• ~ ..:.:............x::~~..,a:: :G.!,..~'.:.~.:.!x:;,,%x\n'l'h4;F`;::rlo.. :r-I.~Frgf I.~...-S~:~f: :?h~f:'1,:.:, ..h.lylr.,:.,.o/.... .:-~~.. ~..y ,r °lr`? ~ .:. -.?. rr. ..,g.rr,.r. r9 ,f.c... r:.rd ~:r ~r:.:~ ??~6.... :?rr :+G..: ..~:~•::.:, :r.LS.. rr...~f Y: r.<f..:... •::a ~~tr•~?: ~•-..•.,•r •. : or r .:r:o...s`~:`~f.r,ro:.:... r,Gas.;.,..,f,,,..,..t::•.:-~ .. s.~....:..•:;.w?..:..,: ::e,c :.;cp::r-.:::xrrco:o..... ,.,..fi.; -rc•..;:ac„!~.';:""':. .rv. rv.1.d :. f>'a.}y.~.r!~..e... ?.ra...:..c.:...:. ..,r:..f•.:ccr.?6... .r9..:... ..wa•c;+rsR+ - :;wac.... r.::.: <:::.'^:•r..:....r. .. .. .~:...: ., • -L::A./:. .: :. r..I• I.tI.N:Y~ i err:: r. c ...;r..:. .. :. . r ~:. c .:r:.rr:~•'..•v :. ~n:I.~3':?:a:... r: ^....:.w.r.~xA :f.fi,~,.y;•L?~. »..,.. F .... .. ... ..:7rrtr,.:?:•.: DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Treetops Condominium Association is appealing a staff decision regarding a previously approved density variance for the Treetops Condominiums, located at 452 East Lionshead Circle. It is the position of the staff that a density variance granted by the Town in 1987 for the enclosure of ten balconies in the Treetops project has lapsed. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.2.080, Permit Issuance In Effect, "the permit shall lapse if construction is nat commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion." II, BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. On June 1, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted unanimously (6 - 0} to approve a density variance and an exteriar alteration in order to enclose eight balconies and two decks at the Treetops Condominiums. The staff had subsequently recommended approval of the exterior alteration and denial of the density variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission action on this density variance was called up by the Town Council, and was reviewed at their June 16, 1987 public hearing. At this hearing, the Town Council upheld the PEC decision by a vote of 4 - 1. • • C. During March of 1991, the Treetops Condominium Association filed a Design Review Board (DRB) application in order to obtain final DRB approval for the enclosure of the ten balconies that were previously approved in 1987. D. On April 11, 1991, David F. Murray, of Hellerstein, Hellerstein and Shore, attorney for the Treetops Condominium Association, filed a written request to the Tawn Attorney requesting that the staff allow the Treetops Design Review Board application to proceed through the planning process. E. On April 18, 1991, Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, reaffirmed the staff position that the variance which was obtained in 1987 was now expired. It was also pointed out in Mr. Eskwith's letter, that if the Treetops Condominium Association still desired to move forward with the balcony enclosures that it would be necessary for them to proceed through the planning process at this time. F. On April 19, 1991, the planning staff advised Bill Pierce, architect for the Treetops Condominium Association, that the request could not be scheduled before the DRB because the 1987 variance approval had expired. G. On May 1, 1991, David F. Murray, attorney for the Treetops Condominium Association, filed a written appeal of the staff's decision regarding the 1987 variance approval. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the staff's position that the density variance that was approved in 1987 for the Treetops Condominium Association to enclose ten balconies has lapsed pursuant to Section 18.52.080 of the Municipal Code. The staff does acknowledge however, that the Treetops Condominium Association has made site improvements such as landscaping to the Treetops project, since 1987. While we applaud the Association's efforts to upgrade their property, the staff believes that such site improvements were not relevant to the 1987 density variance, nor were said site improvements a condition of the 19$7 density variance, and therefore the site improvements should not be considered a commencement of construction. c:~ec~memos~treetops.6! 0 2. HELLERSTEIN, HELLERST1;iN AND SHORE, P. C. ATTORN EY$ A7 tAW LOUIS A. HELLERSTEIN 1139 pELAWARE STREET STEPHEN A. HE=LLERSTEIN P, p. sox 5637 MARTIN H. SHORE JANlCE HOFMANN CLARK DENVER, CO LORApp X0217 EDWARD P. O'BRIEN ROBERT E. MARKEL ~'~ -~ TELEPHONE ROBERT W. SMITH {3031 573-1080 SALLY K. ORTNER DAVID F. MURRAY TELECOPIER EMMY H. STONE (303) 571-1271 BARBARA P. KOZELKA MICHAEL A. VELLONE 1991 May 1 DAVID A, SHORE , VIA UPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Mr. Mike Mollica Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Raad Vail, Colorado 81657 In Re: Treetops Condominiums Density Variance Dear Mr, Mollica: We are writing on behalf of our client, Treetops Condominium Association ("Associ- ation"), concerning the density variance granted to the Association on June 16, 1987 in connection with the enclosure of certain balconies in the Treetops project. As you know, we recently wrote to the Vail Town Attorney, Larry E. Eskwith, concerning his position that the density variance had lapsed pursuant to the Town's ordinances. A copy of our letter to Mr. Eskwith dated April 11, 1991 is enclosed. On April 12, 1991, Martin Shore of our office and I met with Mr. Eskwith to discuss the substance of our letter and to review the documents and materials referred to therein. At our meeting with Mr. Eskwith, we expressed the Association's position that the variance granted in 1987 has not lapsed based upon the fact that the Vail Planning Commission conditioned its approval of the variance upon the Association's agreement to make other substantial improvements and repairs to the Treetops project and that the Association has spent in excess of $300,000 over the past four years in completing those general site improvements. However, Mr. Eskwith advised us that it is his position that the Association failed to meet the requirements of the Town's ordinance which requires that construction contemplated under a variance must be commenced within one year of the date of issuance of the variance. Accordingly, Mr. Eskwith reiterated that any Design Review Board Application submitted by the Association to the Town for approval of certain changes in the architectural plans would be pointless because the variance had lapsed. Therefore, the Association elected not to submit to the Town the Design Review Board Application recently prepared by its architects, Friztlen, Pierce, Briner. Mr. Eskwith confirmed his position on this matter by a letter sent to us dated April 18, 1991, a copy of which also is enclosed. The Association wishes to appeal the decision of the Town in this matter. Accord- ingly, please consider this letter as the Association's request for an appeal from the Town's administrative action pursuant to Vail Town Ordinance 18.66.030 which provides as follows: Appeal from any administrative action or determination by the town manager or the zoning administrator pursuant to provi- sions of this title may be filed with the Planning Commission by any resident or property owner within twenty days follow- ing such action or determination. HELLERSTEIN, HELLERSTEIN ANb SHORE, P. C. ATTO RNEY$ AT LAW • Mr. Mike Mollica May ], 1991 Page 2 We recently discussed with Mr. Eskwith the propriety of filing an appeal of this matter in view of the fact that we are uncertain as to whether there has been any "administrative action" by the Town from which an appeal may be filed. While Mr. Eskwith was of the opinion that our informal meeting with him did not constitute admini- strative action by the Town, he recommended that we file an appeal with the Planning Commission in order to preserve the Association's rights. In discussing this matter with you, you advised us that you believe our meeting with Mr. Eskwith did constitute adminis- trative action by the Town and that an appeal of Mr. Eskwith's decision could be filed with the Planning Commission under the above-referenced ordinance. In our conversation with you, we discussed the f act that the plans which served as the basis for the Planning Commission's approval of the variance in 1987 have been revised. Because of the revisions, the Association recently prepared the above-referenced Design Review Board Application in order to obtain the Town's approval of such changes. It is the Association's position that the revised plans affect matters which would only concern the Design Review Board and that variance considerations have been unchanged. In this regard, you indicated that a certain owner in the project has expressed opposition to the proposed balcony enclosures for various reasons, including the fact that the plans as originally approved have been changed. We understand from the Association's architects that the variance granted in 1987 contemplated enclosure of ten balconies located in the portions of the project referred to as stacks C and E. Each stack consists of five units. The revised plans still contemplate enclosure of all five units in stack E and the ground-level unit in stack C. Accordingly, the Association merely wishes to proceed with enclosure of six of the ten balconies originally approved for enclosure by the Planning Commission. We believe that such changes in the plans do not implicate variance considerations. The Association's position concerning the continued validity of the variance is set out in detail in its letter to Mr. Eskwith dated April 11, 1991. We reduest that the Planning Commission include that letter in its consideration of this appeal and that the matter be set for hearing. If this matter is set for hearing, please provide a Notice of Hearing to the undersigned. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, HELLERSTEIN, HELLERSTEIN AND SHORE, P.C. ..--~ ~ ~ ~ ~f`. - David F. Murray DFM/1 jc Encls. cc: Mr. Carlos Phillips -Via Telecopy Mr. Bill Pierce Ms. Marvel Barnes 40UIS A. HELLERSTEIh STEPHEN A. HELLERSTEIN MARTtN H. SHORE JANICE HOFMANN CLARK EE3WAR0 P. O'BRIEN ROBERT E. MARKEL ROBERT W. SMITH SALLY K. ORTNER t}AVID F. MURAAY EMMY N. STONE BARBARA p, KOZELKA MICHAEL A. VEtLONE DAVID A. SHORE riELLf aSTEIN, HELLEftSTE1N AND $i-IORE. P. C. ATTOpiJEYg AT LAW 1{39 DELAWARE STREET P. O. BOX Sfi37 OENVER~ COLORADO 8g2i7 TELEPHONE (3031 573-1060 TELECORiER (303) 571-i07! April I1, 1991 Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire Vail Town Attorney 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $1657 1•n Re: Trcctops Condominiums Density Variance • Dear ARr. Eskwith: lYc arc writing on behalf of our client, Trcctops Condominium Association ("Association"}, concerning the Vail Town Council's affirmance of the Planning and ~ Environmental Commission's ("Commission"} grant of a density variance on June 16, 1"987 in connection with various improvements and construction in the Trcctops project, including the cnclosurc of certain balconies. Since the time of the Camn11S510n'S grant of the variance, tltc Association has spent substantial amounts of ntoncy for improvcmcnts and construction contemplated under the variance and it now wishes to proceed with the balcony enclosures which constituted only one of many proposed improvcmcnts. Because the Association has slightly revised its plans concerning tEtc balcony enclosures, it recently prepared a Design Review Board Application in order to obtain the Town's approval of such changes. We arc advised that the changes reflected in the revised plans affect matters which would only concern the Design Review Board and that variance considerations have been unchanged. We understand that the Associa- tion's architects, Friztlcn, Picrcc and Briner, contacted the Town's Zoning Administrator prior to submitting the Design Review Board Application to the Community Devclopntent Department {"Department"} And were advised that it is your position that the density variance has lapsed pursuant to the Town's ordinances. The purpose of this letter is to offer additiana! background information and facts concerning the Commission's grant of tltc variance and the completion of certain improvements contemplated thereunder, and to request that you reconsider your position concerning lapse of the variance. The following is a brief summary of our understanding of the cltronology of events in conttcction ,with this matter. On or about May 25, 1987, the Association submitted an application to the Design Review Board requesting approval of an exterior alteration and density variance far the cnclosurc of certain balconies and a pedestrian bridge, as wcl! as redesigning and improvement of a lobby and lobby entrance. The application also proposed substantial improvcmcnts and landscaping of tltc project, including improvement and repair of LJ • i Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire April 30, ]991 Page -2- entryways, balcony railings and sidewalks. Enclosed with this letter and labclcd as Exhibit "A" is a copy of a memorandum dated Junc 1, 1987 from the Department to the Commission which outlines the Association's request for approval of the proposed cxtcrior alterations. Section 1 of that memorandum nutfincs the Association's specific rcqucst for the enclosure of balconies and enumerates the additional impravcmcnts which the Association had proposed. Sections 1V and V of the memorandum indicate that all of the proposed impravcmcnts to entryways, landscaping, lighting and new sidewalks were in compliance with and would further the purposes of the Urban 1.7esign Considera- tions for Lionshcad. in its recommendation concerning the cxtcrior alteration rcqucst, the Department's staff rccommcndcd approval of the cxtcrior alteration based upon the proposal's complianec with all of the Design Considerations far Lionsheid. Also enclosed and labclcd as Exhibit "13" is a copy of a memorandum dated Junc 1, 1987 from the Department to the Commission which outlines the Associaiion's rcqucst for a density variance to enclose ten balconies in tltic project. Section lV of that memorandum indicates tltic Department's position that the proposed improvements and general upgrade of the entire project would have a positive impact on uses in the vicinity. However, notwithstanding the proposal's attractiveness in terms of the Dc~trt- ment's alteration criteria, the Department's staff rccommcndcd denial of the overall rcqucst based upon its position that the granting of a density variance would violate the town's zoning regulations and ordinances. On June 1, 1987, the Commission met to consider the Association's applica- tion. At that meeting the Commission discussed the recamn~endations of the Dcpart- mcnt's staff and ultimately approved the variance on the fallowing three grounds as quoted from the minutes of the Commission's meeting: 1, Thcrc is minimal percentage of increased GRFA. 2. Substantial landscaping and substantial im- provements to the structures will be done in excess of that required.. (This is a major emphasis of the proposal and dots not include maintenance and upgrading which would normal- ly be required.) 3. Useable balconies an the same elevation as the enclosed baiconics will remain far cacti unit. Enclosed and labclcd as Exhibit "C" is a copy of the above-referenced minutes of the Commission's meeting on Junc 1, 1987. The Commission's decisson to approve the proposed cxtcrior alteration and density variance was upheld by the Vail Town Council on Junc 16, 1487. A copy of the minutes of the Vail Town Council's meeting is enclosed and labclcd as Exhibit "D." Subsequent to the Vail Town Council's decision upholding the Commission's grant of the variance, Tawn Planner Kristin Pritz wrote ~ letter dated June 24, 1987 to • • Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire April 1D, 1991 Page -3- the Association's architect, Mr. Tom 13rincr, wherein she addressed certain questions concerning the proposed construction. 1n that letter, a copy of which is enclosed and labeled as Exhibit ">r," Ms. Pritx stated that the genera! site improvements proposed in addition to the balcony cnclosures were "an important part of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the request." Subsequent to the Town Council's affirmance of the Commission's grant of the variance on .tune lb, 19$7, the Association commcnccd work on the various improve- ments contemplated under the variance. Specifically, between July 1987 and July 1988, the Association expcndcd approximately $195,OOD.DO for various repairs, improvcmcnts and landscaping contemplated under the variance. This work included major entryway 'smprovcments, installation of new balcony railings, new facia and other exterior im- provcmcnts a5 proposed in the Association's original Design Rcvicw Board Application. 13ctwecn August 1988 and August 1989 the Association expcndcd approximately $55,000.00 on additional improvcmcnts and repairs contemplated under the variance, including enclosure of the walking bridge, substantial landscaping, new sidewalks, drainage 'smprovcments and balcony railing repairs. Since September 19$9 to tlse present, the Association has expcndcd approximately $31,OOO.DO on Further improvcmcnts and landscaping contemplated under the variance, including construction of a dumpster ~ enclosure. Additionally, the Association has paid approximately $15,000.00 since Junc 1987 for work done by its architects in connection with the proposed balcony cnclosures and other improvements to the project contemplated under the variance. This figure includes architectural scrviccs rendered in 1991. We would be happy to provide you with topics of account ledgers and billing statements reflecting the costs incurred by the Association for such improvcmcnts, landscaping and architectural scrviccs completed on behalf of the Association. Section 18.62,080 of the Town of Vail Ordinances provides as follows: The Zoning Administrator shall issue a variance permit when action of the Planning Commission becomes final, subject to SUCK conditions as may be prescribed by the Commission. The permit shall lapse if construction is not commcnccd within one vear of the daft of issuance and diligently pursued to compaction. (emphasis added) Our review of the Department's file on the Treetops project indicates that the Zoning Administrator never issued a written variance permit subsequent to the Town Council's affirmance of the Commission's grant of a density variance as required by the above ordinance. However, we arc advised that it is not unusual for the Zoning Administrator to not issue a written variance permit and we presume that this omission has no substan- tive effect upon the validity of the variance. The foregoing reflects that the Association has incurred substantial costs for improvements and repairs that were Specifically contemplated under the variance granted by the Commission and that many of those repairs and improvcmcnts were commcnccd within one year of the Town Council's approval of the variance and diligent- ly pursued as required by the ordinance. As you can sec, the Association has spent more than $300,DD0 on improvcmcnts which the Commission considered as the basis far its • r~ L _~ Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire April 10, 1991 Page -A- approval of the variance. As with most condominium associations, the Treetops Associa- tion is a relatively slow moving and inefficient political body. However, the Association deliberately commenced significant and costly impravcmcnts under the variance within one year of the Town Counsel's action and has compacted the ma jarity of the contcm- piatcd improvcmcnts in continuous stages up to this day. Quite simply, the Association first completed those impravcmcnts most important to the Town and now wishes to begin the final Stage of the proposed improvements -the balcony enclosures. Accordingly, we believe that the variance granted by the Commission remains valid and effective and that the Association should be permitted to proceed with the balcony enclosures, subject to the Design Rcvicw Board's approval of the revised plans for such improvcmcnts. We believe that our position is in accordance with the express provisions and spirit of the Town'S ordinance. As stated by Ms. Pritz in her letter to Tom Briner, the general improvcmcnts were an important part of tltic Commission's decision to ap- prove the request. To deny the Association permission to proceed with construction of those impravcmcnts which were of primary importance to it, after other improvcmcnts which were inextricably linked to the variance have been completed, would be unjust and frustrate tl~c essential purpose of the process. ~ As a side note, we are advised by the Association that the owner's wishing to enclose their balconies have agreed to convert their fireplaces from wood burning to gas burning in the event they arc allowed to proceed with the enclosures. foregoing to advise us of your position on this matter and whether the Association may proceed with its Design Review Board Application in connection with the revised plans for the balcony enclosures. Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated. P1C1SC contact our office after you have had an opportunity to consider the DFM/ jm Enc1s. Ycry truly yours, HELLERSTEIN, HELLERSTEiN AND SHORE, P.C. -~J~- David F. Murray ~ 0 • .~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community DeveJ.opment Department -;o DATE: June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to enclose 10 decks and redesign entries to the Treetops II Condominium Building Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association I. THE PROPOSAL The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting an exterior alteration and density variance* for the following construction at the Treetops II Fuilding (east condominium building): i. Enclosure of: 5 existing decks ~ ~~ sq ft per deck = 195 sc~ ft 2. Enclosure of ~ 5 existing decks ~ ~G sq L't per deck = 2~Q sq ft 3. Enclose pedestrian bridge, - i30 sq ft 4. Redesigning the existing lobby and creating a new lobby entry, - 2f30 sq ft The association is also proposing to do an entire upgrade of the existing project which would include: 1. An added protective entrance at the east entry. 2, An increase of landscaping along the bike path {south Side of the project). 3. An increase of landscaping at the west building entrance. ~. Additions of woad siding to the east building and remodeling aE the east building balcony raili.sigs to provide a visual consistency of materials, detail, and color between the two residential buildings. 5. An upgrade of exterior lighting. * A density variance a.s required for the 3.0 deck ericlasures, as the project is already over t}Ze allowable GRFA. Please see the memo concerni~~g the density variance far a more detailed analysis of this request. w ~x~k~~r ,. ~ ~ r~ ~~ TI. COMPLIAPlCT' SJITIi T}~lE PURPOSE SECTION} OF COh1t~i1:t2CIAL CORE II zoN>'~ vrsT}zlc~r Section 1n.2G.UlU purpose The Commercial Care II zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, ladgus, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II district in accordance with the Vail Lions}iced Urban Design Guide I~larr ~7nci [}esic~rl Cortsidaratians is interzc~ed to ensure adequate lirlht, air:, open space and other amenities appropriate to t:he permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. `1`}iis proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Commercial Care II zone district. lII. CUI~II'LI111dC1: 1~IT`i'If '1'}[E URI3AH DESIGN GUI[)E I'I.~11P! 1~'Ci12 I~iOtt:~til-::~,;._ ti '1'ttere are no sub-area c:onc:e[~ts that relate to this proposal . r. L IV. COl~ll'LIl1NCL•' WITI1 '1'I[I; URE3AN pESIGtI CONaI'I?I~12A'I'TOIIS FOR LIONStiE11D ~~ .~....~...__~ A. i•Ieiyht and h}assinrl: Th~.s_consider.af:iori_c'~cEpha_si_:es the creation of a well defined gra«ncl llr~Ur pedestrian area to overcome the c7i~~nn~~~f~~ecC al' tali buildii~c~s. It stiates i:hat "]auilciirJ ex -t~rr Sian:. shall generally be limited to one story and two stories or as can be demonstrated to have a j~ositivc visual and functional effect." Staff's opinion is that the improved entry ways, landscaping, lighting and new sidewalks will 1:urt;1-icr define pedestrian areas. The height ar~d massing of the entry is only one star.y which com[~lic=. ~~rit:ll t.lii:; consideration. 1l. ftoafs: slat, shecic__vau1L'eri or dome toots a~•e _ r._ . --------~~ --:----_--~-~-_.__ acce ~tzs}plc for huiidliu cx ]allSkans. :[t :~s inE so t: t:r~rit: ._1...-...._ ..___.._--------~--.....__.. ----.. Z -----._.......__...._._..._......._ I to inteclr~il:.e expan_ ia~rs wit:}~ exiatir~g }~c~.i.lct_inc~s_ __,a as ~a avoid a patc:fi_work~~."tacl;ecl~~an" c1u~'l..t:.y taz~___._. Lianshead. T ^--- J~ _ • The applicant has groposed an entx•y addition and decY. additions that are compatible with the existins~ condominium building. `t'he praposed entr.•y addit..iort e~ building Na. 1 1-7~a a fornt and pztch m.~tc:ltinc~ t~~~tC of L-1ie slapecl roots ~n both condominium builclinr~s. C. Fac~-~des -- Saalls Structure :_ Concrete:, concrr_te bloc~_t_ ~c~1JJt_nlc-'t~-ri stucco a7tci wood aze L'I~e is~:iUlar~' materials to be encouraged in Lionst-ead. This proposal complies with these ma ter:ia].,. 't'he entries will be stucco. tiorizantal waoci siding will be added to Building ~2 to match 13uildinr3 ~1. 'Prim colors and stain colors will match for both buildings. D. Facades~Transparency: 7.'his consideration addresses primarily ground floor commercial fac~~cle5 and encouracles the use o.f wincl~ows for storofron~s. Even though this proposal is a residential expc~~~:~io::, it should be noted that the new canstrucl:i.or~ 41i .t .f ~ have an adequate a-~~ount Uf transpar. envy throe+•tl:c~+::' the expansion. 't'he new e.r~try has mzrny wiir~tut~~:~, ~+r:~i shallow bay windows arse l~~rol?oseci tjt fire t'.er~ t.o~•:it:iUn~; _~ of ttie balconies for 't'rceLops Il. 1::. Decks and P~-rtios: 1'unctivnal decl~;s or_patias,- primarily for dininq~ware strong_ street ] ife element:.: in Lionshead_an_ci are lziuhly encaurac~ecltl.ori_c~.i_1~<~t,--.tl ground or second l:loar level.T~M~ Tllis cansicleration refers primarily to C:UIIr111C'CC:lil]. decks. As the applicant has statec.3, "tdciL•raw existing balconies vn fluilcling #2 are proposed to be enclosed by bay windows. These existin.~ balconies are not functional in terms of providing' seating for dining, sunning ar any other outdoor activity." Remaining deck and balcony railings on Building ~?2 are to be replaced with railings iuatcliing IIuilclinq #l. F. Accent Elements: Juc19.Gious use of colorfir.l accent elements, consiste~l.t w~L-h exastincJ .cl3.i--~ic•t~•~t~ r~f~ Licinslio~ici are encoiir_acjc~cl._..^ .. ...._. 'I'he applicant. has stal:ecl that, "'!'o assure that. tFret•e is na loss of reiiel• i:o the south facade ~~t iuilding • . ....~ - ~2 due to balcony enclosures, awnings are proposed to be integxal with the bay window assembly. Awnings ~~ will be canvas, with a color and pattern acceptable tQ Design Reviel~ 8aard. Additional landscaping at the west entry and alone the bicycle pate will include annual flowers and shrubs. *le!+r lighting is also proposed for the entire project. SrafF's opinion is that the accent element gui.dcline refers mc5tly to commercial areas. However, the lighting and landscape improvements will only improve the appearance of this project. Our opinion is th~~t the a~~ninc~s are rot necessary to r~ai ntain ~-E1 ? of to t?:e south facade. However, this is a Design fievie~.~ ~oarc: issue. G. Landscape Elements The proposal adds additional landscaping in the area of the west entry and cn the south side of the project, Staff believes that these improvements arp in compliance with this consideration which encourages the use of plant material, to accent buildings. ~ V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval cf the exterior ~r.lcur~L.~cn request. It is our opinion that the propcsa? cenp!ies with all of the Design Considertions for Lionshead. The project creates signific:~nt improvements to the Treetops project. ~. ,r'r ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to enclose 10 decks at the Treetops Condominium uuilding ~2 APPLICANT: Treetops Condominium Association T. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES R);QUESTED The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting a density variance to enclose 10 existing outdoor decks an the south side of the.buildiny. The 't'reetops Building #2 is the east building behind the Treetops commercial building. Five o€ these decks are 39 square feet each and five are 4G square feet each, which creates a total additional GRF11 request o[ 425 square feet. The existing GRFA on the site is 3G,3G9 square feet. The ~sllowable GRFA in Commercial Core II for this project is 30,952 square feet. The project is presen~iy over the allowable GRFA by 5,417 square feet. Tf this request is approved, the project would be 5,842 square feet over the allowable. • TI. BACKGROUND ON TFiE REQUEST zn August of 1983, the Treetops Condominium Association requested a rezaning of their property from }iigts i]ensity Multi--Family ( . Goj to Commercial Core II ( . F30) zoning. 't'his request was made in order to construct the commercial. expansion to the north of the two residential builciir~gs. Under High Density Multi--Family zoning, the project was allowed 23,214 square feet of GR}•'A. Due to the rezoning, the project is now allowed 30,952 square feet. The rezaning increased the allowable GRFA by 7,738 square fret. Irs January of 1964, the Condominium Association requested an exterior alteration in order to add the retail expansion above the existing parking structure. Tn July of ].986, a request was made to enclose 10 decks for an additional GRFA of 665 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the request. The Planning Commission moved to deny the request, as it was felt that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the additions. The vote was G-0 in favor of the motion. The 3'reetops Condominium AsSOCiatlOtl appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the To~an Council. The Town Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. EXHlB~' ~ !~ ': .. / -~- -~ /.. -~ rlr. ZaNZNG 5TAT~STICS Zane District: Commercial Core II Site Area: + 38,690 square feet* GRFA: {.80} Allowable: 30,952 s€" Existing: 36,369 s€ Amt. over allowable: 5,417 sP Proposed: 5 decks @ 39 sf = 195 5 decks C 4G s€ ~ 230 Total Proposed: 425 sf Amt over after additions: 5842 sf Total GRFA after additions: 3G,794 sL Units:' Allowed: 22 d.u. .~ Existing: 26 d.u. Proposed: 0 • Common Area: (20% o€ Allowable GRFA) Allowed: 6,190 ExistitYq: 4, 390 Proposed: bridge 80 ~, abby 2 6 0 Existing & Proposed 4,730 Remaining 1,460 Site Coverage: {700) Allowed: 27,083 5q Existing: 21,670 sf Proposed; 300 sf Exist & Addit. 21,970 sf Remaining 5,1].3 sf Setbacks Required 10 ft all sides. No impact with proposal Laridscapinq: (2D~ of site area required) Required: 7,738 sf Existing: 12,000 sf approx. Height: Allowed: 48' sloping, 45' flat Existing and proposed: same Parking: The units that have deck expansions gave existing GRFA totals that range from ].315 sf to 1326 sf. 'I'lie deck expansions of 39 sf or 4G sf do net increase the square footage above 2,000 sf whic}i is the breaking point far additional parking. * `T'otal site area was calculated by Bud Stikes, `i'he Engineering Graup, Inc. Property lines do not close, ;,o square footage is -~• 38,G90 square feet. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon revzew of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.G1.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The additions are compatible with the existing uses in the area. The general upgrade of the entire project will have a positive impact on uses in the vicinity. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforceurent of a specified rec~utation is necessary to achieve compatibiliky and uniformity of treatrnertt among sites iri tl~e vzcini~ or to atLa_in rltie objectives of this title wit}tout grant of special privilege. Staff's opinion is that this request would be a grant of special privilege due to the fact that there is no physical hardship which would warrant the variance. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove physical • hardship and the fact that the granting of the variance will not be a special privilege in order to get approval for t11e density variance. Due to the fact that it is difficult to make the arguments of physical hardship and lack of special privilege when reviewing a density request, Ordinance ~~ o.f 1985 was z-ldopted to allow foot small GRFA additions without the need far variance approval. Unfortunately, this ordir~anee does not provide a means for allowing additions to units in multi- family bua.ldings. Units of this type were omitted, as the Town Council and Planning Commission were concerned about the potential to increase the bulk and mass of multi--family >,u.i.ldirlgs to a point wlrere there would be r~eclative in-~~~.~cts clue to the adcli Lions. Lec~a:l. issues also contr i butrd to the inability of tha.s ordinance to accommodate multi-family additions. In respect to this request, ordinance #~7 does nai. provide any relief from having to review multi-faruily additions with the density variance criteria. The effect of the requested v3ra.arice on li~lit__and air-,. distrib'.ttion of _populatio_tj~_^tx~aris~aor~a~ian_-arid ti.-i.f~~f~~~ L_acilrities, pul~l.ic._faciliLie~wanc.i uti~iit~ie:,,_atul ~)Ltl.~l i~: sa.l~~~LY- _.._. ...-._ . _.________ _~ __ __._ '1`here are no significant iml)act.s on any of the above factd~t•s. V. RI;LIt'i`~'D POLICY IN VILIL'S COMMUNTY 11CTIDIJTT'L11N Community Design 2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. 5. Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of properL.y owners and of the Town. `Phis proposal for the deck enclosures and the other general improvements to the project supports the Community ILctiorl Pion policies. Such other factors and criteria ~zs the co~umiasir.,r1 dcer~rs applicable to rho I~ropasecl_ variance. Vl. FINDINGS The Planning and ~nvirvnmer~t:al Commission shall make the following findings before gear}tir~q a v3riarzce: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a g1:~lllt of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in t:he same district. ~~~.~~~~.v......+.............. . .~,,,~ ~„ • That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements ire tiie vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one ar more oC the following reasons: The strict or aitera3. interpretation or enfvrcQment of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance: that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. or enforcement or the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in • Vl. SThI'F RIICOMNi~NU11'i'tON The proposal invoi.ves both a density variance and exterior alteration request. The exterior alteration criteria are used to review the design issues related to the request. given tt~augh the p>^aposal compares favorably given the alteration criteria, the staff must recommeld c1ellial of ttie overall request, as we canl~ot support the density variance. The original concern of the Council and Commission cancerllincj multi-family additions was that the tauilding's bulk and mass may be increased to a paint where negative impzcts would occur from the expansions. In this situation, the expansion and overall improvements to the property are considered to be positive. tiowever, state must abide by ttze variance criteria, and therefore Inust recommend de3~iia1 of the request. t3asically, the Staff teas ttye same position that: was outlined in the July 14, 198G memo when 1D deck e~iclosures were alNo being considered for this project. Tt i.: true that there arc no significant impacts resulting from this prot~osa.L. However, the staff does feel that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the request. It must also be noted that the property is over the allowable Gl;i'A atzci number of units for development under Cominercial Core I:T zal~il~q. • . I I.I A. VARIAEYC~ REQIlC~ ~~l 1 i C~II~S S~~+rrr~ i~•R~ ~ In accordance with that provision of Orclirtance No. 4 allotring for an increase of 250 square feet to single and duplex dtrellirty units as art inducement for the upgrading of ex i s ti i ny s trot tares , the Tree felts Conrlami rt i urn seeks a variance to al lots a total addition of 425 squar-e feat to tiro existing GRFA total of 35,97] srluare feet -art incro~~se a` t .l' The proposed additional GRF11 cotttprise5 of 4 balcony enclosures and l deck enclosure at 39 square feet and 4 balcony enclosures and 1 clock enclosure at 4G scluar•c feet oath. The balconies to be enclosed are 3.5 feet wide. They provide little to no room for outdoor furniture, i.e. no outdoor activity, taut have been utilized as storage areas visilr]c~ from the vicinity of the biE:e l~atlr. The area is being added to the living roouts, not the bedraottts thus the bed base and/or density will not be increased. The request and subsequent approval of this variance is necessary far the Association's approval of the entire up-c~radinJ package F•rhich includes: 1. Jldded protected entrances to bout buildings. 2. An increase of landscaping along the bike path. 3. An increase of landscaping at the west building entrance. This feature faces E=ast Liortshcac! Cie°clc~ and will pr°~vide a more attractive public foroc~rouitd to i;lte buildirrsl. 4. /IddiCiorts of woad sidirtc~ to the east I~uildinc~ ar1c1 rc°modelin~~ of tfte csast building balcony raiJlnt]5 Lp provide a visual consistency of materials, detail and color between the t-vo residential I,uildirt~s. 5. An upgrade of exterior lighting. A-1 The requested variance does not effect other existirtc~ or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A-2 The literal interpretation of fife ordinance: a. hlakes iutpractical the use of existing balcony space for its intended use as an outdoor sitting area b.~ (~r•ontnLcs continuing difficulty of policincl and ntaintairtiny the given balCOrties due to their propcrtsity to be utilized as cleneral storage areas c, Precludes unit o4rners front taking advantage of inducEntent offered outer (single and duplex) unit otirners to upgrade their properties d. Disallows at this time a structured, unified and visually consistent approach to l~alcorty enclosures that othertrise might riot occur if and when Ot-d~inance f•Eo. 4 was to be atrtendccl to include multi--family lrrajects e. Precludes any of those advantages to unit owner°s throuc~lt additional GRFA that have accrued to unit earners in other projects who have clandestinely c:rtcloscct their balcortic.~s VISUAL IMPACT OF RE UFST 4 i• ~OP~~~~M~~ S~bh,;~~I ~` Son sq.ft. Requested allowable 42; sq.Ft. Duplex addition Treetops addition :o 5000 sq.ft.. ~ to GRFA 35971 sq.ft. actual GRFA = lnx ~ = l.l~ , of total of total Cornparisarr indicates that the allowed visible im~)act of a duplex may be 9 tiu~es greater than that requested by Treetops. CON{PARISOPI OF If~1PACT ON ALLOWAIILE GRFA VS ACTUAL GRFA Requested Requested A]lotvable 425 sq.ft. ~ Actual 425 sq.ft. addition addition GRFA: l = 1 .3X Gc2FA { _ } 1 °~ 31240 ~ 3971 The requested 425 sq.ft. has almost equal significance arhen compared to ttre AiloVrable GRFA and Actual GRFA. The differe~rce is .2~ or GO square feet. The applicant believes that the variance request is a reasonable trade offr against the several upgrading improvements ti~at will add be~~efit as well to the Lionslread appearance. A-3 The request variance does not effect distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. • ~~ ~~,, ~~ Planning and Environmental Commission June 1, 1987 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Betsy Rosolack Peggy osterfoss sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT J.J. Collins The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of 4/27 and 5/1.1. A motion was made by Diana Donovan and seconded by Bryan Hobbs to approve bath minutes. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 2. A request for a front setback variance in order to enlarge an existing residential area above a garage on~Lot . 8, Block 1. Vail Village 6th. Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian i Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed site plans and elevations. She stated that the existing garage and covered stairway currently project about 2.1 feet into the front setback at the structure's northwest corner. The variance requested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The staff recommended approval. of the request. Buff Arnold, architect representing the applicants further explained the request. Kristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the primary unit, and that one must be removed prior to construction of the requested addition. Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the staff memo plus the condition that one kitchen be removed from the primary unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a density variance in order to enclose 8 balconies and 2 decks at the Treetops Condominiums located at 452 East Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association • Kristan Pritz explained the request, showing site plans and elevations. She explained that the staff recommended approval of the exterior alterations and deniaY of the density variance. EXHIBIT ~ ~~ ~• r ,~ , Tom Griner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the board that the staff must look at the property in black and white, but that the board could look at the grey areas with respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase in GRFA was minimal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed were useless because they were so small and that they were unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for storage. Pam Hopkins £elt that these were goad arguments in favor of the variance requested, but stated that she did not have a legal way to approve the decks. She felt the improvements would enhance Treetops Condos, Sid Schultz agreed with Pam and asked if the staff would look at ordinance 4 again to try to find a way to include small changes to multi-family buildings. Diane Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she c:aulcl not vote for the enclosures as enclosed decks. She felt that the space was used as a walkway, not a deck. Kristan stated that the concern when writing Ordinance 4 was that balconies and decks would be enclosed and result in flat facades which impact mass and bulk. It was difficult to knoti~ where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA would be appropriate. Peter asked if ail the units which would enclose their decks . had other outdoor space, and Griner replied that all of the units did have other outdoor space. Griner also stated t`~at all of the windows would become bay windows which would ~ :e relief to the facade. He added that awnings would also be added. Jim Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward improvement to the property with additional GRFA. fIe felt that the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He also felt it would be good to go back to Drdinance Q to see if changes could be made with reference to multi-family units. Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989 World Cup races. She stated that they were willing to be the scapegoats because she felt they would set a good example for the rest of the community and inspire others to fix up their. property. Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Tom Briner estimated that 755 of dollars to be spent on the project would be for enclosing the decks, and possible 15~ for landscaping. Diana felt there must be some way to allow projects which benefit the community to such an extent as this. Peggy Osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3-~4 months before there would be a change in the law. Peggy felt a policy _. ~ .n.~ar ~ a4-,tMl~1+[w.4v ~X,LA.i1d+J t- •-!~~i.w#f. i. i:M`.. •A-::, .~ . . change was needed. Pam felt that this was such a minima] afioUnt of GRFA it would be a goad standard on which to b~> a ( policy related to percentages. Diana Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance on the basis that this is the type of project the town would like to see far three reasons: 1. There is a minimal percentage of increased GRFA. 2. Substantial landscaping and substantial improvements to the structures will be done in excess of that required. (This is a major emphasis of the proposal and does not include maintenance and upgrading which would normally be required.y 3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed balconies will remain for each unit. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request for the exterior alteration. The vote was G-0 in _~ favor. • • .., . . yatl Tu~+m fvur~~~ /~ur~r.~ denial. Tom stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the extension for~one year only with the following recommendations to Council: I. The Town Council look at the parking requirements; it seems they may be overly restrictive. ~. 2. The Applicant initiate talks with the Vail Valley Medical Center like last year regarding shared parking. Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, urged the Council to hire a third party to study lodges, hotels, etc. parking needs; he did not feel it would be near as much as what was required. He commented the Applicant would agree to a twelve month period, and the landscape plan is underway and should be done by September 1, 1987. After some discussion by Council, Mayor Johnston made a motion to approve the resolution, conditional an the landscape plan being completed. Kent hose seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing. The next item of business was an appeal of a PEC decision on a request for a density variance to enclose ten decks at Treetops Building No. 2. Eric Affeldt called up this item because he noticed they were breaking new ground by enclosing the decks. Kristan Pritz reviewed the reasons the PEC approved the enclosures: 1. There was a minimal amount of increased GRFA. Z. Substantial landscaping wit] be done in excess of that required with'~he fact that this was a major emphasis of the proposal and did not include maintenance and upgrading which would normally be required. 3. Balconies remain for each unit and are usable. Peter Patten gave additional background information on the item. Staff recommended approval of the exterior alteration, but denial of the density variance. Diana Donovan tommented on why and how the PEC made its decision. Tom Briner commented on why he felt the variance should be granted. Gordon Pierce made a motion to uphold the PEC decision to approve the request, and Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing. Under Citizen Participation, Diana Donovan remarked she was upset that the four-way was cold and uninviting now with the new street lights. Stan 6erryman explained the design approvals by the State, and that we actually were able to get ten foot shorter posts and non-standard lights approved. Ron Phillips stated there would be no Town Manager's report. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ~ Respectful]y submitted, Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Te+n ATTEST: /` _ ~~ ~1~. Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Tow lark " EXHIBIT ~, ~~ + ~ M ~ • ~~ lows of nail 75 ~oWh f~onfage road vaif, Colorado 81657 ~3o3y a7saooo June 29, I987 Mr. Tom Briner 143 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Treetops Deck Enclosures, Summer 7.987 Dear Tom: aHlce o! community development Recently, you called me and asked if it was absolutely requ~~ed that all the decks at the Treetops project be constructed at the same time. This question arose due to the fact that one or two of the condominium owners are not able to go through with the construction for various reasons. I suggested two alternatives for handling the situation. The first approach would be to take out a building permit for all of the deck enclosures. The general site improvements would also have to be included under the building permit. The site improvements were an important part of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the request. If you choose this alternative, it would be required that all of the decks be constructed according to plan before a temporary certificate of occupancy would be released. This alternative should only be used if you feel very confident that the condominium association will be able to convince the two owners that they should participate in the construction. of the deck enclosures. z suggested this alternative only if it seemed very realistic that some. way could be found to pay for the two deck enclosures. out for the project. The second approach would be to revise your proposal and resubmit the design to the Design Review Board. Once again, it would be important far the general site improvements to be incorporated into the new proposal. Once you have received Design Review Soard approval, a building permit could be taken ~ f jXHI ~i ./ • .~ After talking to you on Friday, it seems that a new submittal to the Design Review Board is probably the wisest approach. It naw appears that other condominium owners may not want to participate in the deck enclosures and this could present problems if you use the first alternative as far as getting a temporary certificate of occupancy. In addition, the fine]. appearance of the south elevation of the building would be changed to a greater extent, as more than two owners are questioning participation in the project. This change would likely warrant DRB review. I hope this letter clarifies our conversation over the phone. If I can be of~any further help, please feel free to call me at 476-7000 ext 111.. Good luck. Sincerely, ~5~~}Y~~ C Kristen Pritz Town Planner KP:br cc: Peter Patten r~ • lows of rail 75 south frontage road nail, Colorado 81657 (343) 478-2107 office of town attorney April 18, 1991 `~~~~w~~ ?~~~ 2 2 1~~1 tii~;{ii'.i~'f~;ll,~-~t?~lP,t~iC!!t:G,njVt~fi: ~~• Mr. David Murray Attorney-at-Law Hellerstein, Hellerstein anti Shore, P. C. P.4. Box X637 Denver, CO 8p217 In Re: Treetops Condominiums Density Variance • Dear Mr. Murray: ~~r• ~- After reviewing your letter of April 11, 1991, dealing with the Treetops Condominiums Density Variance, as I stated to you during our meeting of the other day, it is my opinion that the variance which was obtained in 1987 by your client has now expired and that if your client still wishes to proceed with the desired improvements, it is necessary for them to once again obtain a variance from the Planning Commission of the Town of Vail. I enjoyed meeting with you the other day, and I am sorry that my opinion is not what you would have liked, but I think it is required given Section 18.62,080 of the Municipal Code of the Town. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't call me. Very ,trtaly yours, `~-.~ ~c.`~ -al Larry Eskwi th '~'~' Town Attorney 4~!'"~ ~lUG 191~?~ MACKINTOSH BROWN P.C. ATTpRNEY AT LAW TWO UNF7EC) BANK CENTER ~ 700 9ROAOwAY, SUirE ~ 505 DENVER, COLORADO SO290 August 15, 1991 Mr. Michael J, Mollica Department of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 TELEPHONE (303) 894-0800 Fax (303) 839.8262 Re: Treetops Balcony Enclosures June 1, 1987 Variance • Dear Mr. Mollica: Enclosed is an Affidavit by Jerry D. Ladd who was formerly president, secretary and a director of the Treetops Condominium Association. He is most familiar with the Treetops balcony enclosure problems and Z request that this be made part of the file for the hearing before your Planning Commission now scheduled for August 26, 1931. I believe Larry Eskwith would also be interested in reviewing this affidavit. Jerry Ladd and I particularly abject to the method which the proponents are seeking to use in order to obtain permission to enclose the balconies. The proposal to enclose balconies which was approved by the membership in December of 1990 is radically different from the proposal for which the variance was granted by the Commission on June 1, 1987. The new proposal should stand or fall on its own merits and should be subject to full review by your staff and the current Planning Commission not only to determine whether the increase in the grass residential floor area is appropriate but also whether the symmetry and alpine design of Treetops would be upset by the new proposal. A picture of the Treetops II building as it presently looks is enclosed which should also be made part of the record. I will be interested in hearing the outcome of the meeting an August 26. Sincerely, • ~`~ '"~ ~'!e' a-~-~-~ MACKINTOSH BRO, MB:ms Enclosure ree~v~s `~/ ~~ T e~~p~S ~ ~~ s ~ Q~~'er ~hsf41I~17oh ~~ NP-+~ 1'~ilrxga ah ~ +f~af~oa~ef /h f~~'9 rn r~ra~~i{ ~~° 1'Qi/isrgs 0 2 /~ ~fa~ .~ . i ,+~ ;1 +f AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING TREETOPS BALCONY ENCLOSURES STATE OF COLORADO } CITY AND ) ss. COUNTY OF DENVER ) Jerry D. Ladd, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. I was elected and served as a director of the Treetops Condominium Association of Vail, Colorado ("Association") from December 30, 1987 to December 28, 1990. I also served as secretary of the Association from December 30, 1987 to approximately July 15, 1988 and then as president from that date until December 29, 1989. 2. On June 1, 1987, the Vail Planning and Environmental. Commission {"Commission") approved a variance for the enclosure of eight balconies and two ground floor decks for the Treetops II building. These balconies and decks are limited common elements owned by the Association and are appurtenant to Condominium Units numbered 1-C to 5-C and 1-E to 5-E (the "C Stack and E Stack" respectively), The schematic drawing for these proposed enclosures which was prepared by Tom Briner, AIA, is attached hereto as -~ Exhibit A. The application for this variance was not authorized or approved by the members of the Association. 3. Under the recorded Condominium Declaration for the Association ("Declaration"}, it is provided in paragraph 16 (b} that "there shall be no additions, alterations or improvements of or to the general and limited common elements of the Association requiring assessment in excess of $120.00 per unit for any one calendar year without prior approval of a majority of the owners." Paragraph 18 of the Declaration provides that the "Declaration shall not be amended unless the owners representing an aggregate ownership interest of 60~ or more of the general common elements and 60$ of the holders of recorded first mortgages or deeds of trust consent and agree to such amendment by instruments duly recorded; provided, however, that the undivided interests of the general common elements appurtenant to each unit shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the consent of all of the unit owners and all of the holders of any recorded mortgage ar deed of trust as expressed in an amended declaration duly recorded." The enclosures of balconies and decks in Tree- tops II which were contemplated in the June 1, 7.987 variance and the amendment of the Declaration to recognize such enclosures were never approved by the members of the Association or by their mortgagees. 4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true copy of the Minutes of • the Special Meeting of Members of the Association held July 28, • 1987 which I attended, At that meeting, Linda Averch, who was then the president of the Association, stated that the Board of Directors of the Association did not realize that the owners of the C Stack in Treetops II were not interested in having their balconies enclosed, even though the variance for this change had been approved by the Commission on June 1, 1987 (see pages 4 and 6 of Exhibit A). 5, In March of 19$8 the Board of Directors submitted to a vote of the members eleven separate items for making repairs, improvements and rennovations for the two Treetops buildings. The enclosures of the balconies on Units 2-E, 3-E, 4-E and 5-E was defeated. The results of that balloting are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Subsequent to this vote by the members of the Association, substantial improvements were made by the Association . on both Treetops buildings. None of these improvements was made in reliance upon the variance granted by the Commission on June 1, 1987, since the enclosures were rejected by the members. Included among these improvements was the installation of new railings on the balconies of Units C-2 to C-5 and E-2 to E-5, at an estimated cost of $15,000. The installation of these railings is totally inconsistent with the taking of any action to enclose the balconies because these railings will have to be torn out if any balconies in . Treetops II are to be enclosed. &. Subsequent to the Commission granting the variance on June 1, 1987, the Association expended little or no money for the enclosure of any of the balconies or ground floor decks in Treetops II because the Board of Directors soon after that date discovered that the owners of the C Stack in Treetops II were not interested in having their balconies enclosed, and the enclosure of balconies in the E Stack was rejected by the 1988 vote of the membership. While I was president and secretary of the Association from December 30, 19E7 through December 29, 1989, no funds were expended by the Association in reliance upon the variance for the purpose of enclosing any balconies or decks in Treetops II. 7. The Association did not apply for any building or variance permit to enclose any balcony or deck in Treetops II because the Board of Directors knew that the members of the Association had rejected such enclosures. 8. On December 28, 199p, a majority of the members of the Association approved by a 62.86 vote a proposal to enclose the balconies on Units E-2 to E-5 and the decks in Units C-1, D-1 and E-1 provided that all costs of the improvements, including architectural, engineering and legal expenses, are to be paid for only by the owners of the seven condominium units appurtenant to those balconies and decks. A copy of the 1991 proposed balcony and • -2.. t i deck enclosures is attached hereto as Exhibit D. This enclosure proposal is substantially different than the proposal which was approved by the Commission on June 1, of 1987 in. that Units C-2 to C-5 are not included~/b~u* }he deck of Unit D-1 is included. Dated this j' `"'t day of Aug st, 1991. - ~ -- Jer~ . Ladd `--- Y The f regoing Affidavit was subscr' a 'and sworn to before me this /~v day of August, 1991 by Jerry D. Ladd. Witness my hand and official seal. • My commission expires ;:~;.,. ~P~Y PU~~ MAaY A. ~; STORlE q~+pF ~d,0~' ~~~~~~~ ~ Notary Public -3- . ~ ~ ~ M f~l ~ ~ ~ ~ i ^-.s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .u ~ ~ ~ 1-1 x A q 1 iA J P~n ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ W V1 V p M M ` ~ M = L03 C¢J' 4 ~ L F sxz~r,~§ ~zxa ~ti~ u ~ ~._ .._ ~ ~ . 1~-- Q ...,_ " .~ ' ~ ~ • ~ ~-- ' ' ,, ~- w ~a w t~ W~ ~ w w ~ W o ~ ~ ~ i ,. < . . E E 1/ ']_ 'f MINUTES ~ ~ ~ D ~ TREETOPS CDNDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD MEETING July 25, 1987 This meeting was called to order by President Linda Averch on July 25. 1987, at 4:45 P.M., at the residence of Vern and Linda Averch. This first order of business was roll call and certifica tion of proxies as follows. Thane present were as follOWS: 2A Ladd 3A Brooks Proxy - Chris Cronin 4A Peterson Proxy - Marvel Barnes 5A Zunzunegui Proxy - Linda Averch 6A Dow Proxy - Linda Averch 7A Beirnes Proxy - Mac Brown lB Mcbonald Proxy - Linda Averch 2B Dominick Proxy - Mac Brown 3B Brooks Proxy - Chris Cronin 4B Humphrey Proxy - Marvel Barnes 5B Gibson Proxy - Mac Brown 6B/7B Giesemann 1C Klein . 2C Brown 3C Smith - Proxy Mac Brown 4C Jackson 3D Quick Mart 4D National Enterprises 5D Zimmer Proxy - Linda Averch lE Deifik Proxy - Mac Brown 2E Banos Proxy _ Linda Averch 3E Phillips 4E Phillips 5E Averch Proof of Notice of Meeting or Waiver of Notice was read by Linda Averch. Her opening statement addressed the proposed upgrades of Treetops I and II and then she introduced the following perSOnS: Tom Briner - Briner & Scott Architects Martin Shore - Attorney for the Treetops Assaciation Dale Pflieger - Accountant for the Association Mr. Juergen Geisemann - Board Member Linda Averch - Berard Member • -1- •' President's Opening Statement; On behalf of the Board we are here today to present to the owners of Treetops a proposal of upgrades to the building. The packet you received was a preliminary package that was put together due to the fact that there was expressed concern by some of the owners that the Board was exceeding' their authority and guidelines expressed at the annual meeting in January 1987 of this year, Property improvements Linda stated that the fallowing improvements need to be made to the Treetops property: 1. A light needs to be installed over the door that leads to the Resident Manager's office. 2. Minor boiler repairs need to be done in Treetaps II. 3. The driveway needs to be sealed, to prevent deterioration of the asphalt. 4. The valves in the lawn sprinkler need repair. 5. The chimney flues need to be recapped...if the wind catches them in a certain way, it causes smoke to back up in units. 6. The (rant wall. of the planter at the entrance to the Treetaps I building needs repair. 7. The roofs on the trash entrance and the main entrance need repair. . 8. Painting and touch-up where needed, particularly in the interior halls, and an the front door of each unit. 9. A rubber link mat needs to be installed in the lower entrance to the Resident Managers' office and the garage, and an the bridge...these areas become very slippery. 10. The carpeting, which is about five years old, needs to be replaced. The present carpeting, which was glued down, could serve as padding for new carpeting. 11. The present wood an the buildings needs regular painting, as a preservative measure. The wood around the windows is in poor shape, and needs to be updated. 12. The balconies Gould not pass the Town Code presently, due to the large openings between the wood railings...the balconies need to be upgraded to a better material, with a more enclosed effect. The following suggestions were made by those present, relative to the proposed improvements: 1. That entrance doors to individual units might be painted a different color, or a possible change of the door itself. David Rioux reminded those present that if new doors were installed. they would have to meet Fire Code requirements. • -2- 2. That the new carpeting be similar in quality to the new carpeting in the Mid-Vail Restaurant. • 3. Bernie and Lynn Weiss asked about the possibility of enclosing their balcony, to give a "greenhouse" effect. Linda responded that ten Treetops homeowners have collectively approached the Town of Vail about enclosing their balconies, and that the project is "on hold" until a decision is made by the Town regarding similar proposals from other lodges and condominium projects. There are several condominium expansion proposals before the Town for approval...if they receive their approval, Treetops will go back to the Town and ask for a variance to enclose ten balconies, Linda stated that the Town will not approve a balcony expansion enclosure in an area attached to or affected by a fire escape. general common areas, etc. Any homeowner wishing to expand or enclose a balcony must submit. a drawing to the Treetops Board far approval. 4. The suggestion was made that a glass door be installed in the front entryway, with a special lack, to create the feeling of privacy. 5. Gary Klein stated that dogs have become a problem in the lawn area, due to its proximity to the bike path, and requested that consideration be given to installing a fence around the lawn. It was agreed by those present that the idea should be pursued. With a Motion given by Vern Averch and seconded by Lynn Weiss, it was unanimously: RE50LVED: That refurbishing of the Treetops buildings and environs be pursued with all ideas, including the ideas outlined above and any new ideas, to be taken into consideration. The final presentation of possible upgrades will take into consideration cost factors, Town approval procedures, etc., and will be approved by the Board of Directors. The importance of all changes to the buildings and environs being coordinated, for a feeling of consistency and uniformity, was stressed. It was agreed that an architect should be hired to coordinate the project...preferably a local architect experienced in dealing with the Town. It was agreed that fiom Briner, Gordan Pierce and Craig Snowdon will. be contacted regarding a possible interest in the project. In response to this charge we deemed it most economical to first present the concepts to the Town Staff, Planning Commission, D.R.D. and The Town Council. After numerous meetings and conversations at a mere cost of $lOQ.00 to the Association all • -3- r of the renovation ideas, old and new have received approval. The next step is to prepare and present to you a proposed budget far these items. Tom Griner is now prepared to present this proposal to yau. Architect Tom Briner was called upon to present the proposed upgrades and show his ideas in sketch form. He suggested that Buildings I and II would relate better as a single project and listed the following: 1. Develop new entry to Building I (which will also serve Building 11}. 2. Corridors in II should be brightened/cleaned up. 3. Graphics program. 4. Stair enclosures (i.e., lighting, entrance to IT, etc.) 5. Enclose decks/balconies in Building II {4 balconies, 2E, 3E, 4E and 5E}. a. Improve, enhance and protect entry (security, heat, make larger) by adding new entry and demolishing old entry. b. Building II - addition of canopy over entrance, new lighting, new entrance location facing West, cover the metal bridge. c. Building T - fix existing railings (we may all have some liability if railings do not meet code). Suggest reducing space between horizontal rails, raise height. Railings in TT should be improved to match Building I. d. Eliminate canopies/hoods over windows which is causing maintenance problems - replace with stucco - horizontal woad siding on Building I. More insulation would be provided by the replacement with stucco. e. Xnstall fence or barrier to dogs along bike path - a hedge would be more natural and attractive - must be on property line, not on Town property. Potentilla was suggested for hedge. f, New entrance should incorporate great deal of landscaping starting from road to third 1eve1, and stairs to second level. Enclose open corridor for heat retention; terrace low timber retaining walls and landscape with trees; pave walkway. g. Retain pitched roof to throw snow into terraced area; canopy aver bridge; perhaps pierced windows in tap of stairwell. h. Change balcony railings in Building T to match Building II - more space wauld be available if living rooms were extended. ~~ Linda Averch stated that the Board did not realize the owners in C stack were not interested in the balcony change proposal and extended the Board's apology for any misunderstanding. Architect Briner further suggested extending the eaves 1-1/2 to 2 feet to match Building I since water is presently running down the wood siding. Architect Briner addressed the projected costs stating that U • • -4- he had presented these items and preliminary drawings to three contractors with whom he and his firm have worked closely and asked for very general budget estimates, nat bids, from these contractors. These contractors are JDM, Duddy Viele, and Beck & Associates. Estimates are as follows: JDM $100,030 Duddy Viele 91,747 Beck & Associates 56,851 JDM $ 20,456 Duddy Viele 40,416 Beck & Associates 13,628 JDM $103,751 Duddy Viele 47,404 Beck & Associates 82;075 1. Entry and Corridor - Building I includes remodeling of trash room, landscaping and fill, retaining walls, lighting, snow removal, irrigation system, corridor doors and paint, simple security system, extending balcony railings at fourth level, painting bridges that connect Buildings I and YI. 2. Remodeling of existing balconies JDM $ 6,000 Duddy Vie1e 5,813 Beck & Associates 139 per balcony ($4,100 total] 3. Bridge entry - including glazed enclosure, ceiling under- neath bridge, facia, canopy, lighting, new door, sidewalk JDM $ 29,790 Duddy Viele 31,932 Beck & Associates 25,053 4. Corridor/Stair - canret, paint, lighting, pierced windows 5. Exterior - replacing windows (metal for vinyl, wood finish), removing canopies, new stucco, patch and repair, wood siding, insulation, extending eaves, repainting building 6. Reconstruction of balcony/railings JDM $ 18,700 Duddy Viele 20,389 Beck & Associates 16,106 n 7. General Conditions and Fee JDM $ 65,675 Duddy Viele included in total Beck & Associates 43,550 (below} -5- ,, ~ l 8. Totals JDM $349,402 {high} Duddy Viele $237,70]. Beck & Associates $299,263 Architect Briner suggested negotiations with the two lowest contractors with anticipated completion by Thanksgiving. Linda Averch stated that this is the first time that these numbers have been presented to the Board but that the Board did instruct Briner to get a proposal for a first class job to be presented to the Board. Aiac Brown questioned Briner on t' railings on Building Z1. Briner 41" and that, even though he did every one, he does not feel that does call for 6" or less between across rails. he height, and safety of the responded that the height may be not personally inspect each and they are the most stable. Code rails or for runners or screening Briner stated that he presented the above as an overall project to the Planning Commission- not separating the balcony changes.. The town has approved GRFA increases when there has also been substantial effort made to improve the general appearance of a project. Linda Averch stated that the Association had been given approval two years ago for the balcony enclosures and that the Board never stated to the architects that the balconies were a main factor. Mac Brown questioned whether all ten balconies would have to be changed or a portion thereof. Briner responded that this is a part of the agenda with the Design Review Board this coming Wednesday. v Linda Averch stated that the Board became aware at a meeting in latter June that more than one owner was not interested in the balcony enclosures and further stated that these enclosures are secondary to the overall project and should not become the main issue. Gary Klein questioned when/why the concept of having C stack change from enclosed patios to exterior storage ara. Briner explained that the Town has not approved deck enclosure anywhere else but there are mitigating circumstances here, i.e., there will be a large area remaining after enclosure of smaller portion - impressed upon larger outdoor usable balcony space. Mac Brown questioned the property sine in relation to the building and Briner pointed out that it was from $'~ at one point to 20' at another. -6- Alas Brown questioned why a fence was not permitted. Briner suggested that it was rejected possibly due to the view for some across the bike path. Mac Srown questioned whether the neighbors to the East are on the property line, Linda Averch replied no - the retaining wall was on the property line and had been lowered. According to drawings, Briner was guessing that our neighbors are over the property line. Mac Brown questioned the legal aspects if balconies are enclosed: increase in taxes, need to amend condo map to increase square footage, who pays for any refurbishing or remodeling. need to amend covenants. ~+ Attorney Martin Shore replied that he foresees no problems providing homeowners follow the By-Laws and Declarations. He explained that, ~in the Condominium Act in Colorado, ownership is based on {1) air space unit within walls - you awn that; (2) general common elements, the wall, you do not awn that - only a fractional interest. Limited common elements are granted for the use of the individual owner: flues, for example..; p.a~~os are restricted to the unit; as per the Declarations patios are attached to units and cannot be divided. There is no law, however, as to whether you can or cannot enclose. If you screen • patios, do you change the patio - he thinks not. If you glass the patio, do you change the patio - he thinks not. If completed as projected here, you have an enclosed common. element for your own use. The Town could decide to assess due to increased space. He has no legal opinion as to what the tax assessor will do but it could be assumed that there will be a raise due to increase in value. Should the map be amended? There is no case requiring such action. who pays? This should be worked out among each other {common element). The covenants saver enclosures, permit it; therefore, you could proceed. He stated that there seem to be two different questions: (1) numerous improvements, (2} patios. The Declarations state that expenditures over $120 {over approved budget) must be approved by owners excluding repair, maintenance, replacement, ar obsolescence. He feels that this is a political problem - not a legal problem. Gary Klein asked if this meeting was called in order to go ahead with capital expenditures ar if Board voted to do it? Linda Averch answered no and reiterated that the next step is for the Board to meet with the contractor{s}, and go through each proposal one at a time. She asked owners whether to proceed in order to get exact numbers. Owners have given permission to go this far. All opinions are considered by the Board. Vern Averch stated that he called the Eagle County Assessor's _~_ ~- C office to see what his unit is being taxed for and was told that 1,430 sq. ft., including the balcony, is being taxed. There would be no liability tax-wise unless the assessor increased the value of the overall unit. Again, the balcony is already being taxed. Linda Averch passed out a letter from Bab Dorf, a real estate broker of Slifer & Company, concerning the exterior of Treetops and his concern regarding the outside presentation and impression to buyers. Linda stated that the owners are directed to go to Tom Briner or Marvel Barnes with any questions. She further stated that the main emphasis here is our overall appearance and since our "front door" is essentially the entrance to Treetops IT, this entrance must be attractive. The inside can be controlled by the individual, the outside cannot. Dale Pflieger, our Associations CPA, presented a history on tax- ation for the Condo Association: The Condo Association has an annual election on whether to be taxed as a Homeowners' Association or a regular corporation. A Homeowners' Association pays tax on non-exempt income - mainly rents and interest income. Deductions against non-exempt income are expenses directly related to the production of that income in which Treetops situation is very little. Homeowners' Associations pay tax at a 30~ rate. Tn a regular corporation, all revenue is considered taxable income. All expenses are considered deductions. Since Treetops has $33,000 in rental income and $5,000 to $6,000 in interest income, it would have approximately $40,000 taxable income with no tax deductible expenses if it filed as a Homeowners' Assoc- ication. It would appear beneficial to file as a regular corpora- tion. For fiscal years 85-86, Treetops had been faced with a significant tax liability. Tt was the opinion at the annual meeting to eliminate this liability designating a portion of assessments as capital assessments since capital assessments can be excluded from taxable income. Roughly $90,000 taxable income was eliminated for years 198586 if designating such as capital assessments. The only deductions to date for capital improvements have been for the manager's unit {$20,000} and for installation of the fire alarm ($25,000), September 30, 1986 books show capital assessments, less expenditure for capital improvements of $46,000 (which is limited to capital improvements}. Taxable income appeared to be a con- tinuing problem. As a solution, it was suggested at the last annual meeting to eliminate quarterly assessment, reduce the quarterly assessment, or increase spending for capital improvements. The Board approved reducing the quarterly assessment, $10,000 each, for the second, third, and fourth quarters, since the first quarter had already gone out. Information from Vail Home Rentals indicates that even with the reduction, there will be taxable income problems this year. Preliminary financial information shows that Treetops cash balance is $70,000, and income year to date of $30,000. This amount of taxable income would generate a tax liability of $5,000 to $5,000 this year. Coula the Associaion borrow funds to complete the project? Dale -8- ' - Pflieger, CPA, said yes. From an accounting standpoint you would continue to designate a certain amount of your quarterly assessment of being capital assessment. That amount would go to retire the debt obligation. Gary Klein questioned if it made sense to spend $400,000 to save $9,000 or $5,000. Linda Averch again stated that the Board is asking for authority to study and present more accurate plans, costs, etc. Architect Briner stated that the project could be done in phases. However, it is more economically feasible to do it all at once as opposed to being drawn out since you do pay general conditions fees every time you approach a contractor for another change. Jerry Ladd asked if the Town would. approve a phased plan and Briner was optimistic that they would. Ladd questioned the entrance. to Treetops 1 des the elevator and stairwell - would there accommodate people going up and dawn stairs Briner replied that there would be room and in the location of the stairs due to the the boiler room. igned to fit between be ample room to at the same time? indicated a change expansion tanks in Ladd questioned the impact on the second and third floor units from the sound of ski boots - could there be doors at the ends of the hallway and carpet instead of tile. Briner thought this a good idea. Mike Johnson questioned the safety of the bridge now. Briner stated that there is no danger now but this is not necessarily true in the winter. Mac Brown asked those present if they felt it to be unsafe. Vern Averch noted that one a suitcase; other instances elevator and two sleeping in that a covered bridge would that a security system would the building. person has fallen while carrying include someone sleeping in the the boiler room alcove. He feels eliminate the weather problem and eliminate transients from entering Briner noted that stairs on the bridge make it more hazardous and suggested again an enclosure, but not heated. Linda Averch pointed out a similar enclosure next to the Ralph Loren Polo shop in the Sitzmark building. Briner suggests a covet over top and sides of a lightweight material that the bridge structure will support. Jim Tierney stated that he felt safer on the bridge than on -9- the driveway. Mac Brown suggested a light from the building wall - Briner agreed. Brawn also reiterated the unsafe condition of the driveway with water running off commercial building and freezing. Linda Averch suggested that the walkway from the garage to Treetops TI should have a protective cover to walk on across the driveway and stated that the Board has proposed an enclosure due to close calls in the past. Brown asked if a bank or lender had been approached regarding the possibility of financing an entire package. Would a signature loan be sufficient without security, or what security would they require? Linda Averch replied that there are not yet any figures to present to a bank. She has talked to a president of a bank about the general idea. The attorney and CPA would have to be consulted about requirements and possible collateral. There has been no commitment from the Board or any bank. If the Board discovers that we have to finance, $900,000 may be a lot of money, $100,000 may not be. Martin Shore suggested the Lease could be used as collateral. Gary Klein agreed in this way, individual owners would not be involved. Linda Averch stated that we are putting the carriage before the horse, that numbers are needed, The Board would like to see the project dane and hopefully something concrete could be presented to all by December or January. Vern Averch also suggested the assignment of rents as collateral. Mac Brown questioned voting on the entire package with enclosures or on individual items. Briner explained that changes must be published two weeks prior to the scheduled sessions, any change from approved drawings must go back to contractor, contractor must obtain a permit each time - there are definite steps for each change with time and money involved. Gary Klein suggested a vote as asked far in the proxy for total improvements as outlined or allowing owners of 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E to enclose small portions of the balconies, Linda Averch proposed an amendment to allow the Board to continue • -10- with the project and get complete cast factors and drawings to present at the annual meeting. Owners requesting enclosures of balconies would be at owners' expense; money would be held in escrow, other homeowners would not be affected and there would be no expense to the Association. Could this be done legally? Martin Shore responded that it could. Gary Klein suggested a postponement with continued gathering of information until the annual meeting by which time Ordinance 4 would possibly be changed. Jim Tierney supported Linda's view of going forward with no commitment. The package aspect troubles him. He strongly favors using rental money on maintenance. His personal view is that if stacks A, B and E want the proposed entrance, let the Condo Association do it and have the cost assessed to those people in those stacks being served. C and D stacks have a bad entrance problem also with the cost being the underlying problem. Both have a common problem of painting and upkeep. Cost figures are needed on each element. Zn regard to the enclosures, he feels that the map should be amended and the Board shou.lc3 go forward in obtaining all information. Klein stated the need for complete working drawings from Griner to submit to a contractor and the actual cost for same. Linda Averch agreed suggesting a change in the first part of the proxy that was sent. Mac Brown stated the problem of two separate buildings. His main concern is with maintenance, safety, and structure. He is uncomfortable voting on the other building and agrees with Tierney's suggestion of assessing the particular people who would be involved in wanting the enclosures. Briner suggested to Klein that he (Klein) provide working drawings to him (Briner) in an effort to save money on more architectural fees. A motion was made by Mac Brown and seconded by Gary Klein that / the total improvement package as outlined for Treetops I and xT not be pursued at this time. D1$CUSSion Vern Averch opposed the division of the two buildings which he believes will cause endless problems with a division of owners, etc. He felt that a 'Yes' or a 'No' vote is fine but whatever is done should be done as an Association. Martin Shore stated that the two buildings cannot be divided -11- as the Declarations do not permit a partition of the general common elements. Individuals are interest holders with everyone - else; all have an interest in the total package, The Condo Association can be dissolved but, until then, there is no way to divide the buildings. The Deed and Declarations reflect that and specifically state. Jim Tierney continued to believe that assessments can be distributed without dividing the buildings and sees a distinction between capital improvements, the entryway and what is common maintenance for the units as a whole. Mac Brawn stated that capital expenses should be separate -- maintenance is a common concern. Linda Averch proposed to amend the proxies in the packet sent. A motion was made by Vern Averch to amend Mac Brown's motion ~ and continue with the project until definite costs are available at which time same would be presented at a special or the annual meeting for a vote. Linda Averch reiterated that the Board is working on behalf of the owners or an overall package. Gary Klein recalled Linda asking for his support with no mention of subject costs or borrowing funds. ~i Linda did not recall asking for this support and commented on the cost to Briner for whatever is done. Briner's fee to date amounts to a little over $4,000 for drawings, presentations to committees, paper work, meetings and discussion with Board members and owners. Klein stated that, if the majority of the owners are against this, no more money should be spent and, perhaps, Tom should amend the proposal to the Town. ~{ Jerry Ladd stated that the issue is clouded by the enclosures and further clouded by the separate stacks (one being enclosed, the other notl and suggested removing the balcony enclosures issue entirely from overall improvement package. !k Linda Averch agreed. Vern Averch repeated amending the motion to vote on whether to proceed with architectural drawings and casts and have a special meeting when the cost analysis is in. ~ i This was seconded by Mr. and Mrs. Geisemann, Chris Cronin, and Ms. Phillips. The vote was taken resulting in IG for, 8 against. --12- ~ . '+ Linda Averch stated that the Board now has permission to proceed with the exception that nothing is to be done until cost factors are available and presented at a special or at the annual meeting, At such time, a vote will be taken. Jim Tierney reiterated same with the exception of architectural fees. Linda agreed. Martin Shore recommended to the Board and the Association to begin a long term capital improvement fund. Because of the tax structure, it would be very beneficial for this Association to have a plan stating what the fund is for and holding capital funds without spending. The present By-Laws are not specific regarding any fund. Linda Averch stated that the Association is in a tax situation again. The year end is 9/30. Can we get an opinion here of the first quarterly assessment? Martin Shore stated that no business can be discussed other than what the meeting called for, Ladd commented that there had not been a vote regard~rrrg~ t-he balcony enclosures. Do we enclose the stack of four to include the yellow awnings? Linda Averch did not object to a vote. A motion was made by Ladd to vote to approve or disapprove the four balcony enclosures in E stack. This motion was seconded by Mac Brown. Discussion Jim Tierney wanted to know the status of C stack. `+Linda Averch stated the majority in C stack is not in favor of the enclosures as presented by Griner. E stack is in favor of the enclosures as presented by Griner. Vern Averch suggested the C owners could amend the original motion to go to the Town to see if enclosures can be done. Linda Averch reiterated that eight balconies and two decks have already been approved and that what is being said now is that the Board has received an indication from numerous owners in C stack that they don't like the present proposal, which is why she extended the apology at the beginning of the meeting. Tierney was against voting against the E stack since there is a need for more details. Linda Averch reminded everyone of the possibility of amending • -13- ~• Ordinance 4. This would allow other Associations to enclose their balconies with approval from the Town. As it is now Ordinance 9 does not include multi-family dwellings. A motion was made by Jerry Ladd to allow the four enclosures in E stack. Discussion Linda Averch: If the Design Review Board turns down the four enclosures, we have no choice but to abide by their decision but there has to be approval from the majority of owners in Treetops. A new vote would have to be taken of the owners. Ladd withdrew his motion with the understanding that approval from the Design Review Board is presented to the entire membership. Linda agreed. V There was a clarification by Linda Averch and Tom Briner that Briner will be attending the Town meeting on Wednesday regarding approval for a portion of enclosures versus all ten at the same time. Jerry Ladd made a motion to adjourn the meeting and this motion was seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 F.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ - Judy Troxel • _l,~_ ~• JERRY D. LADD To: Treetops Condominium Association From: Jerry D. Ladd Date: April 22, 1988 Re: RE5ULT5 OF BALLOTING ~~ ~'Y ' ~ r~ A total of 28 of the 29 units in.Treetops I and Treetops II completed and returned their ballots regarding balcony enclosures, items of repair and•maintenance, and proposed new improvements. A clear consensus was achieved on eight out of ten items on the ballot regarding repairs, maintenance, and new improvements.' An individual recap of each item follows: Item #1: Repairs and maintenance in the corridors - approved by a vote of 25-yes to 3-no. Item #2:~ Repairs and maintenance in the stairways - approved by a vote of 25-yes to 3-no. - Item #3: Repairs and maintenance to the bridges between Treetops I and Treetops II - approved by a vote of Z~-yes to 4-no. Item #~: An enclosure of the elevated bridge between Tree- • tops II and the upper level garage - defeated by a vote of 0-yes to 28-no. Item #5: New entryways to Treetops I and Treetops II and an enclosure around the trash dumpster - the vote was 12-yes and 16-no, but two of the "no" votes were conditionally cast and were in favor of some improvements to the entrance to Tree- tops II and to the enclosure of the trash dumpster. Anew entrance to Treetops I has been voted down. There is an uncertain vote regarding the entrance to Treetops II. There is a tie vote on the issue of a dumpster enclosure. •: '- Item #6: New balcony railings for Treetops II and repaired railings on Treetops I - there were 14-yes votes and 19-no. votes, but four of the "no" votes were conditionally cast, expressing support for the repair of the Treetops I railings. There is majority approval for the repair of Treetops I railings, and a tie vote on the issue~of new railings for Treetops II. 2050 WE5i SEVENTH AVENUE s QENVEp CALOpAOO. 802[34 • [3031573-G442 1 ( ~ Treetops Condominium Association April 22, 1968 Page Two Item #7: New windows on the east side of Treetops II - defeated by a vote of 5-yes to 23-no. `Item #3: New siding and painting for Treetops II - defeated by a vote of 10--yes to 18-no. Item #9: Landscaping of the lawn adjacent to the bike path - defeated by a .vote of 9-yes to 19-no. Item #10: Upgrades to the boilers in Treetops I and Treetops II - appxoved by a vote of 22-yes to 4-no. The enclosure of the balconies on Units 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E was . defeated by a vote of 13-yes to 15-no. ' The Board of Directors of the Treetops Condominium Association has not had a chance to meet and discuss the results of the balloting, but there is~a dedication vn the part of the full Board to properly executing all items of repair and maintenance during the upcoming summer season so that Treetops I and Treetops II will enter the next winter season in tip-top shape. In addition to the repair and maintenance included in Items #1, #2, and #3, action will be taken to remodel and repair the entrance to Treetops I and to repair and/or replace all of the balcony railings as appropriate. The necessity of replacing the balcony railings on Treetops II will be carefully investigated, and if necessary, will be under- taken. In addition, the Board will identify and execute an economically feasible enclosure for the trash dumpster. As expressed above, there is a fairly equal split in the vote regarding the entrance to Treetops II. There is not majority approval for a $42,477 entrance as proposed in the balloting, but there does seem to be a consensus of support for less expensive alternatives, which could include the installation of some glass in and adjacent to the doorway, with perhaps improved lighting. There will be more communication with the Unit Chasers in the coming months to keep you abreast of the work that is undertaken. Jerry D. Ladd Secretary of the Treetops Condominium A~svciation JDL/aab ' ~~~anec~~oN~ ~~~Q~~. ~No~~r~.~~so~od~ y;~,SdG13~!~~ F. ` ~' - ` ~ ~ . r~ !~CX ~-~ ~ i • Tatian of Va11 7~ SCE ~ron~a,r~e Raab VAIN, r C~ ~ ; 5? ,. ~ ~ ,.. n , r, n } ~ n .a. Ti1.I~ ~.8 ~ set~er a. .aCi,i, 7;,~'r rxrc'?n i.,. ii?~ert^+~i7r :,.n ii~y ra_-8 afi irF?S1Cit?i1~ C-F `y1P '~,'r PR ti~~S f'C1%'I~Q,ii.iil~.ll,ii n:~ ~' :,...~a~i.iC_~i1 . i'i1e ;,.SSiae i~ a ~ar~lai ei3C~.C,!^,ii.r~ n~ ~C.ia~2 i3ai+~~iiXeS and ~c"ltiC~v lip ~t{ild~.n~ ~~ a~ Trae;:cps. Xn general r aiir C4i]CiC~,~,.II1Ii1;;1 a„-a8 ~C~~3a'~:~~1i1 iitSar C~a _-_ she one a.n ai i 3.Ce ~~~~ ~7eCB1+a~$r alld Lhe k,i E?SF_?I",~ nac"ir u -._ a~pr 4VF?d the ~:ar ~ Ia1 eri~:lestar ~ a~ ~01'i1P Se~P11 Tree~ar~ iln.%*~~ tis.'•alcai~:c?~ cZ-i1a ~~}.la,^+. hilt Treetops ^andQml.rilum AS~4t:.7. a t a.an ,iaembPrshi{? -~.imi a.?ii i ~ app r~?V'E?C~a :.h? S~i7lP p~O j E?C ~ c'[t Qilr r'~i1Xli1~.~. • i~ee~~.nC,~' Iasi ~IecE?iii~$r. The reasans each ~ersnn -- for or aga:~.ns ~ --a~pra~ed or SL~ilt,3h tiQ C~eTR~ tiiI? ~ar~7.~~. ~~iC`.piaj" ~.i}.taa k,~.t~C': eI'IG~.a~ilrB ~?rC~Jec,}. ~a.iii2re~a ~rC3iit ~serson to ~sersan. i ili ~ ~ tirnn~~ ,i~c'~ jar :qt'y' +.~1~i r'i~prGCe. ~t 1g ]pY ~A,~aC;F_. tha ~' ~'ixF3 r ?nsr_,ns a~.Or *'ha i ii.=,Sar Y.{ t"l-I1C~i AS ~C3Cita~.7.~17 mE'm~~~ - Sil.~~ a~~r QVa.7 tiver? sd~ilil~ a.n i%eV4.~ ~F both Vn.%i-L1C~ri~i7eaC~ as VJf?~i ~S Tr t'~tC~~S . ti ~lir *+.tler 1? ~~~'y'y'",2i7S~3 ~i'1~ 4 r ii 4~iii A~S~C,i~a R.i.Oil 'v'~.'ti~~~a c'l~c'~3.3'I 7. i7 Se~tiember, iE%r%i cn ~~'iF? ~sar~i~i ~is•^•~.C:S7ei? s7i ~il~ $Pvf?il ~'?c1 ~Cail"i].~S c~nCi ~c~i~:.1.QS c'3 ti i.S`Sll~? r ti1$ reSili ~ 'vJaili =i i±r~. 7"i,~re i avor~'~'r~e -'-' ~C,ai~~'Wi12r e ',~3atLJeei1 ~Qro anC~a QQ°b -~- i4r she ~,r np~~r•?;; F?i1C~.a ~il%P ~'r~S~PC__~ . wE C:Cz iiil~?~'~tF.~nCi ~`_aid3 L' Vail haft .7. ~,^_, Y'ii..~?^ r rc^.~`Cll.~.$i1ai1.^Y c'}i3C~ c'3~3~1~'4c?. Ga1P.~ ~.C~ ~ecl-.~lll~ YJ1,.a l?F'vi3F_.r t,.#,,,~F3~...~. ti're ih7c'tii,_ titer ~@ ~s~t_+t~ v~~.i t^. :a •_i%P_.I?~. Tr@E'~Q~?t''+ ~i7.i.i1~a~'.~ ~~ i1c~-~ LiJ?2T1 c'i ~~C.C'a C:~~~.~.~?i1 ~rC,ll~3. i~YI4~ VJc^~~ ii1tiE'•nC~ LCz ~C~~.~S~W j7'Ollr rE?Clllr ~iaPi1 ~S . • , •~ , e ~?c'1C~' P Gv~ivi~'3~ `~rr~nnr~xm it ;i.Tx.v;i i11 ~]iIi illClx'~ i~?~".Pi'I~ ~aR.~x.iti,F_.~:c"I~i~sil~ C_Zi1 ~y1P_, k.,r7-,1±.Lt~~ ;?c~~.GCzrijT c311~ ~~.'~~.Q eric~o~ilY'8 ~i Oa£'~~ r c'1~ .Yi, c+~7.a r CLJi1Pi ~il~ nC3:~i u ~..1.1~1~tSi ± i~ ~il:i }$ i13C,~~'1 . x i1ciVF '~~inF'~i ~~ ~=~~.i.:~ ti? c'i i~ilxit~r`.~~i ••F mi, P_. P_. tC_;~ S ~Fii1E:'i 8 ~" G~ CCZil7.:4~.'r 11Gti c~,Ii O.~i 't ii@xii _.~ $iix(;~ i'~.~ii r.~e.:%~~. ~+CxiEf' t3'rVi18i~ i3c'3v~ $PTI'~ xix$ iilv^-t~`,~~C3@~`+ ~i1~'Oil~i1 Cs':i1Pi Gfh7ilQi ~ , 1'1.1:'^'1' r ~.1~SL'C~ Qil wa1U"L 2 't~a.7.$iii~Si~il$ ~ilt~e 111 cai~.-r.Cz~.i'a~i.~ I~iiiilx~.2i.^. t~~ 4V~'.~..~ ' ~~+ 7.11 "vi4w7.11C ii~iltiSr 'tiIL~SP ~3LV11E?;"$ iil .r',~i~,?~'t-+i ~ Gi }ilB ~5~i, till ~1~].C_`.C_1i1'y' c`I-I"1Cac p~t1.4 enu :o~~.~r~ ~1:'4 jec i a. ~?~7T'f?SP..iltec~ ~ .c-x tii ~i1~ :u21 jG}X'i ~~ ~11C1 [~i3~? LVi11,G~'1 ~~7~Fc'~[' i $ ~:~ tii3P_. CP ti ~il'i~ 4}k ~%ii~?i i~4~Y'{3GV8a'. r i i1c3Ji? ~:,iliy lic"$~i 7DJi1F'it~.+ ~F *i1Y'$E? iiil~}~ 132i~Q~1~~~Y c'iC~[:X~$ t, +. r. +-' ~ t-y iis.~,ii r'Iii:i +~'~1.C~ ~11Gi~fiil%~ "7T'L~ f'C'H ii1E: '~~'lAX +G;ICiI~ ._t] i P_, jfi~;± ;.i3.P ~,r_'Z' i ~.in~ !„?i1 y Y t LIi1C~a~'1!' C411~7.u$it~il0ia -- tiilc'~}i. iS r "1T'£'~' il.i3~ ~S ~F ~ ~'-? tc'ii ~?~ l~J~il~y"X]Zi1~' 11.TIi ~~ . ~QCC3i1Li r 'vVi +~'.i1 ~ P_.J+'~i ~i ~r C'~'vvilPi gu~,~7~i ~ r i ~. .i.S iily ~S~'c3G ~1C?l.~i cf''.r.'17~,'i .~~11C4' c"i~ ~c`~i ~ ~F CC]i1~C>ie~.].X'i7.ilxi~ r'1;~~+Ot'i~ l1C%FSS ~ia~ e'$~ e"'F-. a,Q~C~aQi r ~~f ~e"1- ~. $iI~~30T' ~ Fi'7y c"li-y }k 7.11 iil 'hii~ ~,i ^,y EC±' ~~ P_.~ iS rii.;i ~P_. it'~ti ? . `I'~'1~.'i Pi{~x". ~' ~ LVi1.~i..~.E W@ ;1'ls-!y ~@ ,~iG[si~:Li1~ c`3. ~ c"1 F.i~~i ~ ri r i c"l y i ~ o OLV11~T' c"lY'~.~~'O~%~.~i r ~i1c~ t .;i.Sci 3w,~'~~}i`v~iy i17.~i1 iil~i,ji~. Il'~iT Y~ T~T'~r'l TT'('~~1'~ YC` rArlT7T~T TTATTAT ,~ 31x~ L 1 ll _I u.,f 1 1 •J l V 1 .1. 141 1 \11V 143J rF +.y, 'r a'~^~ 4 i C`:,ix4~iQxi,iiil.iiiie~ iil ca ~~ "y'R+ii~G~.~a ,i, 1. t11P.i B i._ C'I i117 _x.liii `j C+W11@T'•_ ~ ~i11.1Ciar3,r i1f17.44 t,°Ls r _'i L .i.~ ~ _, ie.L1~i eiC~~ nil~i 3i,~.i.il~~.i1'i --- .li OiiT' ~'i~.~.c'1~2 7.S .' L4.1:'E?~~,111 ~.~£+ C~~~~~ail[i3i?C x'Pt.il~c't.}iGil ~S WE'i~. ~4 .7.~~ WGY'i~: ~iIC'i ~ii11 iC~T' c1.1~~. .~k u.g . • F3ac~c S'1~~ta~, wha. ~i-t r~nr'r~r,tr-x:-r,~~y r~t~ar;~rr~tr:k~~ cYr-tr~ :t fTiprt~vr~CJ nf~:~i rr'~a"art~rtr;:r'~, ar^r»'. i:.h~rn~+~1v~~:'~~ cl~~ir-rat3~.ea. 'k• r e~rW~'t rap ~ 1"Y ~ ~~ i.7 r. ~*rr ~3 r,t ~t: ~: i n c~ ~. rt to i ~-~ ~:~ r~ a:art!~ a. c:{ ~ r- G:-h 1 E: t.t~ c~ r ~r.1 i. rt g r:Yrs ci 7.rrtpr-c~v~~d rn~Z!"l~f:'rlr_•Yr'1t.E?. I !•cnaw '~.Y~Y~Y•L yrar.a 6::ncaw w~3 Y'-a~r;•?. ~r_ri. ~~vE.~r"ycartF'~ :i,r~t 'F tir:w VGa:i ~. Vi. ]• 7.~~r~Fr rr:~:u-tar~r"~m~-?r~i=, whca 'L.Ca~.rci•zr:,~ •i:hr•~ ~ri~catacr~-;r~c~ ~ar-ta,~~r'.'k'., m~tu r~,ca'f:. +~ra I~:r•rc;w~ -I"t~tr•~~r"cs•Fr„-r't.~ ~: r~rkt:~ tt't~ •f ~ a ]. raw i r~ ~ d: t'r r~~u,~ E-f't ~ . "Cr"r:~r~'t:.ra~:r~ i-t~:t , ~~r'tF•~~tnrwr~~~l k:rc't'k;i~f ra•f czrxr' I::~r.r~. ]. cii. nth T and Kati 1 rix nt;~ I r ~~r'r~.r~"anC"k'~~, r.cpi,~r•-adr~t:~ ~~ C7 ca i. .l c:?-^ ;::-rtrJ n}r..rr':E~r ~.~ trtrnLai r~c,~ , S.rnpr~ravr:~ra r:ar.tr' r:ira. vr~!~;, i. r]ipr'ca~f~r;i ta~•Y1. rwc~r~ty r~~:i ~ :i, rfr~s.--> rtc~f w~~. 1 a~ ~i. ran x '~ i r: ~~rf ~L• ~. y I~r,'~'t:f~r°:r ri{:~ tat..tr~ 1 ~anc:i!~~r.:~Ea a. rtt~ w ~"hr3~~ ~tr~a crr-t 1 y ~•t •f ~w ~. h x r7 c,~ ~ wt't a ~. h :~ c: ~:-r"~ r-i ~f i r~ f ~ 1 y ~' ern rt 3. 1 . `fhc:~ri, 'Lt~carr~ i. ~ wt•t~:t1: i~; E;rr-r~~~~rf't:.}.y r~ri 'ttir_•~ r_lr-aw~.rtr,~ b~t~-Yr°tl •~ur" the ~::wn i3r_ta.ldirrs~~ :i.nr.~.+.xcJar~c~s ntc~t~'E~ k'rr.~ii.~r- wrtr~'6L, rnrar^~ E:3ai~.r~r- ~.~rtrf pXurnL7i.r7c;~ ra~r•FEy'Ly wrar°E:, rf7rar"c--~ r~a~ '; :ir•-r:~~xl.~_~r.:~~S~; rtr~Yt! r"tF~w r#t,~t.tia~.~ rJ~i"r~ W7. rrC~r:ri'J'ar ~L.lr" ~r"C?Ici.~'i:C9~::IC~x C:iiNrtk:•~I"'r5 t'iC'_IVE:f C.ICat"fiw' 1'lUnlFsi"raL4iia ]. rt'ErE?I"r1~lY l..1r11'~ r't~ci~~ar-a'L z crr~~ -~~- a. nc:L YrYS_ii r•rr,~ Get:.*vG;r'r{~, era. r.~t~f i. •~ 3 iwr~rl~: crn~c~:, --- 'ttarwv hzav~? ~;©nt~ cr•!~ 'P:t~~ ~~~z3rrt~ r"~~r:1~~c:csr"~:t~:zc:ar~r ~~.4:.(°crr'~t:~ r,~s~~.r,c~ ni-Y a~ I wr~.~.r.~ ar~d •i,he~sy hr~v~ eai.t~Er'~ t,trtri~rw E-r1.r~rt e~r~` r~an~.r•~m~?;la'E"ivri. T rJ~Yr'r:.~:~rty 'l~l~ta~l_ rr~n~~~t: r~~•~ ~i::hfy r.~rvr.~n t_Yr~~.'k ~ t,r~r~G~irzc~ ~ty~ ~arc~pc~!=,~d p~~~-'i•~ i. ~~t~. b~~l c~.~~r}y ~:tr~rf ~a~~•t:i v r~racl r~~r.u•'.~c~ wi ~.1 I~c~ u~ar~r~~cl~rd =;r~rar't 'Lh~r'~etf•k:r-_~r -- !~cacar~t~9r" r~:t'~i~r':~i~' '~.I"-~art l~t~~~~rw. ~t11(a? }:C.'.'~I 1:3 ca a. t"l~:. ]. ~, •t:.t"fE:s ~:-~:tr~~E•::i. ~t:~ I.~t-t .l c:r3a'~Yy ~.ti~cl I_~;::Y~L:i. r~ r?t ~c:.1 L~~ir.At°'f_•~ i ~ ~t pw•r1jr~~.~i: :L!-~ ~~r~3d wall. f~~ trYr.,~i:.~.vt_~~C:ic~n+~_t:[ •L c:! ~"r-~S~~~l:~i:s~ cawrr~r~. E=i.rt~~l.:ly i.r~ •lrhi. a ;_;r-~~~ ~:srrcJ ~t k:a;:ar~~, t:.y~~ mj,~ rs~~,rr ~irl~rt~d~ ~- ~~ c:.can•>wt^~•~~~L~d •4~cx ~Yn 4:Y~t:?ride wi~i.erFt i:~:s ~carnc~. ~~~;1:.c-~t7•~. :l :irYl~i~t~~:i•E.~~:hr-.E --- :E •F~~~1 ~l:.f-cFw ~rkr••L-a.,:t~. ta<~lc~rri~y ~Yi-~d F,y~~•~i.ca earzr::Lt:-!~t..ttr~ Far~.!.:it~c.~l: a~:i~,1. ~c.c:~1.r:•~r-~=c~.c::j ~trtr c.canv~r~i.~t7 ~t^cam wak~di'r~trt`ti r~s~ f i r~ia i ~•~~:~.~~ r C3k.ki"' i rz~;•L-~t1 1. ~t•t_ i tan sa~f~ ~:n~rr~y ••- ~~ f i. ~:i ~n~k. r.Erattial r.•~ Fa Gst•~ c~ w :i n ci raw ~ ~ G:~'~, r; . W~:~ 1~aVe? ~a l:!:i •L, r.~•f ~~ "r'c~:E 1 " c;)ra:i r~r;~ i. n ~~!-Y~.~ ~.t~ar~r~ad~~ ancJ i rrtprrav~~c1 m;;~ :i t~ ~ ~~ i7 ;:a n c f•~ ~a i°• c~ ca . l: ' k;9 7.:i F~ to .~ c:! t"t r• t~ ca I F~ F~ c: ~~aF7 i. r~ ca .~ 1-3 ~~ ~i:. I;a €~~ rY ~ •~ :i t~ a ~t I " r- cti I J. " k,~ctz nc~ f carw+=.Yrt.l . • `I"6~~ifr 1'''F:k:1,.7f:Mii'"k" :E T aF;L._1~=. ~`t~i: •L•i:~rtk:t~rcf cat..tr- 1)r~~.Egm1:~E~r ~ 1~;'~7{~~ "fr4~•~r:~*#:. ca;ass l-rr:a~rcl C~i~a~•i=i. nr~ find ratru~ ~~!aC1C7. c~'~:k L"Yr'1 ' ~~ Flr3n1„t~ll i~l~Ei:::i. rYC:I i:.i•t<~Yi: rctC3~°~~l:.E'•1 ~~Y+.~ wt_I l.. 1: i-1k!cYrd 'i;I~E~: f r~rm~l ~re?sy~•?r~1:~-~~ki.car~~ n~~=cde.~ carp ~~.!°YE~ ka;:~t•-L-'i. G~1. iacx3. c: carry xxrtci k:a,::c•k=:Lca ~r~c.:1 k7~t_tr~ ~rrsa~~~'E~. "f't•t~r!~tm ~trr~s~t~r•t~.:~tl.i.ran!:x i.r•t 1:a~~f"ti~rl-F ta•F -i:.t'rr:' Fa,::trl:i.wel. Ls~tl.c::t'»'ry ~Ynd ~~.~t'iricx ;I"1C:~.I~aLAi^E•:~5 WC't"{? E~'~f'E?C'~:kVL^?e ~^I.tl..~. l:l:kG3(~i..t+ai~i1C)I'1 ~]r;~.t"II"1''kxCj~ Mn*~t :i. a•~Fa~rr'i:.~:Yni~.l y, my r~•~:'r.aa. ]. c~~t~ rari i r, ~:I-tc•~rc~ a,~,~~ ~t •f ~~l i nr~ r~•6 •F;.~:irrs~s~s~ i.n ~i~ea a•f•f~~lr Ct~ ~LI't~! iat^t-!!:;c~~rz't::at`cc~ c:!tr,t~~st^~; ....~. ~,,,l=s~ci;_~tl].y wi.•i~I~i Y'~C~~~!''C,i 'L [] •L`1-~cr~~~.~ c:,wrrrtr°~ kz~:;tr:ir~YCl 1~1--r, c,r..~~rir't:9 r~tasyi:. c,-F ~canss'~i'"k.{c~ka.car7, btu+awi. nc3 i. r-rc:'r`~ ~YSse:c! rn;:~:i r3~i=cyrtar~L~ , :l c_a;tva. rir_~k •~ca•i:i. r°~rl r-i. c~t~#:i.> t~L't~ ~s~•~rrt~, t~a~:i rye ~~ f•'t,L r~k~ c~k.t~Y~. i ~l:.y .,icak:r c:icyrti+:~, k::!~a rtt~ re:!~:t~r.~nr:Ytal. ~ tist:,~:9ct1: ~t1.'L~:rr't~Y~L:i vtwas; ~nef, cY~ :['vt::.* s;;:~:irl l:~~•F~it^;~r s~aF:tr'i.nr,3 •-" i.c~~~rdi.rot,~ •Frar'w~:Yrti can r't~.~~-~d~d r~tld fi~k.t•Et_-r~ new c~•f•~crr•k:.r; fit:.. r:kR rYYC~r~ c,~~ts~~ f~irc-:~k~J.;~~ti,.c~:s~) . • ra ~;t~~ E~t Wkl:i ~. tw" ~:k"tC'l'-C~i? FTr~VF_.' ~:F~:?{_'!"i !'"L.tll)fal"'~ii itY'YC~ C~t~':~i{:Y' 1 ~')'kr:L Cali"i~,a cl~Cli..l'~: ~':.I'i!? ~r'E:.'t?~l':Yp~ pc~r~~:z~l 1~,~3.rc~rly ,~t~iJ p~t~L.:iiwl eir•tclra:~at.{r~ ~lr{:l,jr~c:.•L •L-~~;-~x~. cii.cin't~ r~~t 'hh~ f~•~c_•~~ ~trtcJ i t-t~k:~~r'l•t.:i r~n.~ Ctcr•cas,> v{-~i~~;~ wE•~l ~. , 1 ,~~.i~.1r.~~q ~F.Fte:~ N~r'i~.z~~c•~. :i ~:~E.1 •F tCa kr-~ r.~t_ii t~ ciG~ir~tb~~ ~Fclr~ a~.{r- A~~,{.~l{~i;~•ki.cln 4~s~ wt:~:t~. ..~s ~~r3r- V~aa,], w•- ~-ti-ld ~~~~l~c~~:~~.~.y Apr k...l C3nSaFi!••xciC1 Wk'7G?rl tin 11'1""C1 F?p'~:.11 :k. ~~{~k•ti l::ll^ ~k]. ~'a~k..lS:s ^i :l Qr't C~C:~.~4r"~a. I`7y ~F i*~c?l. i. rtr,~.a ~~,i.tmrrlx•~i~-:i ~~ a ri{~~ ~F~xvcar°~3ta 7. f,a i;aavrt~r- v:L tr:va~ r-G~trrge~ •f ream nl~n ~tnd wclrtt~n ~i:>~k;~.ntl gr°~:~,~~~k_t="t<' ~c.c.i..t~'i•~.yy :a~:t~f~~t~y, ~3rtr~ rn~'.lr'~ ~lr~iv~cy9 ~tlianc~ wi.`~h catF'l~l^ ~t~i-t~~F i •k:.~ y a.~l ~. ~t:l-t{;~ way ~r.:cl pt»~r~~car7~ ~~i~i. r~tc~ ~Ll~~a ra~-~r'ta. ~1 Emil ccany anC~ p~`~icl rar~clcl~t~ar'e;:: fat~n~~:c~~: ;t!_r 3.~_5~:t{:iartr_t 'kt:a la sa•k•:'Lc~~i~' C~t»ta~.ekir'ly ~:i~r~l~:~tr~~nr. 1~1 f..l ~~ C~ ~ 1 •~ .~. ~-t ~~ 4.1 K:t r" ~~ .{ r`t l» lit ~. ~? ~.~ r~ i~ .~ (:.'~ C_ ~ u ' I.1: ya{.t h,tv~ x~ny c~~t~.~.~#~::i.{,lrit~s uxF.tCa~t~L~. •~1•~a.~ :k,t':.?i:.~~~~r-, f:~1r~G:t~iw C=~11. rttt». ~ ct~C31{:JC~].i:F? 1l'1 s':tC~vr"af7C:k~? 1'F .~. Flrtvfs? k:af;°F;?Il {_lrl{~~.~til'-~ Al ~.u-t i::. t"'~~:~r-~c~n • • r,, r Tows} a~ va a ~ 7~ SD. Front~iGaie Fis~ras:~ Vai I , CLl a1~::i7 Thi a l e~~.i.sar i ~ frorrr !"li. ]. dr`s:~.ri ~:ir,s~ r",l ar•s f°'e•rt•~rsun ~~s c~wnr~rs of Tr+~~etopa uni is :1A ans~ 4A. I . FAV(7hAD~.E 0~ I k'~I pfd We suppr~rt the }ar~E~sErrri.Iy }~r-r~~:taasacJ Tre~+ic~ps partial bals:t~ny arsd patio erYClosur•e pr°c~,jeet.. ~Jc-~ 3ust wanted yos.t to F:r-,ow. Cur i ni ti <<i s.ani •L w~-,c, pur~:I~t~sed i r-, about 15'7"7, os.rr sec:or~c~ as~~e i n 197. i+1tM h~ivs_~ ste~rrJ i 1 y i nor°er3s~:d c~s..u•- i nt+'~rest ar",s~ ~yff cart ~ i n !~~upport r{ V~~z ]. ~::ai rao~: w~: c:~~crye, i r~sW l tali ny rrta};ing L.ionahe~:~d itself better. T Y . ~;0~1E kAl" I C1h1ALE Wsa wos.sls~ !~e affec~Le.~f by tF'r~: enclusur"es -.-nder discussion as7 o~.sr l~alccan:icas loo}; clis^ec:tly out can six of i:hs~ seven ~.tr-its planning trs ~ancl r.~sr~~ a ~:~~.art r~•F their F~aiconiras or patios. Treett~~rs 4A unit, our first unit;, waa r~~dsacr,~s~ated tF~is sumrner~. During that rrrajs~r e~f•For't, ws:~ w~.~r•e r-er,~ularly remi odes=l thG~t~: ttt~iny i terns tar~ha nsi spur waI .l s a~s~~re no'k up •to today ` s 'J~~i l Ui l 1 age Cone ~:inc~ cif thr*a i mpt~rias~ee of i rn~rt~va nr~ an inciividt.ial awrier uni-~ (e.c,~. E~rir-cc~iriL~ •E:hinr,~s arsp to Veil Code, ma}:trig Ix-Fsa i~rsarsa route e•~ficient ans~ ro-c-rra ~slc~~~s~ant, etc.) as wol l ~'ts s~eveloping thr_ or3r,tins_-ing per':~s~n4~I irrtstirest to }cer~E3 on ma}~xng things }rsattsar (shar-psaning pl~.~ns to do the ne>:t round, helping otFies~ a~nrr~rs see wh~:tit can be done, sate. ) • p~~~c~ Sri ~~I~e c.,~cse cif Lt'~r=~ pC{IM~.s.~=~1 ~C~1f:or~Yy ~rrLi p'~•~a.ra encl.r.~s~.cr'~ prajFWc~L-, wc~.:~ sE•,~.y nwrlr_~;',~ rl~F ~~~r']r1 7rr=a~t_n~a~ ~.rr7a.'Ls ~rMeF:i.r1c~ tra clcr sulrre•t'.h~inc~ vE'rv sarrri:l~€rm 'L-r.~ c:l~.cr c,w:-r u~Y~r~tci~y. Flfti=lr- t:.l-re pGart:i~~l ~~nc=ln:~c_r:^c~ ~Yrr.~.~ac_t, t~.tlrrs a~•.nc~~r-=.~ o~E ttlclse severr ur-li~i_s wi].1 I~rave rrrc5l~e~ us~ttsle ~:iF:lc:€~L:a •L h1~~€n •~I-rey t-r~ct ~efc~re bec_~€use •Lt1t~: spy€ae L-lE.ir-I~ €:wrr~7.;~s~~cl i~.~ r°r=.~I.r:ci:ivr:~e.ly un~.cs~L~l.e f scrtGcX 1 , t_rrr.~es~ur~~~i , can 't. t1c»' c~rca~.tnrl ~-rr-sc~ ~rr~Mr°y t:Yr.{~ 1. i ~ , ~~"~:~..) . E~E~ ci r E? f3l_l r' G-? ik-1 CY ~'; t: CJ '~ '~: ~1 r3 ~ €»;' °.> i•?'v' €~' I-r Ll I"1 1. t:. tz 4'~ 3. ~. ~. f? f'Y :J C7 y L.1 ~;! L;~ r" c[ (~ ~ `S C3 f:3 ri - "- l L1 h ~ c"t ~~ IN k~? ~"1 ril V ~' ~ i3 r'l C---' . Wc~ 'Feel. 'Lh€~~ ra~r~lc~r°'~>, tart-~c:; ~,rc~~'>t~t1~L'1 y t~3 ~.r1 ts~Y i_~rrr=lcl~~ ~~I~eir- l~ti~].~grlies nr f:~~:+~t:a~~::, pl~~rr ~.~ fars~'t':~•c~1.~1:~~ ~Fs'-c~.jc~ct=. ;hey f'r~xv=~ rrr~~tc#~ ~ fzr,e I~r-~_~t~c==s~.r1 ~i..c., °f r.. c~:~c~tc:at:.}~ Gr~nc_i~irrinir~rrn i~~r~ori~l=ic~r; c~r1 I~ca~~r'ir7r~ ct:ns.~rr.rc.t:i car'. ~.t~~t::s7 c.`Yr1 1;1~~yin€~ rr€ainl:erlhr-icc: sar~r~ ur~l ~ra'tir-rc~ --- ~-r prrr~.,cas~l. t•~hicl-r r.~tiz u~Y~:e~rverJ was quit;c~ f~~vr~l^ataly r°e?r~ive>r~. f•~a new r~r~c:>,.incE ~~rac.e r•3i~.I L~~ used. Sc~rrr~ r_cr;5ic~!-t~.1y wr~~YC! ~~i:E l tie c~ar7r~. W~: ~,Yi.ll c~~~.ri ~r.~arrr-a rrrc~r°e ,~~3=.~ firr~pl~ce:~. Tt1e p~r~:i~I b~tlc:any ~.inci p~tl:ica ~.n~lasur^e pr~ijea~t_ 5}se's=ci~es, tc~gei:t-rer• wi ~t1 ar-~~1 rr~~r-esen~~.~•tir~n:~ rrr~ci~.a, erc~~'E:e qui •te ~~ na ce rir•c~~;r~SEyrJ Lr..ri. 1. csi ng ~ppe~cr~rlce. We see tf-ra.s pr-ajt~c~'~:. ~~~a ~r su~cnc~ pC:~rt± r.~f l.~argt;r- e•Ffc~r-ts •ka rria~e 'Treei:afas ~r'irl L-a.c~l-~st~e~ci roar^c~ rye±~ir~tL~l~~. • r ,, k=car t•. k'sE_~cSE:: r`Ea~~c~•r~ ~.~nci trscarr*, w[~ ~~r~r~t:,nctJ.1 y St~Era~~rt •tk-~ FJrjlµtJ.wa). ~i~J.c~car7y anc~i ~~«•L-3.c~ ~r•i~l.c:~~~ir'e_ ~~r-o.i~c•1:.. ~ahic,r.El rl you ~~ri ~f, ~~~ cl:~ ~:czE~. ~,~u~ ~va. rr:•~~~ •s~~.Ert:t~~r , ~aE:M~ c~•an EaE~ r'~a~E-rrack ~t~: I-:crsri+:•~~ (~E~ic3-~~t~`r-~'~S'3? , t,E~r~t_u~ii F~cS•t_~~r~~:sE~Fn f~c~r~sEwlJ.~.ir7c~ th'IrG~. F-k~:~rz~J.r_~y: M:L'~`-:`.;~47-`.:Jr~'E1EJ) t::sr' tt~rrc,~.u~~l; V~:siJ. ~•~nrrr~~ I;~riLal~ • R ~..Q . Gary Klein ~_. 1221 Pearl Street, Suile 3 PO. Box 1345 Boulder, Colorado 80306 1345 (303)443-6622 August 26, 1991 Mr. Mike Mollica Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Raad Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Treetops Balcony and Patio Enclosures Dear Mr. Mollica: Today the Vail Planning Commission will vote on an appeal by the Treetops Condominium Association that the approval granted to Treetops on June 1, 1987 to allow the enclosure of eight balconies and two patios as part of a planned property improvement program is still in force. • I would like to offer a few comments regarding this important vote. By way of introduction I would like you to know my wife and T have been part-time Vailites since the opening of the ski area in 1.962. We purchased unit 1-C in Treetops as the building was being constructed in the summer of 1972. Our unit is on the easterly side and on the ground floor. This has certain advantages of access but one disadvantage is that the patio is really not a private area for our enjoyment as are the balconies to the units on the upper floors. Our patio is adjacent to the stairwell which gives access and fire escape to the units above us. So over the years our patio has been used to store firewood and other items. At the annual meeting of our association in 1986 we discussed various improvement projects for the association's buildings and landscaping. The idea of balcony and patio enclosures was brought up. We were very much in favor as this would be a great improvement to our living and dining area. After several association meetings a plan was approved in April 1988. Construction of the improvements with the exception of the balcony and patio enclosures followed on a phased schedule. The balcony and patio enclosure plan had some changes. Instead of ten units there were now only seven units desiring to enclose. Another vote was take at the December 1990 annual meeting of the association. This was approved by 66% of the membership. . Naw we are ready to finish the last component of our improvement plan envisioned in the approval granted by the Town of Vail in 1987 ~- •and we are told this will not be allowed as we did not finish the '~ enclosures in the one year time allowance granted to us. I ask this question. Why, then, did you allow us ~ do the other improvements to the Treetops buildings which were done two and three years after the June 1987 approval? Z urge you to grant this appea]. of the staff's denial so that we can complete this project. You can be assured we will be most sensitive to the architectural design so that there will be no impairment to the uniformity and symmetry of the Treetops buildings. Very truly yours,~/~~ Gary C Lein U • MEMORANDUM • • TO: Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Housing Authority FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Joint worksession with the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Housing Authority concerning employee housing requirements for Special Development Districts (SDDs) and the proposed zoning code amendments related to providing employee housing. ~h~i ?`~~`:''':}`}, r1 ~'~4 JF^'f~C~~3.6: ~C?tin. ^fi•~Yf~Yf..4;N/.'2~•:H:,~•}:,.w..5'~•^¢+{y~iC's/?0:<p*•~•. i+• PqF :Y •, •,.., ~r~v- SIMYA`~C•:,Y,~v.•:a~rjl`~ ~~~ 5, .,.•: .,.s'.{....,n~:: .oo-.••v <.xfr~ ,u.•:n.,;,:.+.~?;:yh.:'?' a..coa..`:¢,~`ra¢%'b!'t7.`. eeB~' a::..'... 3 ~k.~ ,b. ,. v}.:~., E..H.~. `/.;• i?e:+?~tx`r C4.i ~c° r°ra~M Gjo. .tom. .~ ~~ `~r . : $~•i t .~;, .. ~ v .y.:,L fN,.:.';~o:..,.... ~F: ......,.~+.; a ~~J'<;,:zw.dr. y w, , •.,t,~ ,~.}~~"&~ ~hica~'-•i'.ssd ~~~'G~~/ru ~~cs ~~+SL'~ . .'9 x, IX., ..4.31 ~{YinJ YFri•~ ~. s..o..`.;; ~ ?'.J`<:. .~.q::...£6<{.p :r+t~'~'•''.~. 0.~ °.' ~ ..~•. ?, ~F}' ~+.,, ~ ''°~ 9'°, 17,... ,,.o . ~. g ; .S.or. .iS" S,x : ~:kti~: F.S `!i..: ~c ~:# ~ .„VA, . f'A' `:~:•~~~}~-,L. :,,5.>.~ ~;.°u. ,~` & 5' f rk '- ~, n.. r5.>x~m^v.~/ ~ ~~':~:n`,.::.~~odGio-t<-,?.c.: i'r.`/.; . ~r.~~wc.....:.'~a~.~5: ;1~... ::`.•.;<`.~ - ''~i`~ES~;fim,....&'.°.~^.c.:..;.~.`:~:.^.:"~':':nf`.'~.~k.'~'.i.'`k~e~:~~f.:a.~',~:sx,.w:.~..~:. vew;w. Attached to this memo is the draft report from Rosall, Remmen and Cares concerning the suggested approach to applying a formula far generating employee housing, based on the type of commercial and/or residential development. This information wil! be utilized in a zoning code amendment concerning Special Development Districts. Below is a list of questions which will be helpful to answer in order to proceed with revising the employee housing section of the Special Developmen# District chapter of the code. What type of projects should be required to provide employee housing? Any SDD? SDDs which exceed allowed residential and/or commercial square footage? Variances, etc. C. 2. What percentage of employee housing is appropriate to require? 3. Should a developer be able to satisfy an employee housing requirement with payment in lieu or a donation of land as opposed to actually constructing a unit? 4. Should a developer be able to place restrictions on existing units in order to satisfy an employee housing requirement? 5. Is it appropriate to include provisions that relate to the amount of rent that may be charged far required employee housing units? 6. Should required employee housing units only be used for long-term rentals, or should for-sale units to employees in the Town of Vail also be allowed? The Council and Planning and Environmental Commission have discussed these issues in general. The purpose of this worksession will be to get definitive direction on the above questions. ,~~.~, ~~~~r ~~ RnSAi.l. REMMEN CARi;S PLANNING UR6AN pESiGN AND RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kristan Fritz and Members of the Housing Authority FROM: Chris Cares B~iJ»~E~ CC~LCFapC 8:~_~_': ..., aap.t..,g 1RE: Suggested Approach to Applying a I"~..,~ula for Employee Housing DATE: July 15, 1991 {Revised} Attached is the report describing the results of the Rosall, Remmers and Cazes, Inc, (RRC) analysis of commercial and residential employment generation rates. The report documents the Levels of • employment that are found in resort towns based on a comprehensive analysis conducted in 199U191. Its purpose is to provide background information and the more technical underpinnings far the recommendations that we are presenting in this Memorandum. In the discussion that follows, we have identified what we consider to be important considerations for the Town of Vail as you consider alternative formulas far evaluating and regulating new development in the Town. On page 4 of this Memorandum we have presented a chart that summazizes the results of the Background Analysis Report and suggests ranges that might be used as standards by the Town of Vail. It is anticipated that a chart similar to this, but without the specific identification of RRC findings, might be adopted into the Town's Land Use Code. The chart could either be a part of the SDD requirements, or "free-standing", meaning that it could be used to determine requirements for other processes beyond just the SDD section. Clearly, we need the input of Larry E. and others, but our intention was to present the numbers in a flexible format. A first consideration is whether you want to impose requirements on just new commercial/lodging construction, or on new residential that exceeds the amount of development allowed by the underlying zoning. The rationale for just commercialllodging standazds is that these types of development are the source of both permanent and seasonal employees. Typically, unmanaged residential units result in construction employment during an interim period, and the expenditures for this development creates ongoing economic impacts in the community; however, once constructed, unmanaged residential units do not usually have employees. ;~ . ROSALL R~MMEN CARS P~ANN~NG UR6Ati pESIGN AND RESE4RCH We suggest that Vail adopt an approach that uses a formula that will apply to only new commercial and Iodging related construction at this time. In other words, we believe regulating the commercial side of the equation is the most logical and expedient way to create standards. We have also identified same typical residential employment rates in the standazds that are attached, based on code provisions from other communities. This is to provide you with measures should you wish to include residential generation figures either at this time or at some later date as part of another section of the code that expands an SDD requirements. In a further consideration, you may also want to insert a section into the SDD Code that requires construction impacts to be addressed; however, it is our opinion that to try to create a formula to address what amounts to a seasonal problem, and one that is often of limited duration, is difficult. As spawn in the attached report, there is wide variation in the numbers of employees that are typically generated by various types of commercial activity. As a result, we believe that the formula should differentiate between several categories of commercial activity. Ideally, you would identify enough categories to cover the majority of applications, but not try to create so many subcategories that we imply a level of precision in our measurements that we do not actually have. In addition, we feel that the requirement should be expressed as a range (as Aspen does it) with the opportunity • for a particular applicant to justify the anticipated employment activity that will be generated by the proposed use, or mix of uses. We have chosen the categories of employment that are shown in the chart {for example, retail- grocery, liquor, convenience; or office-financial) based on our analysis. We found that there is wide variation in the employment generation rates that are found in resort communities within a single broad category such as "offices." Many codes do not make this distinction, but we felt that it was important in Vail to anticipate that employment rates will vary between, say, a grocery store and a ski shop. Both might be called "retail" but the standards should anticipate the diversity that exists, and ideally should be tied to the actual data collected from the resort towns. We have shown a fairly wide range on the table that follows below, which could be adjusted to be made narrower, closer to a "mean", or average. The range around the mean could be utilized by staff as a standazd basis or criteria in the review. The applicant, if he/she believes the particulaz mean is not representative of his project, could then prepare and submit a report which documents anticipated employment as a part of the SDD {or any other Town process) application. Because one can anticipate that there will be pressures to underestimate employment it may be desirable to provide same guidelines in the code as to content and expertise required to prepaze a report. For example, the report should present anticipated gross square feet and an estimate of "usable area." This should then be tied to estimates of employees expected to be generated by the type of use. Finally, the applicant should be required to indicate why the requested standards deviate from the adopted Town averages {if they do), and to present some documentation of rationale based either an current local employment, examples from other comparable communities andlor land uses, and any other . documentation that is deemed relevant. The report could be required to be prepared by a "qualified professional" (many ordinances have this requirement). The report would then be reviewed by the PEC and Town Council as part of the overall SDD. ROSALL REMMEN CARES P~ANN'NG URBAN DESIGN AND RESEARCH In the numbers that we have provided to you it is important to remember that the estimates were prepared during the peak season. There is also multiple job holding that occurs, meaning that the new employee at a retail shop is likely to be working a second job. We have taken the multiple job holding into account in our standards, but have not tried to reconcile differences between summer and winter employment. We suggest that this be done through the percentage standard that you adopt (35 percent, 30 percent or whatever}. On the following page we have presented severe! categories of uses and a range of employment figures to serve as a base for discussions. As shown, we feel that it is important to differentiate lodge units from other types of new construction, especially in Vail, and these employment impacts are probably most easily measured using numbers of rooms. Further, we find that there are three identifiable "tiers" or thresholds of lodging employment that should be anticipated. Our formulas take the existing "real world" variations into account. We hope that this outline of standards, together with the supporting report, assists in your discussions concerning the appropriate requirements and approach for the Town. There is considerable data available to support our conclusions and we will be happy to provide additional information should the need arise. :~ ROSALL REMMEN CARL=S PLAN'Vi^iG UR64N pESfGN ANp RESEARCH SUGGE~,~~ EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES AND RANGES FOR VAIL EXPRESSED AS EMPLOYEES PER 1080 SQUARE F~~~ Bar/Restaurant Retail and Service Commercial Retail: Grocery/LiquorlConvenience Office: Rea! Estate Office: Financial Office: ProfessionallOther Conference Center Health Club Lodging* Local Government RRC RESE4RCH OVERALL Av~xaGES 5.711000 s.f. 5.911000 1.811000 7.611000 3.1/i000 b.611000 NA NA 1.31room 6.511000 10.611000 NIA NIA SUGGESTED . RANGB 5-811000 s. f. 5-$11000 1.5-311000 fr9/1000 2.5-411000 5-811000 111000 1-1.5/1000 .25-1.251room 5-811000 9-1311000 0.41unit 0.21unit Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.} li Multi-Family Single Family Other: To be determined through the SDD process, upon submission of adequate documentation and a review of the application materials. * Lodginglaccommodations has particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of servicelsuppart facilities and amenities provided. The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated that a definitive report will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. .~ • EMPLO ~'MENT GENERA TI DN RATES A Background Analysis Based on Survey Research June 1991 • ItOSALL RF11~A4~1V CA3tFS fluIPLOYMEN'!' GENERATION RATES • INTRODU(`TION This report summarizes the results of survey reseazch conducted in several ski/tourism communities. It reviews the results from questionnaires addressed to ernglayers that, among other wpics, explored the relationship between the number of square feet {s.f.) in the commercial establishment and the number of employees working in the particular business. These surveys were conducted in Eagle {136 interviews), Routt {174), Summit {242), Pitlcin {169), and Blaine (Sun Valley/Ketchum-162 interviews) Counties and Estes Park (224). The sample includes 1,107 commercial and governmental establishments ranging in size from the smallest to largest in the various counties. This information is presented to the Town of Vail t4 assist in discussions concerning the appropriate standards for adoption into proposed Code amendments, with particular application to the SDD process. A number of different "cuts" at the data are presented that allow overall total measures to be developed, along with some figures describing the situation in Eagle County, and specifically within the Town of Vail. In addition to the various commerciallemployment figures, several other attachments have been provided. These include: • Excerpts from a report that provides an overview of "linkage" programs and describing the status of such programs in a vaziety of communities. Linkage is a . term that is used to describe codes or requirements that tie new development to requirements for providing funds or mitigation to meet the identifiable impacts associated with the new development. Such programs aze in various stages of evolution, and are relatively uncommon in the mountain towns. Nevertheless, there are proven examples that merit attention. A summary of the current Aspen and Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines for determining "Generation of Employee Units" by various land use categories. • An excerpt from a field survey of establishments conducted by the Director of Community Development in the Town of Breckenridge. It is showing employment levels that are similar to those being obtained through the RRC study. ENDINGS AND CONC[.USiaNS As shown in the Appendix tables and in the graphs on the following pages; there is wide variation in the number of employees generated by the various types of commercial activity. For example, the Figures portray the average number of employees per 1,000 square feet by business type, and they also show the average number of squaze feet per employee (both calculations combine two different measures of commercial activity). The average number of employees in retail businesses in the skiltourist towns surveyed is 11.3 but the number of reported employees ranges from I to 155 per establishment. Obviously, it is difficult to generate a single measure that will perfectly describe the situation within the wide range of retail establishments that exist. Similarly, the average number of employees per 1,000 s.f. was found to be 4.36, but it also showed wide vaziatian. R05ALL REMMEN CARFS PAGE ! ~MPLA'Y'MENT GENERATION RA'I'E5 The figures portray results based on the a re ate of all the resort communit[es. Althou h there was gg g g discussion of developing standards based on just Eagle County or Town of Vail employment patterns, the wide variation in businesses makes it difficult to develop a measure based only on focal data. The regulations that were adapted in Aspen reflect the variations in employment levels by establishing ranges rather than fixed measures for several of the employment categories. On the other hand, some communities have chosen a single standard that they apply to alt categories of business. Based on the data, the Town of Vat[ may want to consider an approach that uses a range. The results summarized in Figure 1 show that barhestaurants, real estate, and construction alI have relatively large numbers of employees per square footage. In general, the employment numbers from the resorts are somewhat higher than some traditional measures that have been generated in other types of camanunities. We attribute the higher figures to the ski economy in general, and to the fact that these surveys were conducted during the peak winter months. The retail economies in the ski fawns Dave been strong over the past several years resulting in relatively high employment levels per establishment, especially for those businesses that are centrally located. In addition, it should be remembered that we are measuring the total number of employees at a point in time. Many of these individuals may be working multiple jobs (we found an average of about 1.35 jobs per person} so there is same double counting that is taking place when the entire set of businesses is considered. We suggest that the tables that are adopted in Vail should Feduce employment levels to address multiple job holding in the formula itself. This calculation has been done in the table that was provided to the Town under separate cover. ROSALL RFMMEN CARES PAGE 2 U • FMPI.OY1-.,n. ~ , GIsNZ1UTION RA'Z'ES F~c[rRE 1 F.~i..oYE~,s PER GROSS 1,000 SQvARS F'~sr ~o s s- 5 ~ 4 .~ 3 2 1 0 ~ ~ ~ -~ .~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ u y~ W ~ FIGURE 2 SQUARE FEET OF CQ1vnv~RCIAL SPACE PER EMPiAYEE k`~J1 u 500 450 400 350 ~ 300 250 ~ ~" ~ _ , ~ y' c. ~ ~'x ~' ~ ~~ ' Z00 ii' ,~ z ~ ~5a goo ~y Y @O L W W s L O[ ROSAI.L REMvZEN CARES PAGE 3 EMPLOYMEPI'I' (iF.NFRA~'ION RATS In addition to camp`sling figures on square footages, RRC tabulated data describing the employment pattern within the County and the Tawn of Vail. These results are based on data provided by the State describing all businesses in the County that maintain unemployment insurance. These results show that within the County, the retail sector represents about 33 percent of all businesses, and about 27 percent of all jobs. In the Town of Vail the retail sector represents about 40 percent of businesses and about 30 percent of jabs. These results are useful and iti~portant in that they indicate in which sectors most of the development activity will occur. ~atrR~ 3 Town O~ ~Att.lF.~-at.8 Covrrrx 13Y SIC COMPARED 4D16 3576 3096 3576 2096 1596 tD96 516 076 cewity 96 N IM ~ •~ N V~r v~ N r~w.n ~ tew+eY x N Joey ~ Uwn N Vet t- N J~b+ The measurements for lodging should probably be based an rooms rather than square footages. Again; the data indicate wide variations with several facilities having about one employee per 10 rooms, while others are ai mare than one employee per room. Vail properties are especially likely to have higher employment ratios. As shown in the attachments, the Breckenridge research showed .8 employees per roam. Overall, the RRC database showed 1.09 employees per room. However, if just the permanent full-time employees are considered, the ratio drops sharply to .26 employees per roam, or close to the one employee per three rooms figure that has been used by some professionals in past estimates. C] ROSAI.L REMMEN CARES PA4E 4 ~ ~~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ TABLE l[ coulrrx cal.t~aT~tss ot° EasPLnr~ c;~t~u-riosH UNITS • tad uu at~gory iiesidentlal Tourist Arcornmodatlon/ Lodge Comm erdal ProtessionaVO[fice getaill WholesalelServices Warehause Manufacture Restaurant! Bar UtiiltieslQuasl aovernrnental Other CLAFitFICATIONS POR CRY/COUNTY GENER/ITtON: t,n~playets cien«ytea Bee Occupancy Standards 0.2 to l?.4 employees per room ,.fl employees1t000 s.t. ~ LS4a~ 3.5 employees11000 a.t. ~ Z$t ~ . 0.4 empioyeesJ1000 sf. _ t.6o ~ - 1.5 to 4.0 emplayees/1000 s.t. 5:0 to 10.0 smployees11004 s,f. 1.5 to 2.5 emp[oyeesl1000 s.t. Eased on revletar of APCHA a. The above Employee Generation calaslation figures are Intended to be constatent with Section 8-109, Affordable Housing, of the dsy Code and Sedian 5-510 of the County Code. b. Employee generation tar comtnerdal uses shall be based on net leasable square footage (see Deilnliians) and shall be verified by review of the APC[i!l ,., c. Affordable housin may be prorlded on the same site or on an attemate site cram the prapc~sed development, prav~ded that credit shall only be given for dwelling unlts.lor~ted, within the City of Aspen oP the Aspen Metro Area, as this area is cunenily defined by the AspenlPitidn County t'3rowth Management Policy Plan. Appplicants proposing to provide affordable housing on an alternative site shall be required to demonstrate its teaalbi[Ity /hrough demonslratln that they have an interest In the properly or dwelling units, and by spediying the slza and type of antis to ~e prov1ded,and any physical upgrades to be accampiished. d. The Aspen qty Code t:3rowth Management Sedlon 8-106G(4)(d1 raters to the Provision of Affordable Housing. This sedlon allows for the advice of the qty Caundl's housing designer. to be used in the delarmination of the number of employees the p o~ed development to ezpeded to generate. The standards for ampioyee generation represent the vartstrh levels of service which retied the types oY lodge operatiarss In existence or proposed fa the qty of Aspen. Thla section allows that the applicant be given the oppostunlty • ,_ ~ ~ TAE MOUSING/EMPLOYMENT FIGURES FROM SNgWMASS VILLAGE ,lob generation rates.~nd therefore,~° the number of employees generated as a result o~ developra~nt varies by the type of land uses which comprise the development. In order to adequately determine the number of jobs wha,ch will result from a project, the following job generation rates shall be applied to each type of use i.n the development that crastes a Winter time itnpaat on the community. ~- ~'vne nP Use j~,i,~t er of_ Jobs _Ge~~r~ted Cota~sercial. _ 5.37 Jobs per 1, 000 interior • square feet office 3,78 Jobs per 1,000 interior square feet. . Multiple Family 0.50 hobs per Un~t :. Single Family 0.30 Jobs per Lot Hotel/Lodge Room 0.44 Jobs per Roots ski. Area Restaurants 4.58 Jobs per 1,000~interi;or square feet . Ski. Area 82 , S Jobs per 1; 000 skiers at one time Miscellaneous Conference Center 0,97 Jobs per 1,000 inter~.or ~ square feet. Health Club ~1.47 Jobs per 1,000 interior sq`tare feet Others To be determined through sub- division or Planned Unit Development Process. B. The number of fobs generated by all types of uses, as determined i>a Section A, shall be divided by ],.3, the average nut~ber of jobs fret: empioy~e, which will determine the number of new emp~.oyees which will be .generated by the development. C..:. The Town Cpuncil.,has determined .that it is desirable to house `~ ~6gtt of these new .employees fn Snocrmass Vil~,age. f, • •'.i. - work Sheet Employees Req:~ :zed f oz Various U'se Types C~ Gk~~- ~i ~~Q~ Restaurants 6 examples: 2,2.$58 sq. ft. 126 emplo;~e~s ~ 1 ernp~.oyee per:> 1.8]..41 sq. ft. Retail General (2 ex. ~ •. x..31{3 sq. ft. . l0 employees ~ 1 emsplvyee ,per 131 sq. ft. Ski Shops (fi ex=~ ~b.9s2, sq. ft. 79 employees = 1 employee goer 3b1.54 sq. ft, ...._ . ,. Total Reta ~1 .~~ • B examples ~ 2~?.292 sq. ft. 89 employees i employee per• 32~.ss sq. f t. • . • pffices .. 6 examples ~ ~, 928 sq. ft. ~ . •-;, ,;•~ ~'~ employees = 1 employee per 360 sq. ft. 5 ex. {~k~Gnk~ ...~X ~~~ sq. ft. , ~,o°~~t' 44 employees ~ 1 employee peg 218 sq. ft. ,~ ~otdl Retail~„pnd ~offSces 14 examples 4 2 s4• ft• 166 employees G 1 employee per 254 sq. ft. ~ote1 Cemmexci.~ {restauxantjretailCoff ~cej ~5.07~ sq• f+~~ . Z~2 amployees ~ .1 empYov'ee per 2~.2 sq. ft. :. ~[cteis 3 examples 733, rooms 592 employees ~ .8 employees per room n ~.J "~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 9, 1991 AGENDA 1:30PM Site Visits 3:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Public Hearlnq 1. 1. A request for a warksession for an exterior alteration of Crazy Shirts, Unit 2, Bridge Street Condos, Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge Street/Lot D, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Mainland Co., Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer 2. A follow-up to the August 12, 1991 PEC review of the staff approval of the minor amendment for Garden of the Gods, SDD No. 22, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing1365 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 2. 3. A request for a front setback variance for the Krediet Residence, 224 Forest RoadlLot 11-A, Black 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Jahn Krediet Planner: Jill Kammerer 3. 4. A request for a warksession for a major subdivision and a Special Development District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Timberfalls Association Planner: Mike Mollica 5. A request for an exterior alteratian for the May Palace, 223 East Gore Creek DrivelA part of Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Henry Woo/Charfes Rosenquist Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 6. A request for a setback variance for the Vlaar Residence, 2963 Bellflower Drive/Lot 7, Block 6, Intermountain. Applicants: Hans and Mia Vlaar Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 :,~.:~ 7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums/600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 8. A worksession to consider rezoning Lots 3 thraugh 9 and 12, Vail Meadows Filing No. 2 from Agricultural and Natural Open Space to Residential Cluster. Applicant: Vail City Corporation and David Elmore Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO OCTOBER 14, 1991 9. Approval of minutes from the July 22, August 12 and August 26, 1991 PEC meetings. 10. Information about the upcoming September 21, 1991 Vail Symposium. 11. Discussion of Estes Parlc Conference. 12. Discussion of Boulder Conference in February regarding a sense of place. i 3. Update on U.S. lsorest Service Land Ownership Adjustment Plan. _ s PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 9, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Staff Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Betsy Rosolack Gena Whitten Amber Blecker The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A reouest for a worksession for an exterior alteration of Crazv Shirts. Unit 2. Bridge Street Condos. Bridge Street Building. 2S0 Bridge Street/Lot D. Block SB. Vail Village First Filing. Ar~nlicant: The Mainland Co.. Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer reviewed the proposal and explained the staff s areas of concern. Jack Snow, representing the applicants, stated that he believed there were two issues in the proposal--the exterior alteration and infill, and the alterations to the bay window and door. He said the owners had asked for this worksession to receive a preliminary endorsement from the Commission for the changes. If they received that endorsement, the applicants were willing to work together with the staff to determine an acceptable landscape plan. Diana Donovan asked for the consensus of the Commissioners on the project. The consensus was that there were no major problems with the ~.~~~,osed exterior alteration. Jack Snow discussed the planters. He said the intention was to keep the area as open as possible in order to maintain circulation to the stores. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the existing stairway south of the Gold and Silversmith commercial space entrance would be retained. Adjacent shop owner, Jim Cotter, said that approximately 80% of the traffic to his store used that stairway, and he did not want to see this stairway eliminated and replaced with a planter. Diana expressed her preference to have vertical landscaping, and was not as concerned with the actual square footage of landscaping provided. Jack said it made sense to keep the area open, but did not want the trees to screen the display windows. Jim Cotter added that if shoppers had to look into the windows from a distance of 5 feet, they would not be able to see the jewelry. Diana asked if the sidewalk was ctu~~,~~tly in front of the windows. Jim Cotter replied it was. Connie Knight questioned why there were three sets of stairs. Kathy Langenwalter said she was troubled with the design of the stairs, in that they were only about 6 feet apart. She thought a better design would be to combine two of the stairways into one, as proposed. Gera Whitten asked if the entry to Crazy Shirts could be flipped with the proposed bay window. Jack said the only flow-through of traffic was to the north, but they would look at the potential of moving the entrance. However, he felt there would be a disadvantage to that Y~..~,osition, in that it would create adead-end spot within the store, and the display window would not be effective. He believed it would be a fair trade-off to locate the landscaping elsewhere in the vicinity and place some type of transparent, vertical landscaping near the shops. Connie asked if the stairs on the south side could be eliminated. Jim Cotter answered that the winter traffic pattern would be affected, as that stairway was commonly used. Jack 1,,.,YOSed placing landscaping in front of the blank wall of Vendetta's building. Connie believed that would be a good alternative. Chuck Crist wondered if the planters' size was decreased, would they still be able to held aspen, Jack said they would, but if those aspen were more than 3-4 feet tall, there would be . too much of a visual harrier. Jim Cotter said that flowers were great for the area, but trees would visually block that side of the street. Chuck did not find the three staircases objectionable, and agreed that relocating the landscaping to Vendetta's wall was a good option. Jim Shearer suggested the applicant and staff get together and discuss the possibility of having one set of larger steps, nr if three sets of stairs were decided upon, perhaps eliminating the upper-level sidewalk. He encouraged the landscaping plan to get as much out of the planters as possible. He believed Wa11 Street had been improved because of the undulation of the sidewalk area. He advocated more vertical landscaping, saying it should blend with the existing. He also suggested varying the height of the planters themselves. Jim Cotter said the planters were often used as searing by shoppers, and he was in favor of keeping the height of the planters as they were. Jim Cotter also liked the suggestion of locating additional landscaping along Vendetta's wall. Kathy asked what would happen to the alley. Jim Cotter said it would not be affected, and it would actually be a good place for vertical plantings. Kathy asked that the landscaping be kept in the area of the expansion, and if the existing stairways were maintained, she suggested na.~,.wing the set which went to Crazy Shirts. She was also not comfortable with the bay window. .• 2 . Ludwig Kurz agreed with Kathy's comments regarding na«~,riring the stairs. He asked if the stairs and sidewalk would be concrete or pavers. Jack replied that pavers would be used. Ludwig asked that the aspen at the northern corner be saved, and believed the landscaping along Vendetta's wall was a good trade-off. Diana agreed with the landscaping along Vendetta's. She strongly recommended using pavers on the stairways. She also advocated vertical landscaping, and suggested trying to find aspen with high branches. She did not want any net loss of landscaping. Jill reminded the applicants that if there was a net lass of the landscaping, they would have to justify it to the Commission. 2. A fallow-un to the August 12, 1991 PEC review of the staff annroval of the minor amendment for Garden of the Gods, SDD No. 22, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Villase 5th Filing/3G5 Vail Valley Drive. Annlicant: Mazeazet Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello Jim Shearer moved, and Chuck Crist seconded, to table this item to the September 23, 1991 meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7-Q. 3. A request for a front setback variance for the Krediet Residence. 224 Forest Road/Lot 11-A. Block 7. Vail Viilaae First Filing. AnAlicant: John Krediet Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the request, stating that staff recommended ap~,~.~~al with conditions. Kathy Langenwalter represented the applicant. Diana Donovan asked Kathy where the large spruce tree would be relocated. Kathy explained the large spruce tree would be relocated to the northwest corner of the site. Diana then asked Kathy to establish the maximum increase in GRFA which would result fi.,~.~ this addition. Kathy explained the site plan to the Commissioners. She stated she could not give an exact GRFA figure at this time, but would like a variance to state the addition would be not more than 4Q0 sq. ft., which would still keep the GRFA for the site under the maximum allowable. Connie Knight asked if there was an issue of how the GRFA for the site was allocated between the Primary and Secondary units. Kathy answered that was addressed through private covenants between the two owners. Diana requested that the large aspen to the west of the garage be protected, and that all existing aspen which need to be removed in order to allow the construction of the garage be relocated. Kathy asked what the Commission would prefer if the large aspen could not be saved. She wanted an alternative, but stated the applicants would do everything they could to protect that tree. Gena Whitten preferred to state that saving that tree was a condition of • 3 approval. Connie Knight agreed with it being a condition of ay~,~.,va1 or, alternatively, that it be replaced with three trees. She also requested a guarantee period of 2 years. Gera also requested that the trees along the road be examined, as they appeared to be diseased. Chuck Crist suggested requiring that any dead trees be removed. Kathy asked that request be changed to any dead trees in the area of construction be removed. Jim Shearer wanted the smaller aspens in the area transplanted, or replaced, at a 1:1 ratio, with all attempts made to save the large aspen adjacent to the building area. He also requested a 2-year warranty period for the transplanted and affected trees. If the large aspen did not survive the construction, he suggested replacing it with 2 spruce. Ludwig Kurz did not believe the large aspen would survive construction, and pointed out it was already dying at the tap. He would consider the tn;e a "goner." He suggested replacing it with 2 spruce of at least 20 feet. Kathy preferred to replace it with trees of 14-16 feet, as those would compliment the other large spruce to be relocated, rather than having it appear like soldiers in a line. Diana agreed with having the aspen replaced with 14-16 font spruces, and also wanted the approval conditioned that the large spruce be transplanted, along with any aspen directly affected. Any dead trees in the area of the construction would be removed. She asked for a 2-year guarantee on any landscaping. Kathy asked for consistency in the warranty period, . requesting the same condirions as what was given Spraddle Creek. Diana remembered Spraddle Creek Subdivision was required to provide a warranty of 2 growing seasons to ensure the evergreens. Diana clarified the conditions of ary~.,val as follows: 1. If the large aspen adjacent to the west of the construction site dies, it will be replaced with two 14-16 foot spruce. 2. The area to be infiiled under the carport shall not exceed 400 sq. ft. of GRFA. 3. The large spruce in the center of the construction area shall be relocated. If that spruce, or any other spruce planted as a part of this project, dies within 2 years, it shall be replaced with a spruce between 14-20 feet in height. 4. All aspens which must be removed in order to allow the construction of this garage to occur, shall be relocated to another portion of the lot. Chuck Crist moved that the request for a front setback variance for the Krediet Residence, 224 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing be approved with the conditions noted above. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved 6-0-1, with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining. 4 4. A reauest for a worksession for a maior subdivision and a 5necial Devel~,U,«ent District for an unAlatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nueaet Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Timberfalls Association Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the proposal, and noted that the item would have to be f.,~~.~ally tabled at the conclusion of the discussion, as it had originally been noticed as a public hearing. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the numbers given far the GRFA for the project were a total square footage number, with all credits added in. Mike infrnrned her that there would still be a garage credit in addition to the numbers listed, but no additional GRFA credit (425 sq. ft.) would be added to the unit(s). If a caretaker unit were built, the square footage for that unit would have to come out of the primary unit's GRFA. Gena Whitten asked what guarantee would be in place that, on some of the units, 1,OQp sq. ft. of GRFA would be placed in the basement. Mike replied the private covenants would cover that requirement, and that the requirement would also be included in the SDD ordinance for the project. Mike explained staff's concerns with the r~.,~ect, and listed some discussion items. Peter Jamar, the applicants' representative, addressed the question of hazards on the site. He said there had been a specific study done for the entire project, and suggested that the wording in staff's memo be changed to ensure that specific mitigation measures recommended were performed on Lots 5 and 6. Addressing density, he said it was the idea of the applicants to allow the site to be used in different ways by each owner, specifically in the provision of caretaker units. He believed there was a possibility there could even be some renters in those units. He did not believe that restricting the units to employees only was a positive move for the project, and noted that he had already reduced the density on the site. Peter said that the access to the site had always been planned from Nugget Lane, a public road, and that the Town had not found the bridge to be inadequate. He asked that the last developer in the area not be penalized. He said development on the site had always been planned, and the zoning map even showed the t,~.,l.,osed roadway inside the development. In addition, the Tvwn had recently upgraded the bridge, and the applicants did not feel they should have to upgrade the bridge further. Regarding the pedestrian easement along the stream, Peter noted they were private easements which were conveyed from the previous owners for the benefit of the owners of the ~.~.,~.erty. The easements did not link up with any other easements to the east or west of the project. Peter said the applicants could deal with the Fire Department access issues, but to necessitate the specific location for each curb cut was a bit excessive. Applicants wanted to allow the 5 owners some flexibility in the design of their lot, and specifying curb cut locations would prohibit much of that. However, the fire hydrant locations would be shown on the final plat. Addressing Public Works' concerns, he said many of their issues would be handled at final plat. He said the 50-foot right-of--way required for a public road was excessive, and that was the reason for the private roadway. The paved width of the streets would be the same, 22 feet. Peter agreed to restrict Lots 10 and 11 to single family residences without provision for caretaker units, and have a private driveway access those two lots in order to preserve as many trees as possible. Peter believed that it was not necessary to make the Town party to the architectural guidelines, but they could be reviewed at final plat. If there were concerns, they could be addressed at that point. He believed the Town should rely on a normal D1ZB review process for the development. The majority of the buildings, according to Peter, would be placed within the building envelopes, but the applicants intended to also use the setbacks as guidelines. He ~~.,rosed requiring some percentage of the building to be required to be placed in the envelope, but to allow some flexibility. Mike asked if the envelopes would be placed on the final plat. Peter suggested a dashed line on the plat to indicate the envelopes. Mike stated he would like to see that on the plat. Peter agreed to place the envelopes on the plat as dashed lines with a notation that a certain percentage of each building would have to be within the envelope, and additionally note the setbacks for the lots. Peter saw some entry landscaping as part of Lots 1 and 12, but did not have a specific plan at this point. He stated that, when the lot lines were drawn, the applicants had gone to the site and determined the best building sites on the parcel working around the trees, and then drew the lot lines. Kathy Langenwalter questioned why this was an SDD proposal, and not a single family or Primary/Secondary subdivision. Peter said it was strange to have to go through this process when they were downzoning the parcel. He said that they could have poured all the foundations and then sold the lots without having to go through any review except DRB, but they wanted to allow the owners flexibility. The request for the SDD was because of the setback, frontage requirements and GRFA allocations for the lots. Kristan Pritz added that the issues were listed in staff's memo. She said the Planning Commission should be concerned with a Low Density Multiple Family parcel being subdivided, and noted it was to the benefit of the developer to have the flexibility of an SDD. She said the zoning was intended for multi-family, and staff felt it was positive that single family structures and sensitive site planning proposed. s • Connie Knight asked if 85% of the structure to be located in the building envelopes would be acceptable. Peter said the applicants would look at the possibilities to deterrnine what a workable percentage would be. Chuck Crist left the meeting at 5:OSPM. Applicant Ron Riley asked for flexibility so that they could work with the individual features of each lot. Gena Whitten asked what the Ya..rarty behind the parcel was. Peter said it was owned by the Forest Service. Mike said some of that area is privately owned, and may be developed if the lot met the buildable area requirement. Gena questioned how access would be provided. Kristan said that was a legitimate concern, and any developer would have to address that question. Gena also wondered if the pool/tennis area was sufficient for the additional development. Ron said that the Timberfalls Condominiums did not own the recreation facilities, that he had constructed them in 1974-75 to serve both parcels. He said he and his partner owned the facilities. Gena asked if there would be public access to the creek. Mike answered that the only easement was private at this time. Peter said there was no intent for public access. Kathy commented that she thought there was a continuous fishing easement along Gnre Creek. The Commissioners took a poll, and the consensus was that they believed that if there was no continuous easement, there was no need to change the existing private easement to a public easement. Connie Knight was bothered by having the forest invaded by devel.,r..~ent, and asked if Lots 10 and 11 could be eliminated from the plan. Ron said they had looked at that possibility, but Lots 10 and 11 had the greatest buyer interest because of the amount of privacy they afforded. He felt that they had done a great deal to minimize and mitigate the impact of construction on those lots. Peter added that the building envelopes for those lots had been placed away from the majority of the large, mature trees. He also reminded the Commissioners that there had been a dramatic reduction from the approved plans of placing another phase of condominiums on the site. Kathy Langenwalter agreed that specific mitigation would be necessary on the sites identified as having hazards, but that the mitigation was at the building phase and was site-specific. Kristan commented that staff's wording had perhaps been unclear on that point, and it was their intention to have the mitigation be for a specific structure. Peter suggested adding language to the final plat for Lots 5 and 6 that site-specific hazard mitigation measures would be necessary. He pointed out that, according to the hazard study, the hazard was to the buildings themselves, not to life. Kathy wanted to see the building envelopes an the final plat, and documentation as to what the envelope contained, such as what was allowed in the envelope, what could be outside it, etc, Peter said that would be the basic guideline for the lot. Kathy added she just wanted to know what was allowed on each lot. Mike Mollica said the development could use the 7 setbacks as the development standard, and on Lots 7-11, create a "no-build" line, over which no construction could take place. Ron Riley liked that option, stating it made sense. Peter agreed, and said that would be less cornpIicated than specifying individual building envelopes, and what could and could not be outside each envelope. Kathy addressed the issue of the caretaker units, stating she believed they should be required, as a lot of potential employee housing was being lost by the down-sizing of the project. Ron disagreed with that assessment, as he believed only approximately 3 of the 110 Timberfalls units were currently used by local employees. Peter added that, when Timberfalls had originally opened, a higher percentage had been locals, but when they moved, they were not replaced with other employees due to the cost. He said a local could buy down-valley for the same amount as the rent at Timberfalls. Connie Knight said it was hard to require a specific number of units when the developer was not r. „YOSing to construct the units. Diana said the Commission had done just that for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Mike r..,rosed an option that if a caretaker unit were constructed, it be restricted so it could not be sold separately. Connie asked if the lots would sell with that restriction. Ron replied they would, but the owners would not like a requirement to build a second unit. He said those with the lifestyle he was anticipating would build them anyway, but it would be tough to sell the lots to a potential buyer if the units were required. He would rather let it remain a desirable option. Ron did not want to force a buyer to build, but felt that employee units would be built. • Kristan asked if permanently restricting the units would be acceptable. Ron said a deed restriction that they not be separately sold would be fine, but did not want to restrict them to employees only. Kathy said she did not want the units sold separately. Both Ron Riley and Peter Jamar said there was no intention to sell the caretaker units separately, but they did not want €hern deed restricted for rental to employees only. Jim Shearer stated that it was a goal of the Town to create employee housing in every project, and he believed it was then also the job of the Commissioners to support that goal. Peter said that was already accomplished, in that staff had requested the applicants add the caretaker provision to the proposal. Kristan asked if Beaver Creek had a maximum size for caretaker units. Peter said they did, and it was a very generous amount. The applicants had discussed allowing 850-900 sq. ft. per unit for this project. Diana questioned if the size of the caretaker units would be limited. Kathy believed it would, due to the total GRFA limitation for each lot. Chuck Crist returned to the meeting at S:~OPM. 8 . Gena asked why the lots were going to be single family rather than primary/secondary. Peter said it was a response to the mazket. Ron said the feedback he had received was a preference for 14 families rather than 28. Chuck Crist agreed, saying that a Duplex subdivision would be too dense. Diana asked if the developers would be willing to stipulate that the caretaker units could not be rented on a short term basis. Ron said yes, that short term rentals would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Diana wandered if a bonus were to be given to encourage the caretakers to be built, would the applicants agree to restrict the units for employees. Peter said additional square footage was not the issue. Ron elaborated that they had forced the GRFA numbers down in order for the devel~y~,.ent to look better. Kristan said she thought the PEC should say what was apY~.,t,.~ate, as opposed to telling the applicant that Council may ask for employee housing. Diana believed, at the very least, the units should not be rented on a short term basis nor should they be sold separately. Diana questioned how the berm, ponds, basement squaee footage requirement and roads would be maintained. Peter said that a homeowners association would be responsible, and the covenants would create a public easement for the pond and state it was the homeowners' responsibility to maintain it. Diana believed the Nugget Lane bridge was a legal question, but believed a pedestrian walkway was needed. She also wondered if the garages would be separate, and if the . caretaker units could be placed over the gazages. Ron said that had not been addressed, and the only separate gazages proposed were on lots where the utility easements split the lot. Mike reminded the applicants and Commissioners that DRB aN~.~.,~al would still be necessary to separate the gazages, but that the utility easements could be a reason to separate. Peter said Lot 5 was the most likely to be split. Diana asked if trees would be a reason to separate the garage. Mike said they would. Diana stated the private easements made more sense than public easements, and that it would save additional gmenspace. She also would feel more comfortable setting a maximum size for the caretaker units. Peter suggested 900 sq. ft. for the caretaker units. Kristan added that they would be restricted as they could not be sold separately, not rented on a short term basis, and be a maximum of 900 sq. ft. in size. Diana was concerned that if they were that large, they would be used more as a duplex. She also reiterated that Lots 10 and 11 would not have the ability to construct a secondary unit. Kristan asked the Commissioners how they felt about architectural guidelines. Diana said it was important to have a say on the lots where square footage was to be placed underground. Kristan responded that staff did not have strong feelings on architectural guidelines since the development was not in a highly visible location, such as Spraddle Creek, and that the existing DRB guidelines were adequate. Tim believed the decision could be left to the Design Review Board. 9 • Ludwig Kurz stated the Nugget Lane bridge needed attention, but did not feel it was the responsibility of the developer. He felt comfortable with having caretaker units if they were restricted so as to not be sold separately, not be rented short term, and be no more than 900 sq. ft, in size. He also wanted Lots 10 and 11 restricted to single family units. Mike asked if the Commissioners wanted to see a preliminary landscaping plan for the entry and pond at the time of preliminary plat. Jim believed it would be appropriate at the time of final, plat. Peter Jamar proposed having a landscaping plan approved before the first building permit was issued, or at the time of final plat. He reminded the Commissioners that none of the lots could be sold before a final plat was in place. Ron added that the hydrology repoxts had not yet been perf,.=...ed, and they wanted to explore all possibilities. Kristan believed that a landscaping plan would be appropriate at final plat. Chuck Grist moved to table the request for a major subdivision and a Special Development District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive to September 23, 1991. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was unanimously ayy=~~ed, 7-0. S. A request for an exterior alteration for the Mav Palace. 223 East Gore Creek Drive/A Hart of Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Henrv Woo/Charles Rosenauist Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 6. A request for a setback variance for the Vlaar Residence. 2963 Bellflower Drive/Lot 7. Block 6. Intermountain. Applicants: Hans and Mia Vlaar Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums/600 Vail Vallev Drive. Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andv Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 S. A worksession to consider rezoning Lots 3 through 9 and 12, Vail Meadows Filing No. 2 from Agricultural and Natural Oren Space to Residential Cluster. Applicant: Vail Citv Corporation and David Elmore Planner: Andv Knudtsen TABLED TO OCTOBER 14, 1991. Jim Shearer moved to table items S-8 as listed above. Chuck Grist seconded the motion. It was a~.~=caved, 7-0. 14 9. Anoroval of minutes Ti~,~~, the July 22. August 12 and August 26. 1991 PEC meetings: After corrections were made, Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 1991 as c..x~~,cted. Chuck Grist seconded the motion. It was a~.~.~.,ved 6-0-1, with Diana abstaining, since she was absent. Tim Shearer moved to approve the minutes of August 12, 1991, as c....;,cted. Chuck Grist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7-0. Chuck Grist moved to approve the minutes of August 26, 1991 as corrected. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was a~,~.~..ved 6-0-1, with Ludwig Kurz abstaining due to absence. After several information items were discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15PM. 11 a LJ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Request #or a worksession for an exterior alteration to the Bridge Street Building in order to allow the construction of a new entrance to the Crazy Shirts retail space, Condominium Unit No. 2, Bridge Street Condominiums, Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge 5treetlLot D, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: the Mainland Company, Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer . 4 ~ , ~ f++ v' . 9, ' ~ ~.. r....~r V ~ !Y2 -. r Fps/ r~ ~:~~ sL~9• :.x.c?".!'~~'`'a ~, m .'°. ~ ~n ~ J° .dav•-9?f ~ ,~% ~~ f r n ? ..~.k:.:.'~;~b"~J' ~f' I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Bridge Street Building faces onto Bridge Street, Gore Creek Drive and Wall Street. The existing entrance to the Crazy Shirts retail space is from Bridge Street. Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposes to construct a Wall Street entrance to the retail space and to modify the businesses Wall Street facade. Currently, there is an emergency fire access from Wall Street in#o the retail space, but no pedestrian access. The applicant proposes to construct a bay window in the area where the emergency fire access door currently exists and to construct a double door entrance-way into the retail space in the area where a bay window currently exists. Additionally, there is a small 20 square foot recessed area which would be infilled with an additional bay window. In order to construct the Wall Street entrance proposed, a 55 sq. ft. area of an existing planter will need to be removed. This planter is located in part on property owned by the Bridge Street Building, and in part on property owned by the Town of Vail (TOV). Of the 55 square feet of planter area to be removed, 25 sq. ft. is located an Bridge Street Condominium-owned property and 30 sq. ft. is located on TOV-owned property. Under #i~e redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposes to infill the area between two existing planters with a new planter. The new planter will provide 39 sq. ft. of additional planter area, resulting in a net loss of is sq. ft. of planter area. The addition will match the existing exterior detailing. The request does not require a site coverage variance. il. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning characteristics for the exterior alteration request. 1. Zone Dlstrlct: Commercial Core I 2. I.ot Area: 7,754 square feet • 3. Site Coverage Allowed: Existing: Proposed: Net Increase 6,200 square feet (80%} 5,850 square #eet {75.5%} 5,868 square feet {75.7'%} f8 square feet 4. Commercial Square Footage Increase: 33 square feet 5. Parking Pay In Lleu: $880 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Form of the proposed planter. The- Issue is whether the PEC believes the form of the' new planter is acceptable, or whether it should be more organic and/or larger. A straight wall connection of the Wall Street face of the two existing planters flanking the existing stairs would result in f4 sq. ft. of additional planter area. Under this alternative designs the net increase In planter area would be 8 sq. ft. Staff would like to see a net increase in planter area. 2. Amount of landscape area to be removed vs. amount of landscaped area to be added. 3. Need for vertical landscape? Staff believes the applicant should make provisions for aspen trees within the planting area adjacent to Crazy Shirts. 4. Applicant must submit fetter from Condominium Association supporting proposal as submitted. 5. Staff believes applicant should must take all necessary precautions to protect the existing aspen located adjacent to the building infill area. This includes setting new bay window facia back from the plane of the existing fascia. 6. .Staff views the exterior alkeration Improvements, as proposed on the structure, to be positive. Under this development proposal, there will be an upper-level walkway which will connect the Gold and Silversmith of Vail business and the Crazy Shirts retail space. The creation of an additional store front on the west side of the building will add additional street life and pedestrian Interest to Wall Street. clpecVnerr~°slcrcyshrt.9o9 • • • • ~~ 1, ~~ ~~ . ~ ~- ~1 -, ~._ ~~ ~~ ~~ W 1 0 ' • V ~~i. ~ .i ~ ~ ~ . ~ . r \ ~ ' P ~ r ~ .. 1 3 ''~ _- - ` ~ ~, ~ ~ .... . f ~ . _ ~ ., _,, ~' r•"~~ .,,L ~ r~, e' ~ i 1 . `~ ~ ~~ [ -[y~~ k' ~ ' ~ [ •, _ ~~ r R~ ~ ~~ ~ i ' ` a f :,~'i~~~~I i ,~Jiel :t.a;f[11i•ll,q'i~N~111~~ ` -i i~.-~t.E ~ t,4it _ ~ • ~ ~ } , ~ a.. ~ i ~~, i , M 1 '~ /% \ / ~. ~ _~ H H, 1 .~ SJ 1 ~~ ~. .., ,. ~a b :~ ~ f ~ -' a -~~~ i 1 I _. ~ Ij ~I CF }I ii ~ ~l ~ ~r ~ 0 1 I R '~ i u I ~ i r ~ ~o J ,\p. d ~ p ~ n ((< ~ ?' 1 k'Av~1~ ~ 3~! I, •~ ~- { W Q ~ w ...~ M'~ i a R ~ ~' ~ ul ~ ~~ i ~_ ~~ } ~ ~ w i da Z Q 4 ~~ ~ I ~ I I i r ~ { •}[.~.. A 1 ~ .~,~ Y ~~ Bey. F:. ~ `~• t ~~~ `' ~ v - j; A ~ ~ I ~'~ ~, t - ~`~ C ~~ ~.L :` ~ ~]j~r~ ~.~ ~" :~ ~~. • -~J r • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devel„r...ent Department DATE: September 9, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance for property located within the Primary/Secondary zone district, the Krediet Residence, 224 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sohn Krediet Planner: Till Kamm;,.w. I. DESCRiri~ON OF THE VARIANCE REOUESitr~ Under this redevelopment ~,.~.Yosal, the applicant r.,.~.oses to construct a garage, with 639 sq. ft. of additional living area (GRFA) above the garage, and to infill a carport area with 309 sq. ft, of living area (GRFA). The new gazage addition will be located to the west of the existing residence. The carport area to be unfilled ~s located beneath an existing second floor cantilevered recreation room/entryway on the north side of the structure, adjacent to Forest Road. The site slopes up to the south from the low point on the north side of the lot. The carport is currently accessed by a steep driveway aff of Forest Road. A front setback variance is required in order to allow the infilling pf this carport azea. The cantilevered area currently encroaches 12'-8" into the front (north) setback. The proposed infill addition would encroach 12'-S" into the front setback. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of this addition 7'-4" f~.,~,Y the front property line. Therefore. the anvlicant's requested variance is to encroach 12'-S" into the required 20-foot front setback. A setback variance is not necessary for the garage and living area above the garage. • t II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zoning: Primary/Secondary ~ B. Site Area: 22,263 sq. ft. C. GRFA -Primary and Secondary Residences Combined Allowed: 5,326 sq. ft. Existing: 4,091 sq. ft. Proposed Increase: 1.066 sa. ft. Remaining: 169 sq. ft. D. GRFA -Primary Unit Existing: 2,196 sq, ft. . Proposed: 3,262 sq. ft. Increase: 1,066 sq. ft. . E. GRFA -Secondary Unit Existing (No change proposed) 1,895 sq, ft. F. Site Coverage (20% of Site Area} Allowed: 4,453 sq. ft. (20%) Existing: 2,014 sq. ft. (9.1%) Proposed: 2,734 sq. ft. (12.3%) i Increase: 720 sq. ft. (3.2%) Remaining: 1,719 sq. ft. G. Height Allowed: 33 feet Proposed: No change to existing maximum height H. Setbacks Front* Required: 20 feet Existing: 7 feet-4 inches Proposed: 7 feet-4 inches , Note: Area of addition would be set back 7'-4" from r..,rerty line * Area of requested setback variance. Ali other setbacks are unaffected. i. Pazking: The required 5 spaces are accommodated on site. No additional parking is required with this proposal. J. Proposed Primary Unit Gazage: 518 sq. ft. 2 • III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends apr.., ral 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 requested front setback variance, if ar~~~ red, would not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties. The existing structure encroaches 12'-8" into the required 20-foot front setback, The area of the proposed addition will encroach no further into the required front setback than the existing structure. By concentrating the development on the western and the northern portion of the lot adjacent to Forest Road, less site disturbance will occur. If the applicant were to construct the same size addition, but not locate the addition under an area which currently encroaches into the front setback, the new living area would be located further up the slope, thereby creating greater and unnecessary site disturbance. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve ti.....patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The ~-~.,E,osed addition could be constructed elsewhere on the site and not encroach into the front setback. To the west of the existing primary residence, in conjunction with this addition, the applicant is r.~rosing to construct atwo- car gazage with GRFA above the garage. Staff believes the construction of this garage will imr,.~re the general appearance of the lot by allowing for the interior storage of automobiles. The applicant does not have the ability to construct the addition to the east because of the proximity of the existing secondary unit to the applicant's primary unit. Any addition to the south would necessitate extensive site work due to the topography of the site. For this proposal, staff believes it is reasonable to consider the existing residence's location in the front setback to be a practical difficulty warranting a front setback variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to infill a carport area which does not exceed the existing front setback encroachment. This degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the code is appropriate, and has been granted to other property • 3 owners with similar circumstances. Because of these factors, the request is not " a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. With the exception of the addition requiring the transplanting of an existing, apr..~.~imately 18-20 foot evergreen, the r~~~~~.ased addition will have no impact on any of these considerations. The applicant has agreed to transplant this tree to the southwest comer of the site. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before wanting a variance: L That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other Ya..~.erties 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 int;,.r.;,tation 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to conditions, due to the fact the existing house is currently located in the fi.,..t setback and less site disturbance results from this locarion for the proposed addition. The fact there is GRFA remaining on the < • r site also warrants support of the variance request. Staff believes the setback variance is not a grant of special privilege, as this type of situation has justified other setback variances in the past. The variance criteria cited included Findings 1, 2, 3(a-c). The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. 'The existing spruce tree impacted by the construction will be relocated. 2, Prior to issuance of a building ~,;...,.it, the applicant shall install a construction fence to protect existing vegetation in the front setback. The fence shall establish the boundary which no construction activity will cross. c:\pec~mdnosVnediet9D9 5 ill ~' -_~ N `~ 111 fl ~O OD ~ ~0 `~ GrD C ~ O ~ .O v v .S `~ C '0 ~O ~ M > ~' N a 3 ~N a y -ti K o ~ o .~ E o Q,u a «:. "~ ~ ~ o x '> ao pw ^O ~ N G ~' • ~-~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O ~ ~3 i1t fl ~-- ~ \ L~ ~ '~ s ~ ~ \ ~' ~ - - - ~'' ~ `~ x ~~ o~ .~ .~ ago ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ ,n ~~ ~~~K L ~~~m ~ O ~ ;~v_ ~_ ~` qp O s ~ CO N is a ~ o ~ 3C h Q ~~ ~~ ~n • ~««' °-.- ~~ ~n ,o ~~ o h o ...; Q ~ v d ~. .~ ~ M •- C ~ tQ''~ ..,: r.. N ~ 3 ~ ~°+ a ~ `° o C ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ u C ~«- "g ~ ~ o '~ ..Y N N _Q ~ Q ~ ~ u V ~ Z ~ a i • _.___~ i Q ~-- n a ~- ~- x ~u 1 ~~ ~ ~I ~ -- ~~= ~,'~{ ,/ t {[i 7 ~ ~ ~ ;~ 1 ~? ,. ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O v ~ •d M ~~ ~ M N y 3 >N ~ ~ ~ ~ m C c ~ m G O ~ aw~- ;p ~` to "~ ,. ~~ ~~. ~II~ I~ N MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1991 SUBJECT: A request far a worksession for a major subdivision preliminary plan and a Special Development District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located East of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Timberfalls Association Planner: Mike Mollica s~ z , ~ ,. ,..,. f4 Z ~t•. ~ ~ ~ • Sii7ri6 ~? rt % Y ~f 9 5^+ •~ ~ ,~ w ~~ • '' ..r r.. r r .. y.. .. .9a .~ /.~. .:. .J ".IX..~Ai'gE!: r '~'1~. • ~.3' ..rr9....... 74CGti+On "'^>?'$a .~:~ rid?. I~ I:~ I. DESCRir 1 tON OF THE REQUEST Timberfalls is a 7.5 acre unplatted parcel, generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek Drive in the East Vail area. The property is bounded by the Timberfalls Condominiums to the east, Gore Creek and duplex-zoned lots to the north (Streamside Circle}, duplex-zoned lots to the west (Nugget Lane}, and a large, unplatted parcel of land zoned Agricultural and Open Space to the south. The applicant, Ron Riley, representing Timberfails Associates, is requesting approval of the following: 1. The establishment of a Special Development District, and 2. Preliminary plan approval for a major subdivision. The property is currently zoned Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF), and based upon the buildable area of this site, the property is zoned for a total of 55 dwelling units. The proposed development plan is comprised of 14 residential lots. Each lot would permit one single family dwelling unit, plus one "caretaker unit," for a total of 28 dwelling units. The total GRFA requested is b2,700 square feet. The lot sizes range fi.,~,~ approximately 14,50(} sq. ft., up to aYy~~ximately 41,200 sq. ft. An existing stream is r~.,YOSed to be realigned to cross the subdivision. A pond will also be created at the entrance to the subdivision. Access to the site is ~,.,.yosed via Nugget Lane, immediately south of the Gore Creek Bridge. Access to the Tots would be Y~., Tided by a 24-foot wide road, approximately S00 feet in length, ending in a cul-de-sac. Lot numbers 10-13 would have a separate access just south, off of the main roadway. Please see the attached site plan for further information regarding the layout of the lots and the access roadways. All utilities would be located underground. The applicant's proposed SDD would depart from the underlying zone district of LDMF in the following areas: 1. Minimum Frontage -Lots S, 10 and 11 do not meet the 30-foot required minimum frontage. 2. Setbacks -Lots 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 do not meet the 15-foot side yard setback requirement. 3. GRFA -Although the proposed GRFA for the project as a whole is substantially less than what the underlying zoning would allow, Lots Nos. 1-4 are proposed to be allocated more GRFA than what the underlying zone district would allow, given their individual lot sizes. • • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following table outlines the Timberfalls' zoning analysis, indicating the underlying zoning, which is LDMF and the proposed Special Develuy~,~ent District. The project's departures f~.,~,~ the LDMF zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. Underlying Zoning Low Density Multiple Family Proposed SDD Site Area 7.5 acres or 326,700 sq. ft. 7.S acres Area Over 40% Slope 35,363 sq. ft. 35,363 sq. ft. Area Located Within 100-Year Floodglain 21,144 sq. ft. 21,144 sq. ft. Buildable Area 270,209 sq. ft. 270,209 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. of Varies, from 10,384 sq. ft. buildable area per lot to 29,648 sq. ft.* Minimum Frontage 30 ft. Varies, see attachefl site plan Setbacks Front 20 ft. 20 ft. Rear/Sides 20 ft. 20 ft. rear 15 ft. sides • Building Height 35 ft. -flat roof 33 ft, -sloping roof 38 ft. -sloping roof Density 9 DUs per buildable acre, 14 DUs, each with or 55 DUs for the site caretaker ~ 28 DUs GRFA $1,062.7 sq. ft. or 30°70 62,7'00 sq. t't. or 23°70** of the buildable area Site Coverage 114,345 sq. ft. or 359n 40,7I3 sq. flt. or 12.5% (area of building envelopes)*** Landscaping A minimum of 40% of each A minimum of 40% of each lot shall be landscaped lot shall be landscaped Parking Per TOV parking standards Per TOV parking standards *Note: These numbers need to be verified prior to the next PEC meeting. **Note: On Lots 1-5 the maximum allowable GRFA requires that 1,000 square feet is utilized as basement space. These basement spaces are allowed to be " walk-aut" basements. On Lots 12- 14 500 square feet of the maximum allowable GRFA shall be utilized only as basement space as described above. ***Note: Each individual lot shall have a maximum site coverage of 35% and all structures must be located within the building envelopes. 3 The Timberfalls parcel is located in the LDMF zone district, As such, the permitted uses in the zone district are as follows: 1. Single-family residential dwellings 2. Two-family residential dwellings 3. Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CR1 i ~xIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) 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. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. . C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Ta ~ ~ ~, policies and Urban Design Plans. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 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. G. A circulation system designed for bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. • 4 I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. IV. CItTfERIA FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.16.110 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations and reads as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the town, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (Ord. 2(1983) Section 1 (P~)•)" • A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews Notification has been mailed to the following agencies and, as of this date, no comments have been received by the Town of Vail: 1. U.S. Forest Service 2. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District 3. Public Service Company of Colorado 4. Holy Cross Electric Association 5. U.S. West Communications 6. Heritage Cablevision V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this PEC review is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. The intent of this worksession is to give the applicant, and the staff, direction on any issues which the PEC de~;,~~..ines to be significant. A summary of the staff-identified issues is as follows: • A. Geologic Hazards 1. The southern ortion of the Timberfalls arcel is rna as a "severe P P PPS rockfall hazard" on the Town of Vail hazard maps. A site speck hazard investigation, completed by Art Mears on August 28, 1991, summarizes the rockfall hazard as follows: "In summary, rockfall does not appear to be a hazard on any portion of the parcel, and should not serve as a constraint to building on the site." 2. The northeast comer of the Timberfalls parcel is shown as being within a "moderate hazard debris flow hazard area" on the Town of Vail maps. According to Art Mears: "Moderate hazard means Lots 5 and 6, and the building envelopes, could be reached by muddy water, small rocks, and vegetative debris during a rare debris flow event. Mitigation to buildings on Lots 5 and 6 could be accomplished by flood proofing and direct protection of exposed foundation and building walls. Alternately, mitigation could be achieved by designing a small settling pond and berm in the flat area above the tennis courts. Final mitigation details for Lots 5 and 6 depend on architectural and landscaping details which are not ctu~.,,,tly available. The mitigarion on these lots, however, can easily be incorporated into building design without adversely affecting adjacent public or private property." 3. Art Mears has also completed an analysis of the snow avalanche dynamics and the existing avalanche berm capacity adjacent to this parcel. His conclusions are as follows: "1. The flow height of the design avalanche is less than the existing berm height. 2. The maximum deposit height of the design avalanche is less than the berm height. 3. Lateral spreading of the avalanche below the berms {in the tennis courts} is accurately shown on the original drawings. 4. The existing berm, therefore, does not require modifications or enlargements to mitigate the design avalanche." It appears that the only hazard mitigation which would be necessary is for the debris flow hazard on Lots 5 and 6. Staff recommends that language be added to the face of the final plat indicating that a site- • 6 specific debris flow hazard study be completed for Lots S and 6 prior to the issuance of any building permits for the lots. B. Development Plan The issue here is whether the PEC feels comfortable with the development plan, specifically the layout of the lots and the associated building envelopes and adjacent roadways. Please note on the attached site plan the locations of the existing trees, which are indicated as "+", and are generally located in the southwest corner of the parcel. C. Density The applicant is proposing 14 dwelling units with the ability to add 14 caretaker units. The issue here is whether the PEC would like to see the 14 caretaker units permanently deed restricted as employee housing units with any square footage allotments. D. Access At this time, the applicant has not decided whether the proposed access road would be a private road or a public road. If this were to be a public road, some additional right- of way would be necessary. Additionally, the Town Engineer has indicated some concerns regarding the narrow, one-way bridge on Nugget Lane over Gore Creek. A final determination will need to be made by the Town Engineer regarding whether or not widening of the bridge will be necessary to accommodate this development. E. Pedestrian Easement Schedule B-2 of the title report indicates that there is a pedestrian and equestrian easement, 15 feet in width, along the southeast bank of Gore Creek. The Town Engineer has reviewed this, and has indicated that this pedestrian easement is currently a private pedestrian easement. The issue here is whether this easement should be dedicated as a public pedestrian easement along the south bank of Gore Creek. Additionally, the title report also indicates a pedestrian and equestrian easement and right-of--way, 20 feet in width, along the northerly side of the subject property for the use of fishing purposes along Gore Creek. Again, the issue is whether this easement should be a public easement. 7 F. Fire Department Concerns The issues raised by the Town of Vail Fire Department are as follows: 1. The Y.~,r,osed cul-de-sac is too small for a Fire Department turnaround. 2. The feeder road to Lots 10-13 is tno na~~.,~. 3. All utilities should be shown on the site plan, especially fire hydrants. 4. All curb cut locations should be indicated on the site plan. G. Public Works Department Concerns The issues raised by the Town Engineer and the Public Works Department are as follows: 1. The site plan should include all easements, specifically the pedestrian easement along Gore Creek. 2. Is the ~,~.,~.osed roadway to be public or private? 3. Concerns about the narrow, one-way bridge on Nugget Lane. 4. The roadway grades to access Lots 10 and 11 appear fairly steep. This issue should be finalized when the road plans and sections are prepared. The roadway to Lots 10 and 11 will require a 22-foot wide road and a Fire Dep~ «~,ent turnazound will also be required. . 5. Engineered drainage and roadway plans will be required prior to final approval. H. Architectural Guidelines The applicant is proposing architectural cnntrnls and guidelines which are intended to supplement the existing Town regulations regazding azchitectural design. It is proposed that these architectural guidelines will be incorporated into the covenants for this subdivision. The issue here is whether the PEC would like to see these azchitectural controls specifically incorporated into the SDD ordinance so that the Town may be a party to, and enforce, these controls. I. Building Envelopes The applicant has indicated building envelopes on the development plan for the project. Would the PEC like to see these building envelopes carried forward and actually be placed upon the final plat? • a J. Landscaping • Asa art of the reliminary plan for this devel.,r~..ent, would the PEC like to see a P p preliminary landscaping plan, specifically in the form of an entry statement for the subdivision and a schematic landscaping plan for the stream and pond areas. ~~~~~b~r~.vo~ • t 9 • ' ~ Y 11 W t (~ ~'CGN~ ~ ~ ~ N ii33 ~ I ~ . ~ ~ ,~ ~ 1 ~" •~ ,~ ~~-~~+yy+ G ~ Ou1 t ~ ~ ~ .~ .g k 4~ ` N a ~. ~+` 1 i ^ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 23, 1997 AGENDA 11:30PM Site Visits 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Public Hearlnq 3. 1. A request for a worksession to review wetland mitigation proposal for areas along Gore Creek. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District Planner: Andy Knudtsen 2. A request for a major subdivision and a Special Developmen# District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Timberfalls Association Planner: Mike Mollica 2. 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums/fi00 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. 4. A request for an exterior alteration to Crazy Shirts, Unit 2, Bridge Street Condos, Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge StreetlLot D, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Mainland Co., Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer 5. A follow-up to the August 12, i 991 PEC review of the staff approval of the minor amendment for Garden of the Gods, SDD No. 22, Lot K, Block 5A, Vaii Village 5th Filingf3fi5 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO OCTOBER 14, 1991 6. A request to amend Section 18.04.365, Definition of Site Coverage in order to clarify the definition. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer s . 7. A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing1395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kris#an Pritz TABLED TO OCTOBER 14, 1991 8. A request for an exterior alteration for the May Palace, 223 Bast Gare Creek DrivelA part of Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Henry WoolCharles Rosenquist Planner: Shelly Mello WITHDRAWN 9. A request for setback, density and paving variances for the Vlaar Residence, 2963 Bellflower Drive/Lot 7, Block 6, Intermountain. Applicants: Hans and Mia Vlaar Planner: Shelly Mello WITHDRAWN i t}. Approval of September 9, 1991 meeting minutes. • • ,r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 23, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Jim Shearer Absent Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Gena Whitten Staff Kristan Fritz Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Melly Betsy Rosolack Amber Blecker The worksession was called to order at 2:lOPM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A reauest for a worksession to review wetland mitigation „~~,uosal for areas along Gore Creek. AnDlicant: Ut~ner Eagle Vallev Water and Sanitation District L~ Planner: Andv Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the request. Staff supported the proposal with one condition. After staff's presentation, the consultants explained the benefits from the plan. Diana Donovan asked if the work would be duplicating what had already been done on the golf course. The consultants answered that it was a continuation of the work. Diana was also concerned over the health of the beaver pond. The consultants replied that the water in the ax-baw could help the beaver pond. The consultants also stated that they were looking at moving rocks for drop structures in the winter with SnoCats to minimize the impacts to the riparian corridor; however, they did not yet have approval from Vail Associates to use their equipment. Jim Shearer questioned the verbiage of "new" wetlands. He thought this was more restoration than creation. The consultants answered that it was restoration and not creation. After a discussion of interpretive markers, Diana said she was supportive, but did not want to make it a requirement as it apparently did not have funding. She liked the fact that the mitigation wauid be located within the same riparian corridor where the impact would occur. Chuck Crist asked if the flow into the beaver pond was going to be restored. The consultants said some would be. . After a discussion as to locations, Diana concluded the discussion by stating she preferred the natural drop structures to head gates fnr directing water into the ox-bow. 2. A request for a major subdivision and a St~ecial Devel~„~r,ent District for an untalatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nusget Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Timberfalls Association Planner: Mike Mollica Kristan Pritz explained the proposal. She stated that, since this was a request for downzoning, staff had reviewed the request and believed the lower density was appropriate for the site. Staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions as listed in the memo. Peter Jamar, representing the applicants, indicated he agreed with staff's memo, including the conditions, and reminded the Commissioners that this would not be the last time the proposal would be brought before them, as the final plat also would need to be voted upon. Diana Donovan asked for clarification of what was being voted on at this time. Kristan explained it was the recommendation to Town Council for the Special Development District, the preliminary plan for the major subdivision, and indicated that the SDD should be made conditional upon apt,~.~~al of the final plat. Diana questioned approving a concept for an SDD, rather than a plan. Peter agreed to make the SDD conditional upon final plat approval. Kristan read the subdivision regulations, which stated that the final plat must substantially conform to the preliminary plan. Chuck Crist asked for an explanation of the road for Lots 10 and 11. Peter said it would be a private drive, with the units on Lots 10 and 11 restricted to single family dwellings only, so the road could be i5 feet wide. Chuck also wondered what the process would be for the development. Ron Riley, one of the developers, said that next summer, after the subdivision agreement and final plat were completed, the utilities and roads would be installed. He mentioned that some of the property closings might be concurrent with the installation of utilities. Chuck believed that more permanent residents could result from this development than from the previously approved condominiums. Ron Riley upheld that opinion, stating that 30-40% of those interested in the development were permanent residents. Diana wondered how the requirement that at least 1,000 sq. ft. of GRFA be placed in the basement on certain Iots would be enforced. Kristan said it was part of the SDD documentation. Diana also asked if the bridge could be signed as a narrow bridge. Kristan • • agreed to look into that possibility. Diana questioned if the entire subdivision was a private road, was entry signage required? Staff indicated that was an option for the developers to decide. Diana asked if there was enough snow storage on the site. Peter answered there was plenty. Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for a major subdivision, and recommend a~.~,..,va1 to the Town Couneii of the request for a Special Development District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive, with a notation that Section III(B}{3-5) are recommended in an effort to r~,~~ide employee housing as a goal for the Town. The recommendation and approval are based on the SDD criteria and major subdivision benefit to the Town as outlined in staff's memo. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The unanimous, 4-0, vote approved the motion. 3. A reauest for .a maior amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del, Norte. Building C. Northwoods Condominiums1600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented the request. Staff recommended approval of the requested amendment, stating that the architect, Kirt Segerburg, had successfully incorporated the Streetscape and Trails Master Plan concepts into the t,~.,~,osal, and then he listed the specific elements of the development plan. • Saundra Spaeh, representing the applicant, was concerned that the pavement area was too wide. She preferred a minimum of 7 feet for the sidewalk, rather than $. Andy stated that the Town Engineer recommended a 1-foot increase of each drive lane, and that width be added to the overall amount of pavement in the area. Diana Donovan preferred a decrease in the road width to a decrease to the sidewalk area. Kristan Pritz agreed to ask the Town Engineer about the possibility, but she could not guarantee he would approve. Diana pointed out her belief that if the road was widened, it would only encourage drivers to go faster, and might even encourage illegal parking. Kristan replied that the curb would help discourage the potential for illegal parking. Diana suggested placing the extra trees, to be removed from the current Pinos site, across the road fi,,.~, Pinos del Norte. Kristan asked if an acceptable option would be to place those trees on the soccer field, as she was not sure the Town could water the trees sufficiently across from Pinos. Diana did not believe it was a good example for the Town to say they could not water trees. Kristan agreed that the trees would look nice across the road, but she could not commit Public Works to that condition. Diana believed it should be a condition of approval, and Council would always remove that portion if Public Works could not agree. Diana was also concerned with the street lighting in the area. She asked that a requirement be included to locate a light along this sidewalk. 3 M~ . Connie Knight asked if the Town planned to match the pavers which the applicant was putting in. Kristan stated that all pavers, these as well as the ones the Town would use in the future, would be consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan. Diana believed that the sidewalk should be maintained by the applicants. Kristan stated that the Code required that. Chuck Crist moved to recommend approval of the request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominiums/6i)0 Vail Valley Drive, per staff memo, with the conditions revised as follows: 1. The sidewalk shall be constructed out of concrete unit pavers and shall be a minimum of seven feet wide in all locations, and shall maintain the undulation shown on the approved plan, and be handicap accessible. 2. The improvements south of the existing roadway shall include a 4-foot bike lane, a 2- foot curb and gutter, gone-foot expansion to the drive lane, and the sidewalk described above. 3. Trees shall be planted across the road f.~... the project if the Town agrees to maintain them. If the Town cannot maintain the trees in that location, the trees will be planted in the neighborhood. • 4. The applicant shall provide lighting along the sidewalks which will be installed by the applicant. Connie Knight seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 4-0. 4. A reauest for an exterior alteration to Crazv Shirts. Unit 2~ Bridge Street Condos, Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge Street/Lot D, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Avnlicant: The Mainland Co., Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer Till Kammerer displayed a rendering of the t.x~t,osed facade and planter modifications. She corrected staff's memo to indicate 25 sq. ft. of planter would be removed. However, the applicants would be adding 25 sq. ft., of planter. Therefore, there was no net loss in planter area under the exterior alteration proposal. Staff recommended apr~.~ral of the request, subject to 4 of the 5 conditions listed in the memo. Staff was no longer recommending the applicant carry out condition 4, as there was not net loss of landscaping. Jack Snnw, representing the applicants, disagreed with planting aspen in the planter in front of the commercial space as suggested by the staff. Jack stated the Town Landscape Architect preferred not to have aspen placed in the planters, as the area has historically been planted with flowering annuals. Additionally, Jim Cotter, the adjacent shop owner to the south, had • . asked that no tree be placed in the planter, as Jim believed any trees would visually block his store. Jack further stated he believed planting trees in this location would be counter- productive to the goal of encouraging shopping through opening up the area both visually and from an accessibility standpoint. Diana Donovan did not think that a tree would interfere with the view of shops, and thought the street was sterile in appearance, and needed trees. Connie Knight asked if evergreens would be an acceptable option. Jack replied that low shrubs would be okay, but eventually an eve~~.:.en would be more of a visual screen than would an aspen. Kristan Pritz suggested as an alternative that the applicant plant ground cover. Jim Shearer disagreed, stating plant material with winter interest was needed. Chuck Crist said that a deciduous tree which was branched high enough so that the foliage was above the window could be planted. He did not want to see an evergreen, as he agreed it would block visual access to the shops. Jack Snow agreed to work with the Town Engineer to work out the drainage in the area prior to the Town issuance of a building permit. Diana asked about requiring some vertical landscaping for the winter. Jim Shearer wanted to see 2 aspen in each of the 2 planters. Kristan believed trees were only necessary in front of Crazy Shirts, and not in front of Mr. Cotter's store. Chuck Crist believed 2 aspen with lights • in the winter would draw people up Wall Street. Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration to Crazy Shirts, Unit 2, Bridge Street Condos, Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge Street/Lot D, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing per staff's memo, with the deletion of condition 4 and the addition of the condition that 2 vertical plants be placed in the planter. if both trees were not possible, the Town Landscape Architect would study the planters to det:,~~.,ine better winter landscaping to include vertical landscaping. The drainage would be handled per staff's memo. Connie Knight seconded the motion. It was approved, ~-0. The following area the approved conditions of approval: 1. The Town Engineer and Landscape Architect approve the final drainage plan. 2. The Town receives a revised condominium ayY~~~al letter stating the Association has reviewed most recent plans prior to Town issuance of any building permits. 3. The Town Engineer and Town Landscape Architect approve the final foundation plans. Please note the applicant has indicated all excavation will be done from within the structure so as not to disturb existing large aspen. • 4. 2 vertical plants be placed in the planter. If both trees were not passible, the Town Landscape Architect would study the planters to determine better winter landscaping to include vertical landscaping. After the vote, Chuck Crist expressed his preference to have one large tree planted, rather than 2 "wimpy" trees. 6. A request to amend Section 18.04.365, Definition of Site Coverage in order to clarify the definition. Avulicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer read and explained the requested change of definition as presented in the memo to the PEC. Diana Donovan asked if the proposed definition conflicted with other definitions. Jill replied it did not. Jim Shearer indicated he believed a covered walkway was site coverage. Kristan Fritz explained the rationale why it was not. The object of not counting decks and walkways covered by a deck as site coverage was to encourage articulated building facades. She said the Town Council had asked staff to clarify the definition, as the result of an interpretation of the existing definition by a local architect which was not intended by the staff. Diana indicated the new definirion did not change what was site coverage, only clarified it. Kristan reiterated it was not the intent of staff to change what was considered site coverage. Chuck Crist moved to recommend approval to Town Council the request to amend Section 18.04.365, Definition of Site Coverage in order to clarify the definition per staff's memo. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, 4-0. 10. Annroval of September 9, 1991 meeting minutes. Jim Shearer moved to approve the September 9, 1991 meeting minutes as written. Connie Knight seconded the motion. The minutes were approved, 4-0. 5. A follow-un to the August 12, 1991 PEC review of the staff avvroval of the minor amendment for Garden of the Gods, SDD No. 22, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th. Filing/365 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello 6 by ~ ~~ 7. A reauest for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence. Lot 19. Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing/395 Mill Creek Circle. AnnIicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz Chuck Grist moved to table items 5 and 7 to October 14, 1991 per staff's agenda. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote of 4-0 tabled these items. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40PM. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to review a wetland mitigation proposal far areas along Gore Creek. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District Planner: Andy Knudtsen .~ ...v.fl ..,,,, .~ . ,. ,~ BACKGROUND On January 28, 1991, Eagle County permitted a request by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to expand Black Lake Reservoir No. 1. The County, In conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, has required that the District provide 10 acres of new wetlands to mitigate the impact to the 5.4 acres which will be lost as a result of the Black Lake expansion. The Water and Sanitation District has hired Hydrosphere, a wetland consultant, who has • Identified three areas where new wetland areas can be established. The first is an existing parking lot at Black Lake No. 2. This will be excavated and then restored to a wetland condition. The other two areas involve land within the Town of Vail boundaries. One is the Katsos Ranch open space area, and the other involves intermittent distances of stream bank along Gore Creek, focusing on the stream banks in the golf course area. On August 21, 1990, the Vail Town Council passed a resolution supporting the expansion of Black Lakes Reservoir No. 1. The expanded reservoir will enhance in-stream flows during the winter, a time when stream flows are typically lowest. When the resolution was passed, the Council recognized that 10 acres of wetlands would need to be provided to mitigate the impacts of the expanded reservoir. On September i 0, 1991, the wetland mitigation proposal was presented to the Town Ceunci[. The Council approved the request to proceed through the planning process and generally had positive responses to the project. II. PROJECT ©ESCRIPTION A. Katsos Ranch After studying the Katsos Ranch areas, the consultants identified a way to restore a portion of the area to a wetland condition. The specific area on which #hey are focusing is located east of the beaver ponds and west of the recreation path bridge over Gore Creek. The plan involves constructing four drop structures, approximately two feet high, by grouping boulders together. These structures are identified with large C7 • asterisks on the attached Exhibit A. The locations of these boulder groupings may vary, depending on the stream characteristics. However, there will not be more than 4 5tructureS. The boulder groupings will be similar to those installed in 1988, in Gore Creek by Ford Park (see Exhibit B}. In their report on the proposal, the consul#ants state that each drop structure "wilt raise the water surface elevation in the creek which will raise the local water table, adding to the hydrologic restoration of the area." The drop structures require approximately 2-5 hours to construct. Large machinery, like a backhoe, will be required to operate in the stream channel #or that period of time. Another major component in this effort is to re-open an ox-bow that has become dry. The consultants have stated that "a large dry ox-bow channel ...became hydrologically separated from Gore Creek between 1974 and 1983, based an review of aerial photographs. The separation could have been naturally caused due to a large runoff event, channelization and urbanization, or a combination." During the Council review of the project, one of the members stated tha# when the ox-bow was by-passed with a more direct stream channel, small inlets from the ox-bow to the beaver pond were left dry. As a result, the fresh water supply to the beaver pond has been reduced and has caused an algae problem. By reopening the ox-bow, staff hopes that the inlets to the beaver pond will also be reopened, allowing fresh water to enter the pond and improve the water conditions. B. Gore Creek Riparian Zone Planting The other area within the Town of Vail which the consultants have identified to improve • involves 2.5 miles of creek channel along Gore Creek. The consultants' report calls far "cottonwood, alder, birch, gooseberry, aspen, dogwood, and chokecherry to be planted in combination with willow sprigs along the bare banks of Gore Creek." Exhibit C is provided at the end of this memorandum, showing how planting improvements will be made to the banks. This vegetation will help stabilize the soil on the banks of the creek, and improve wildlife habitat along the creek. Exhibit D shows many different areas along the banks which were considered. The consultants focused on an area along the golf course, and are working with golf course personnel to the exact locations for the bank improvements. Some other banks, which are not located in the golf course area, will also be improved. The consultants are looking at areas around Dowd Junction or Stephens Park to #ulfili the 2.5 mile requirement. III. ISSUES Issues staff identified in the review of this proposal include impacts to the floodplain and visual impacts from the improvements. The drop structures may alter the elevation of the floodplain and if this is the case, Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District must secure approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (1=EMA) prior to the construction of any of the improvements. There is also the potential that the visual impacts from the improvements may alter the natural appearance of this open space area. The original proposal included an 18" x 18" irrigation ditch which would bring water around the south side of the wetland area directly into the ox-bow. Staff understands that this is no longer included in the proposal. The irrigation ditch would have been the mast noticeable part of the work. Staff believes that the • • improvements will blend into the existing natural area better without the ditch. Regarding the drop structures, staff believes that because they will look like those in the Ford Park area, that they will not significantly alter the character of the area. There are many positive impacts from the project, such as improved wetland conditions resat#ing in better ground water recharge and discharge, better food chain support functions, a reduction in erosion, and animal habitat improvement. Staff believes that there are really no negative impacts, assuming there is not a floodplain issue and the construction is handled in a sensitive manner. IV. REVIEW PROCESS The purpose of this Planning and Environmental Commission worksession is to allow the public an opportunity to express any of their concerns about this proposal. As mentioned earlier, Council has approved the request to proceed through the planning process with the understanding that the Planning and Environmental Commission would conduct a review of the impacts of the proposal. The action needed from the PEC is a finding that the impacts are acceptable to the Town and that the project should be allowed to proceed, or that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts, and that the consultants should propose other alternatives. V. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the number of benefits from the proposed work outweigh any possible • negative impact from the visual change. Staff believes that the Town is fortunate to have these improvements made to Gore Creek at no cost to the Town. It appears that the project will benefit #ish and wildlife in the riparian corridor, as well as improve the quality of the creek itself. Staff believes that one impact which may need additional review is the alteration of the floodplain. Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the wetlands improvement master plan (as shown on Exhibits A, C and D), finding that the impacts are reasonable, and that the proposal is a reasonable use of open space land, with the condition that, if it is determined that the proposal will affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters or affect the 100-year floodplain, the applicant shall request approval from the Town of Vail for a floodplain modification, according to Section 18.fi9.040(D), and provide the necessary approvals from FEMA. Exhibits: A - Ox-Bow B -Drop Structure Photographs C -Stream Section D -Valley Plan of Streambank Work c:lpeclmemoslwedand.823 • 3 ~ '~/~.:~r!" /,~ ,~ f 1 (J J -~{ ~ ".I III ~, fJ~ - .; " i ''e'll',"~~ `~ ' ' ~%'~G,~ . E{_ :'. f ,sr'~ r I r ~4~ ~ ~vlti I b B~'h hb 1~ / ~ ^i ~," e ~. a~ ., _ 11 ro, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i~1'' 'l "' ~,V ~~ i i ~ r' • ` ~ r• ~.'.c" ` ~. e r ~. art. + \~ _1r-R 1J ±~ ~1 I ~ .. s.\~:., '~, i' ,I 1 I P,, I ~ \ \s °S y; J~ '+I+ ~1 I ,1~1 ~ +~r~ l ~1~~/ ~ ~ _~~I'I \ .I~ ~~ ~ ~~ VFt 1r }1 ~! ~~ ~1 - ~ r~ ~I ~~ ~ 11-~-; ~i ) ' ~ 1 ~~ ~ I~ , zip ~~~I A"r !~~ -y` \" 1115___ ~I ~ ~ ~~ •~~ I/ //I''rl '"I . _.~ ~~ l 1 - ~" r ~~ r l ~ ~I ~ I.,~ f~r~ l '"r~ ` '~4-~~.~:,I~'r- ,;:`'~ ,. ; ~,`\'1)111'.1,1 + ~~ ~.. EX~IIBIT A -- Ka~sos Qpen Space Area - • • EXHIBIT B-_ Exsmples o~ dxop structures ~~ 0 O W U Q y C^. ~ C: ~ ~ ~ N Y Y- U ~ w z U _d m I n ~ ~, a ~ .. .. .. , n~ c ° $n ~m ~~ ~ +Y U ` !!1 ~~ 3 w 0 3 '~ ~~ C C O ~ ~~ r~ N a~ c am < ~ L 7 m U C ~ ~ ~ ~ G a °m ~ i~ y a ao ~~ .Y d v t~ .O -~ ~~ in ~ _v ~ Q- ~~ 0 ao ~ ~- ^a v~ a v ~~ I ( i m ^~ €~I' t .O ~ ~ ^ 9~ ~ I! o ~ ~ H a m h I l= ^I _ EXHIBIT C-- Stx'e~~ section ~, .. m~ w u~ ~ .- v U m ..~ ~X D O U r~~ V xr" d QS C w C a~ ~r .~ a a 0 U C~J cr~ w .., A ~, ,. . ...._ • v _~ v~ ++--1 ~~~ ~l ,~ ~~ L V JA. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~~ ~ ~~ ~, ~: ~..:: ,~ .11J ~• V J i ~~ ~`~~'r; i~~~a' ~i~~`~ Y ~~ fir' ~~^. ~ .'Z.. _ ~ i ~~~ ~ [~v > ~~- ~~ r . ~qt~ , ~ ,~~i' r.~/ r ~. ` ,a 1 ~ . ~; I '`;~~,~. :. ,,, t7 ;F' ~.v ~• ~ ~ K ~ ~ ' ~,~ s'I~o'P'L_-tom\~. ,y/ I x . .~~ EX~TISIT D -- i, • T0: FRONT: DATE: MEMQRANDUM Flanning and Environmental Commission C~,......unity Develapment Department September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision preliminary plan and a Special Development District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located East of Nugget bane and south of Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Timberfails Association Planner: Mike 1vlollica r ^r r• . `t :9sv ~r Sx r:,:_ ..3Sr r r:.:i~~ ... & ~. ~'JV {?P;~; 5k:, I. DESCR.ir i TON OF THE REQUEST Timberfalls is a 7.5 acre unplatted parcel, generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek Drive in the East Vail area. The property is bounded by the Timberfalls Condominiums to the east, Gore Creek and duplex-zoned lots to the north (Streamside Circle), duplex-zoned lots to the west (Nugget Lane), and a large, unplatted parcel of land zoned Agricultural and Open Space to the south. The applicant, Ron Riley, representing Timberfalls Associates, is requesting approval of the following: 1. The establishment of a Special Development District, and 2. Preliminary plan approval for a major subdivision. The property is currently zoned Low Density Multiple Family (COME}, and based upon the buildable area of this site, thc t,~.,~,erty is zoned for a total of 55 dwelling units. The proposed development plan is comprised of 14 residential lots. Each lot, with the exception of Lots 10 and 11, would permit one single family dwelling unit, plus one "caretaker unit," for a total of 2b dwelling snits. Lots 10 and 11 would be designated as single family lots. The total GRFA requested is 62,700 square feet. The lot sizes range from apr.~,.imately 14,300 sq. ft., up to approximately 41,200 sq. ft. An existing creek is proposed to be realigned to cross the subdivision. Two ponds will also be created at the entrance to the subdivision. • Access to the site is proposed via Nugget Lane, immediately south of the Gore Creek Bridge. . Access to the lots would be provided by a private, 22-foot wide road, app~.~..:mately 500 feet in length, ending in a cul-de-sac. Lot numbers 10-13 would have a sepazate access just south, off of the main roadway. Please see the attached site plan for further information regarding the layout of the lots and the access roadways. All utilities would be located underground. The applicant's proposed SDD would exceed the underlying LDMF zone district in the following areas: 1. Minimum Frontage -Lots 5, 10 and 11 do not meet the required 30-foot minimum frontage. 2. Setbacks - It is r,.~~osed that all lots have a 15-foot side yard setback, versus the LDMF required 20-foot side yard setback. 3. GRFA -Although the proposed GRFA for the project as a whole is substantially less than what the underlying zoning would allow, Lots Nos. 1-4 are proposed to be allocated more GRFA than what the underlying LDMF zone district would allow, given their individual "buildable azea" sizes. 4. Minimum Lot Area -Lot 3 does not meet the LDMF required minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. of "buildable area." Lot 3, as proposed, would have 8,176 sq. ft. of "buildable area." All the other lots would meet the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area. The Timberfalls parcel is located in the LDMF zone district. As such, the permitted uses in the zone district are as follows: 1. Single-family residential dwellings 2. Two-family residential dwellings 3. Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. • II, ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following table outlines the Timberfalls' zoning analysis, indicating the underlying zoning, which is LDMF and the proposed Special Development District. The project's departures from the LDMF zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. Underlying Zoning Low Density Multiple Family Proposed SDD Site Area 326,700 sq. ft. or 7.5 acres 326,700 sq. h or 7.5 acres Area Over 40% Slope -35,363 sq. ft. -35.363 sq. ft. Area Located Within 100-Year Floodplain -21,144 sa. ft. -2L144 sa. ft. Buildable Area 270,209 sq. ft. 270,209 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. of Varies, from 8,17b sq. tt. buildable area per lot to 29,255 sq.1't. Minimum Frontage 30 ft. Varies, see attached site plan Setbacks Front 20 ft. 20 ft. Rear/Sides 20 ft. 20 ft. rear 15 ft. sides Building Height 3S ft. -flat roof 33 Ft. -sloping roof 38 ft. -sloping roof . Density 9 DUs per buildable acre, 14 DUs, 12 with or 55 DUs for the site caretaker units = 2b DUs GRFA 81,062.7 sq. ft. or 30% 62,744 sq. 1R. ow 239b** of the buildable area (plus 225 sq. ft. per DU) Site Coverage 114,345 sq. ft. or 35% b2,700 sq. fli. or 239b*** Landscaping A minimum of 40% of each A minimum of 40~ of each lot sha11 be landscaped lot shall be landscaped Parking Per TOV parking standards Per TOV parking standards **Note: On Lois 1-5 the maximum allowable GRFA requires that a minimum of 1,000 square feet be utilized as basement space below existing grade. These basement spaces are allowed to be "walk-out" basements. On Lots 12-14, 500 square feet of the maximum allowable GRFA shall be utilized only as basement space, as described above. ***Note: The maximum allowable site coverage for each individual lot shall not exceed the maximum allowable GRFA for each lot. 3 III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA • The criteria to be used to evacuate this ro sal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) P Po development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria ane as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, bu~'er zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The planning staff is supportive of the applicants' ~,~ ~r~osed 14-lot preliminary plan subdivision. We believe the applicant has designed a subdivision which is very responsive to the existing natural conditions on the site, such as the Gore Creek 100- year floodplain and associated setbacks, the natural topography of the site, and the large area of existing, mature spruce trees. No buildings are r~~r,osed within the 100- year Gore Creek floodplain yr within the 50-foot setback line from the center of Gore Creek. On the larger lots in the proposed subdivision (Cats 7-11), the applicant has agreed to add a "no-build line" along the southern portion of those lots. The intent of this line is'to further control the locations of development on the lots, given the steep hillside to the south. This "no-build line" is an additional level of control which the staff strongly supports, and which we believe will be mare effective than creating building envelopes on each of the lots. The applicant is proposing architectural controls and guidelines which are intended to supplement the existing Town regulations regarding architectural design. It is proposed that these architectural guidelines will be incorporated into the covenants for this subdivision. At the direction of the PEC, during the September 13, 1991 worksession, there will not be any additional architectural guidelines incorporated into the SDD ordinance for this subdivision. It was agreed that the PEC and the staff both felt comfortable utilizing the existing design review guidelines which the Town currently has in place for single family and primary/secondary type development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure. The applicant has agreed to abide by the requirements in Section 18.54.050{I} of the Municipal Code, should a separation of the primary unit and/or caretaker unit and/or garage be requested. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a ~„~...patible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff believes that the applicants' proposed uses for the site, single family and primarylcaretaker residential dwellings, are very compatible uses in this zone district and in this neighborhood. We are supportive of the applicants' • request to reduce the overall density on this site, from 55 dwelling units, dawn to 26 dwelling units. We also support the applicants' request to reduce the overall GRFA on the site by approximately 1$,000 sq. ft. The staff has carefully analyzed the applicants' request to redistribute the allowable GRFA on a lot-by-lot basis, as indicated in the chart below. We feel comfortable with the applicants' proposed GRFA distribution, given that certain lots will require a percentage of the GRFA to be utilized as basement space, and also that the proposed building heights will not exceed 33 feet. It should be noted that, in the LDMF zone district, the maximum building height is 38 feet. Proposed SDD LDMF Lot Maximum GRFA Maximum GRFA 1 4,500* 3,129 2 4,500* 3,240 3 4,300* 2,453 4 4,500* 3,533 5 5,000* 6,050 6 4,000 5,002 7 4,800 7,032 8 5,000 8,777 9 4,800 7,018 10 4,500 4,546 11 4,000 4,063 12 4,300** 5,736 13 4,300* * 5,683 14 4,200** 5,515 * On Lots 1-5, the maximum GRFA listed includes a minimum of 1,000 sq. ft., which shall be utilized as basement space, below existing grade. The GRFA maximum on these lots for the above ground space is the total GRFA listed above minus 1,000 sq. ft. In other words, 1,000 sq. ft. of GRFA is allowed only as basement space, in order to reduce the above ground mass of the structures upon these lots. These basement spaces are allowed to be "walk-out" basements. ** On Lots 12-14, 500 sq. ft. of the maximum GRFA shall be utilized only as basement space, as described above. Since the September 9, 1991 PEC worksession, the applicant has amended the project as follows: 1. Lot Nos. 1-9 and 12-14 shall be designated as single family lots with the ability to have one caretaker unit. 2. Lot Nos. 10 and 11 shall be designated as single family lots. • 3. All caretaker units shall be restricted to a maximum GRFA of 900 sq. ft. 4. No caretaker unit shall be sold separately from the main, or primary, unit. 5. No caretaker unit shall be rented on a short term basis. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Pazking for the subdivision will be provided in accordance with Chapter 1$.52.100, which is the standard parking schedule currently utilized for all developments within the Town of Vail. There are no loading requirements associated with this development. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vai! Comprehensive Plan, T.~ r~.. policies and Urban Design Plans. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan shall be utilized as a guideline in any request for a Special Development District. This property has been identified in the Land Use Plan as "Low Density Residential." The Low Density Residential designation reads as follows: "This category includes single-family detached homes and two family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Tnstitutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities." This SDD ~,,.,rosal was also analyzed according to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Goals and Policies. Staff has identified the following goals and policies we believe to be relevant to this proposal: Goal 1.6 Development t,~.,~.osals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as apr.~.r.~ate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. The staff believes that the applicants' proposed SDD and preliminary plan for a major subdivision comply with the above-stated goals and objectives, as well as the Land Use Plan's designation of "Low Density Residential." E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 1. The southern portion of the Timberfalls parcel is mapped as a "severe rockfall hazard" on the Town of Vail hazard maps. A site specific hazard investigation, completed by Art Meazs on August 28, 1991, summarizes the rockfall hazard as follows: "In summary, rockfall does not appear to be a hazard on any portion of the pazcel, and should not serve as a constraint to building on the site." 2. The northeast corner of the Timberfalls parcel is shown as being within a "moderate hazard debris flow hazard area" on the Town of Vail maps. Accorcling to Art Mears: "Macerate hazard means Lots 5 and 6, and the building envelopes, could be reached by muddy water, small rocks, and vegetative debris during a rare debris flow event. Mitigarion to buildings on Lots 5 and b could be accomplished by flood proofing and direct protection of exposed foundation and building walls. Alternately, mitigation could be achieved by designing a small settling pond and berm in the flat area above the tennis courts. Final mitigation details for Lots 5 and 6 depend on azchitectural and landscaping details which are not currently available. The mitigation on these lots, however, can easily be incorporated into building design without adversely affecting adjacent public or private ~~.,t,erty." • 3, Art Mears has also completed an analysis of the snow avalanche dynamics and the existing avalanche berm capacity adjacent to this parcel. His conclusions are as follows: "1. The flow height of the design avalanche is less than the existing berm height. 2. The maximum deposit height, of the design avalanche is less than the berm height. 3. Lateral spreading, of the avalanche below the berms (in the tennis courts) is accurately shown on the original drawings. 4. The existing berm, therefore, does not require modifications or enlargements to mitigate the design avalanche:" The only hazard mitigation which would be necessary is for the debris flow hazard vn Lots 5 and 6. Staff recommends that language be added to the face of the final plat indicating that asite-specific debris flaw mitigation plan be completed for Lots 5 and 6 prior to the issuance of any building permits for the lots. 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 staff has reviewed this proposed development with regard to the purpose section of the Special Development District chapter of the Town of Vail zoning code (Section 18.40.010), which 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; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a y,.,~,erty's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding devel.,r...ent and uses of property included in the special development district." We believe the applicant has produced a very well-designed preliminary subdivision plan, utilizing the flexibility of the SDD process. Again, we believe the applicant has been very responsive to protecting the Gore Creek 100-year floodplain and the existing mature vegetation on the site. For example, the applicant has reduced the density on Lots 10 and 11 to single family only dwellings. By proposing single family dwellings, the applicant is able to provide access to these lots via a 15-foot private driveway • a easement. This access easement passes through a very heavily-wooded area. Had the applicant proposed primary/secondary type units on Lots 10 and 11, the private access easement would have to be widened to 22-feet in width. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. The on-site circulation system is designed to be a 22-foot paved, private roadway, with a 40-foot right-of-way. The access road will terminate with a cul-de-sac, which has been designed to meet the Fublic Works and Fire Departments' standards. The staff has reviewed the potential off-site impacts of this subdivision, specifically with regard to the existing Nugget Lane bridge over Gore Creek, The Town Engineer has reviewed this issue, and has discovered that this bridge was completely rebuilt by the Town in 1981. It was rebuilt with a restricted width of 13.4 feet. It should also be noted that, at the time the bridge was being reconstructed, this property was zoned for SS dwelling units. Although the Town staff has some concerns with the narrow width of this bridge, the Public Works and Fire Departments and the planning staff all agree that it should not be the applicants' responsibility to upgrade the bridge so that it could accommodate 2 lanes of traffic. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The applicant has verbally stated they will be r.~~,osing specific landscaping in the area of the subdivision entry, possibly in the 1'.,~.,~ of an entry gate and associated plantings. The preliminary site plan does indicate two ponds, which would be located near the subdivision entry, along the northern boundaries of Lots 12 and 14. The staff feels comfortable in deferring the detailed grading and landscaping plans for the ponds, entry gate and Iandscaping until final plat. The PEC, at the September 9, 1991 worksession, also agreed this would be reasonable. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that wil! maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicants' plan for the completion of the subdivision is to install the site infrastructure during the spring and summer of 1992. It is proposed that all infrastructure improvements be completed during this period, and that lot sales and individual home construction could occur simultaneously. 9 iV. CRITERIA FOR A MA7OR SUBDIVISION • The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in 5ectinn 17.16.110 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations and reads as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its ap~..,~.~:ateness in regard to town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the town, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses." A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews Notification has been mailed to the following agencies and, as of this date, no comments have been received by the Town of Vail: 1. U.S. Forest Service 2. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District 3. Public Service Company of Colorado 4. Holy Cross Electric Association 5. U.S. West Communications 6. Heritage Cablevision V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the applicants' proposed Special Development District and preliminary plan for a major subdivision is for approval. It is the staff's opinion that the applicants' request would further the goals of the community, as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and that the r..,~.osed SDD meets the criteria, as stated in the SDD chapter of the zoning code (Secrion 18.40.010). We believe the applicant has been very sensitive in the overall design of the subdivision, specifically with regard to the 100-yeaz floodplain, the site's topography and the existing vegetation on site. Staff recommends the fallowing conditions of approval: 1. That engineered drainage and roadway plans be r.., sided during. the final plat review. 2. That detailed grading, drainage and landscaping plans be Yx.,,+ided, as discussed in Section III(H), above. 10 . 3. That an engineered utility plan be provided at final plat. 4. That language be added to the face of the final plat, indicating that asite-specific debris flow hazard mitigation plan be completed for Lots 5 and 6, as discussed in Section iII(E), above. The applicant has discussed with the staff the possibility of making minor changes to the development plan, such as slightly moving lot lines to accommodate the results of the detailed engineering studies which are a part of the final plat submittal. It is also possible that the applicant may r, „~.ose the access road to be a public road. (This would require an additional 10 feet of right-of--way.) The staff feels that these types of minor changes, which do not substantially alter the character or intent of the approved SDD and preliminary plan, are acceptable at the final plat review. n ~pecVnemos~timhrfa1.923 • 11 II l~HS ~3S ~NI'1 Hp1VW .., .,,, \\r\. r\..,, "~ ~", r~~:~~Vii{i \\r \\ \\\rV ~~?~ ~~ Z 0 ~:; ~\\\ ~~"\\\ \. . . \\ \ \ ~\\\ \\\~\ ~\ Y\\\\~ \ ~\\\\ ~ ~ „~ \ r O N W a ~- w Z z m°°° 0 0 ~_ m •••1 ~'. r:i :H' H•r~ ;'r. . ~ ~µ~• 'j/~~ /\ ;/~ ~. t \i. ~' f•. .H ! / ` % /~~6 =/ ./a .\~ ~ \! ~ ~~~ r /~'r/~ •'~ ~.~~. ••R. 1.~ . ,•~• t .wry ••r'• ~ / I ••~• V ` _. r •. .'Q'. :~: - HG o ~ f? ~~ _ ~. ,. ~o /~ ~ ~ •, V• •~ i :~i ~• ~, :}~• ..'r~ • ••~• ~ :~: i % /, \;\/ ~ ~. 1 •~, . . N ,~<.- ,.,.. , ~`r ~•~a \\\\\\\ ~ __ .\\\,\ .\\,\ ... ;: :~.~.~• . ~~!/~! / /~\/~~~ .~ ~.~~/ i -,. / i/~, ~! /~ /~~i /mar / \/~~\J 1 i/~ r ./~~ 1/~Ib =/r\~ ! /~ r~' -` /~ \« I /, I ~!. ~ !` \~ ~~ r ~/ ` ~ / (n '~/' '~ ~ ~ z5 a / i .~ z Q ,~ ;~~~ ~~ !/~!\ ~~\/ ~~ 1J f /` /\ \ . \ \ J /~ I /\ "t'~ /~~ / ~ ^ "c/ / I/~!/~1~.'l r. .$ L 8 ~ ~ , _ ~\ ~. .\ .\,\\\\\\\\\\\ r \/ /~ r~r\\\\.r\\.\\\ \r\r•\• \\\\\\\r\\\\\\• \~~\..\• •\\\\\\\\r\\\1\\~ • \\\\\\\\\\ .r\\\r\\\\\\\.\\\\r \ •• \\\\\\\\\\ r\\r\\\\\\\\\\\\\•\• \\\\\r\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\r\\\\\r\\\\ ' \\ \\\\ \.r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\r\\\ \• •\\\\\\r\,\,\\\,\..\\.\.\\.,\\..\\\\.\~ ...... .. , \\\.\..\,\\.,..\\..\\\,\\\.r...,......' \\\\\\\\.\•\• •\\\\•\\\rr\rr\•\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\e•. \\\\\\\\`\\ \\\\\\\1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~ r\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\t \V~~~\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\K\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ u~\~\\\\\\..\\ \\\\\\r\\\\\\\r\\~\\\.\ \r\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\.\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\r \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\r ~\ \\*\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \ \\\\\\\rr\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\•\\\\\\\r \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\.~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\ \\\\\1f.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ •\\\\~.\\• •\\• \\\\\\•r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ •\\\ rr• •\\\• y~\\\\•\\r\\\\\\\\\\\\\• \ \r\ \\\\\ \ 'yN\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\ \ ~\\\r\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ r\\\\\\\\\\ ~.m• ~+ ..n.. ~,• •a: .4.0., . .~~~ •~ l.~' \\ \~ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\\ r \\ \ \ '.\~\ ~ \\3i\ \ •\~\ \\ \\\\1\ 1\\\\\ \~\~ \\\\\ \\\\• ~I ~• M... \\ \ \\\\\\\\\ ~y r \'¢ \\\\\\\ L1~ \ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \• \\\r\\\\\\\\\\\ ~t\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ••.$~~t \\\\\\\\\\\ ,z, ^ \\\\\\\., •~. \\, ... .\. \.\ .'K: \\\~.\. .~ :~:~ ~~'~i 4: :;;: \\.\\\ \ a. ~O NZ ~ Q ~~ ~ Z z~ ~(G~~~ ~ 9 .+.P .~ :] r 1 F 3 µ ro i °o '"~ ,, s g g N ~R¢ s a1= •!j 'F it ~, Q V 0 ~. ;~____ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ \ ~ // ~ i/ ~: r. ~~ W a m r °a Qe d tl t~ 1 sa ~ 1I i i ~ Nai~ N 4j ' i ~ ~ +f ~~ I / i ! / ~ ` ~ ~ \( ° ~~~ / M~~~ +~ t 1 flFrt oM~ffi ! ~/ T ~ N q ' ~~~ ~ oho ~«~ I ! ~i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~Zt+~ ~ ~~\ ~ ~ V ~ +. 1E+t~, I / ''v ~ +.r+ / ~~ i ~~~ j` iy~( i , ® O 7 ~~ 1 F r roA~ '/ a{, 1 i~ ~ i*1 / ~ i`i y ~''i ti; ' / it '~~~~ • 1« r ~~~ ' ~S ~ ' W a ~ m Y ~ m a` v y ~: N W 7 D 2 g e m 'e U l0 b a vi ~r[F'~m V ,,~e,r. ~ ~~.. 5'4 •, .' ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~ ~ W ~, z ~ J cd N E ~ ~ ~R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y N ~ ~ ~, ~ v c yl: .u..rg < ~ ~ O _ . W l - t ~ O ~ : ~ ~ :6~g ~:~ i l =~ ~ ~, S ~ mg ~ `~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ I~ 8 w ~ > ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o 8. ~ ~ w 8 Wr` I ym ~ ~ ~ y~ O •O. } y 't`hrM 3y A ~ 1 ~Nrr I v' ~ N rr 1 O ~ ~rr rr m { ~~~~~ I NN,wwr ~ ~ 1 r ~ // ~ ~ 5 Y Ir ~ ~ o ~> 8 ., / /~ r ~ / / ~ / / N~Yte / ~ s~xxK ~~ ` N l // _i _ _ _~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~. , , LL µ ~ ~ W ~~g~~~3EY~~g~~~~ ~wso ~~°-~'RR~~eoa m x ~.~ W r ~5~S~~~~°~~~ :~~~ o a w. n n r o s 3~:^ 1 -~ ~~~ i~ e~~ ~ ~~ { ~~yy 1 ~N' ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ x~ x~ ~ r ~ C ~~ ~I • u 1 jii f~ ~~'~~~~~~~~~~~I E! ~~r fia~~~~ !~ . ' ~ 1 '~f~fj' ;~If jj# ~j~~ f`#~~~#;# ~f~ , ,~3 s ~ ! ~yf~, ~ ~! 1! 1, ~~ aF! Sit 11! n ti~ ti~ r~ ~~~~ ~ti~' y~ .~1~• 0~ .. .. 1 ~~. ~~ °kr~° ~8~;. J ~- ~,E '- a .. r nA N' ti H e m f ~ ~i,ltlJ"~'' !' ; ,~ d#~ .~Il~~~l;~ f r 1~ ~~ ~ ~~1 ~~! ~~f ~Il it ~j Ii~ l~i~ ~j~'~`1~~~~i~ij ~ ,~~ !! i l:r rv t:r r:r ~; ~. ~i~ ~j~~ #i~ ~Irlr/ ill` ~~ i ,i E ~ ~ ~~ _~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~; + a a pp jjjj $ i as ;y~~ y x '• ~~9'~RF ~, t 9 q 4 ~~ ~ S K K~ g rr "9'~l ,~~~' Y !w , yq :~ 1 ;,! h~ g S 6 IEO ' \ l ~ a N I ~ !' ~ a~sd _ y 4 ~ r , , _ $n`Q ~ y~ t R 4 ~~ O SCR ~ L i gRS ~/ $ G y~ IS ~ o $R8 ~ ` ~ ~ gZR ~ ~ea N!A ' ~ R ` i ' 4 ~ww ~ ~ ~~ a' b~ 3 ~~ ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., iNC. Natural Fiarards C«+suItants • 222 Eap Gothic Ave. ctumi,o,,, Co~«ado e i 23a 3a3 - 64i •3236 August 28, 1991 Mr. Ran Reilly Timberfalls Association 228 Ridge Street Vail, c0 81657 Dear Mr. Reilly: At your request, I completed a site inspection of an unp~2ttted parcel west of the Timberfalls development in East Vail on~August 27, 1991. The purpose of the site visit was to quantify the potential rockfall hazard on the site. The southern portion (approximately 25%) of this parcel is mapped as "severe" rockfall hazard on Town of Vail maps. In addition to the site inspection, I conducted a study of aerial photographs dated 1939, 2950, 1962, 1974, and 1984. Some of these photos pre-date development and provide an excellent view of the area prior to man's disturbance and can be used to locate rocks which may have fallen into the . area that was to become the parcel in question. The following observations and conclusions result from my study. a. Rack deposits characteristic of rockfall origin were not identified on the site through aerial-photo inspection or the site visit. b. The slope above the site consist of a mature forest with no perched boulders capable of rolling and bouncing down the slope and reaching the parcel. c. The distinct limestone cliff band, which serves as a rockfall source at many Vail areas, does not crop out on the slope above the parcel. In summary, rockfall does not appear to be a hazard an any portion of the parcel and should not serve as a constraint to building on the site. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 4 C~~~.~L~, ~ ! ~ ~ ~=~G~? Arthur I. Mears, P.~. Avalanche-control engineer Masr Wwting • AuQfanchta • AialancheCanfrolEngtneedr~ „~ ~. ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Nahua! Haza~da Cansu~~ta . 221 L:iai G.ahie Are. Gunnison. CoEorado 81230 303 - 641.3236 September 4, 1991 Mr. Ron Reilly Timberfalls Association 228 Ridge Street Vail, C4 81657 Dear Mr. Reilly: At your request, I have completed (a) an analysis of avala~iche dynamics and existing avalanche-berm capacity at Timberfalls, and {b) an evaluation of the debris-flow hazard. This work was based on a site inspection conducted on August 27, 1991. and upon revised avalanche-dynamics calculations. AVALANCHE DYNAMICS AND BERM CAPACITY An original avalanche analysis and berm specification was completed by Mr. Hans Frutiger, a Swiss avalanche-control . engineer, in 1973. The analysis reported here applies current avalanche-dynamics methods, including modified Swiss and American procedures (Balm, 1990; Mears, in prep.), to compute the avalanche dynamics and adequacy of the existing berms. The following summarizes the methodology used. Computational details are included in the Appendix, 1. Design-avalanche ("100wyear" return period) runout distance was determined through inspection of a regional database of extreme avalanches. The runout distance ends on the north side of Gore Creek assuming natural terrain without the berm in place. 2. A design slab thickness of 1.50m over the starting zone area of 44,400m3 was estimated by analysis of extreme storm data. 3. Velocity. flow height, discharge, and deposit height, were computed through application of the Swiss avalanche-dynamics procedures (Salm, 1990). The runout distance was forced to stop at the paint determined in step "1," above. The present berm configuration and location of excavations and tennis courts were used in final calculations. • Mau Wasfrnq Apolancha • AaalanchcConhvlEngineenng k ;, The following conclusions about berm effectiveness were reached • as a result of this analysis and site measurements. 1. The flow height of the design avalanche is less than the existing berm height. 2. The maximum debosit heicrht of the design avalanche is less than the berm height. 3. Lateral s~readinq of the avalanche below the berms (in the tennis courts) is accurately shown on the original (Frutiger, 1973) drawings. The existing berm, therefore, does not require modifications or enlargements to mitigate the design avalanche. DEBRTS FLOWS The northeast corner of the unplatted parcel (on the west~~s~de of the avalanche berm) is shown as being within a "moderate-hazard", debris-flow area on the 1984 Town of Vail "Geologically-sensitive area" (GSA) maps. This includes portions of proposed lots 5 and 6, as shown on the Timberfalls site plan dated 6/10/91. Moderate hazard means Lots 5 and 6 and the building envelopes could be reached by muddy water, small rocks, and vegetative debris during a rare debris-flow event. Extensive building damage and/or loss of life will not be a problem. The return period of the design • debris-flow is ~ x.00 years. Mitigation to buildings on Lats 5 and 6 could be accomplished by flood-proofing and direct protection of exposed foundation and building walls. This method has been used at other buildings in Vail. Alternately, mitigation could be achieved by designing a small settling pond and berm in the flat area above the tennis courts. Final mitigation details for Lots 5 and 6 depend on architectural and landscaping details which are not currently available. The mitigation on these lots, however, can easily be incorporated into building design without adversely affecting • adjacent public or private property. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, ~~ A thur T. ears P.E. Avalanche-control engineer Encl. Appendix • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Devel.,~,~~.ent District No. 2, Pinos del Norte, Building C, Northwoais Condominiums1600 Vail Valley Drive Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association Planner: Andy Knudtsen ]]66`` ~ f i.Y. 'fii~.~..$. t h r. f.. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE I2EOUEST The Pinos del Norte Condominium Association plans to build an addition to Building C of the Narthwoods SDD to accommodate twn new uses. A recreation room, of aYr~~,ximately 1,000 sq. ft. in size and 1G private storage lockers, each approximately 50 sq. ft. in size are proposed to be built on the north side of the building. The recreation room and storage lockers will be used solely by the owners and guests of Pinos del Norte. These uses are allowed by the SDD ordinance as listed in Section 1$.42.070(B,D). The addition will be built adjacent to the existing underground parking garage. The east elevation of the addition will be visible, while the grades on the north and west sides will be bermed up to the roof to make these two elevations appear to be below grade. The roof will be landscaped with sod, and the existing trees in this area will be transplanted to the area between the addition and Vail Valley Drive. Alang Vail Valley Drive, the applicant is proposing to construct an undulating sidewalk which will vary f~.,.~~ $-11 feet in width. It will extend from the Northwoods driveway entrance on the east side of the site to the existing recreation path on the west side. It will be constructed in concrete unit pavers, per the Streetscape Plan. This request is a major amendment to Special Develapment District No. 2, because the addition expands the building footprint by more than 5 feet. The addition will not increase the allowable common area by more than S%. • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: SDD No. 2 Allowed Existing Proposed Total GRFA: 175,000 sq. ft. 156,103 sq. ft. 0 156,103 sq. ft. Common: 61,250 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft.* 2,499.7 sq. ft. 16,449.7 sq. ft. (35%a of GRFA) Height: 45 feet varies 11.5 feet NIA Setbacks: 10 feet on East: 445' East: 445' all sides West: 8' West: 8' North: i4' North: 11' South:183' South: 183' Site Coverage: (25% of lot area) $3,232.3 sq. ft. 78,3$0 sq. ft. 2,628.4 sq. ft. 81,008.4 sq. ft. * Approximate • III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The evaluation of the proposal to the nine SDD review criteria is provided below: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer woes, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes that the impact ri.,~~i the proposed addition on the character of the neighborhood will be minimal. The proposed addition will be 11-1/2 feet tall, and most of it will be screened or covered with landscaping. The most noticeable change will be that the existing gabion retaining wall will be replaced with a boulder wall that will run the length of the property. The wall will have small shrubs planted among the boulders and will have many large spruce planted along the top of the wall. There will be a seven foot elevation difference between the base of the wall and the top. The seven foot height will be achieved by stepping the boulders back over a distance of arrx.,1-imately ten feet. Stepping the wall back in this manner will allow for frequent pockets for landscaping. Staff believes that the landscaping and wall treatment will make the addition compatible with the immediate environment. • B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efl'ieient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity, The s~.~,anding uses include the Ski Club Vail building and the Vail Associates Children's Center, Manor Vail, Ford Park, and the soccer field. Staff believes that the additional lounge space will not significantly alter the Pinos Del Norte development and that it will continue to be a compatible use with the surrounding properties. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Staff has de:~...yined that the proposed storage area and lounge area do not generate a parking demand and that additional pazking is not needed. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The most significant issue discussed in Town documents relates to pedestrian, bicycle and automobile circulation adjacent to this site. This area is frequently congested, as it is located between Vail Village on the west and Ford Park and the recreation path on the east. The Recreation Trails Master Plan Report calls for bike lanes in this area. . Specifically, the plan states that: "This trail type (bike lanes) is called for on roads where no other trail exists, such as portions of the Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive fi.,r.~ the Gold Peak Base to the athletic fields. The bike lanes will be one way and 4'-5' wide (depending on the shoulder available). The bikes will be moving with traffic." The Streetscape Plan calls for a sidewalk to be constructed from the Village Transportation Center to the soccer field. For the portion along this ~,. „r~erty, it is called out to be 8-10 feet wide. Staff believes that it is reasonable to require the applicant to improve the public right-of--way abutting the Pinos Del Norte t,~.,t.erty, in compliance with both of these plans. One of the original concepts of the Homeowner's Association to be included in the development was a link from the Pinos Del Norte parking garage to the bike path on the wes€ side of the r~ „r~erty. The applicant has maintained this concept and has agreed to modify it somewhat to meet the standards in these Plans. One drawback to the improvements for this section of Vail Valley Drive is that there will be significantly more asphalt and hard surface in this corridor. The Streetscape Plan is calling for the addition of two 4-foot wide bike lanes and an 8-foot wide sidewalk. In addition, a 2-foot gutter and a 2-foot expansion of the drive lanes will • need to be installed. As a result, there will be an additional 20 feet of hard surface added to the existing 22-foot wide road. These improvements will require that most all of the right-of-way be used. In the attempt to .provide as much landscaping as possible between the proposed addition and the sidewalk, staff has proposed locating 4 feet of the bike lanes and 1 foot of the drive lane widening on the north side of the road. The five feet required for these improvements will use up almost all of the remaining right-of--way on the north side of the road. During the staff review of the proposal, staff discussed the impacts of the increase in hard surface and decrease of landscaped area. We believe that the widths proposed for bike lanes and sidewalk are the minimum necessary to r-~ ride safe spaces for the different modes of traffic. (Originally larger bike lanes and sidewalks were ~,~.,~,osed.) Staff believes this portion of Vail Valley Drive, in particulaz, needs the extra room far pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, this alignment is consistent with the direction Planning Commission gave during the July 8, 1991 worksession. This design is consistent with the Streetscape Plan and Trails Plan and provides an adequate buffer of landscaping between the proposed addition and public area. It has been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer and meets all engineering standards. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The Town hazard maps for avalanche, rockfall, floodplain and debris flow show that this site is not affected by these hazards. 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. Staff believes that the site plan and building design will preserve the appearance of open space. All the existing vegetation in the area will be preserved since the applicant is transplanting it. As there will be more trees to be transplanted than can be accommodated in the buffer between the building and the r.,.~,osed street improvements, the applicant has requested to locate the trees on the north side of Vail Valley Drive at the south entrance to Ford Park. As there is no existing irrigation at this specific location, there may be other more a~.r.~,Y.xate sites. The applicant may move the trees to other locations on-site, possibly the west end. Staff believes that the landscaping efforts and quality of the Northwoods devel~t,„gent will work together to be consistent with the overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Staff believes that the applicant has fully addressed the circulation systems for • • pedestrians, vehicles as well as bicycles, as discussed above. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes that the landscaping plan will effectively screen the addition and r~r. aide a natural buffer between the street and rest of the Pinos Del Norte condominium building. Staff believes that the landscaping plan, as discussed above, will preserve the natural appearance of the site and will soften the retainage along the sidewalk. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. No phasing plan is ~,~.,NOSed. IV. REVIEW PROCESS As this is a major SDD amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be making a recommendation to the Town Council. Specifically, the recommendation will be to amend "Section 18.42.040, Development Plan -Contents" by adding: • H. A revised site plan, dated September 15, 1991, showing improvements including a lounge, storage locker area, revised landscape plan, boulder retaining wall, new sidewalk constructed out of unit pavers, and a new bike lane. In addition to this amendment to the SDD, staff would like to revise a portion of the existing Pinos Dei Norte SDD ordinance. Section 18.42.030{B) currently reads, "Amendments of the development plan shall be approved by the Town Council by resolution." Staff is proposing to amend this section to read, "Amendments of the devel.,Y~~~ent plan shall proceed as follows: The initial review of the proposed Special Development District shall be held by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regular scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the Director of the Department of Community Development, a worksession may be held with the applicant, staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed Special Development District. A report of the Community Devel~~~.~ent Department staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission. A report of the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff's report shall then be transmitted to the Town Council in accordance with the applicable provisions of the administration section of the municipal cede. The Town Council shall consider the Special Development District, • . and if it is determined that the proposal should be a~,~~.,ved, shall approve the Special Devel..r...ent District modification by ordinance, according with the administration section of the municipal code." Staff is proposing to repeal and re-enact portions of SDD No. 2, incorporating these two modifications into the SDD. V. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposal meets the SDD criteria. Staff believes the applicant has worked hard to produce an aesthetically pleasing solution which addresses many different uses. For example, the plan accommodates bicycle traffic, pedestrian traffic, as well as the new addition, and includes a visually pleasing landscape and retainage treatment. Staff is pleased with the way the applicant has incorporated the Streetscape Plan and Trails Plan into this project. Specifically, the criteria for compatibility with adjacent properties, the requirement to conform with applicable elements of the comprehensive plan, and the requirement for an aesthetically pleasing landscape plan are met. Therefore, staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town Council that SDD NO. 2 be repealed and re- enacted, to include the r.~,rosed devel..r..,ent plan as part of the official Development Plan Contents and to modify the section regulating amendments. The proposed development plan has the following specifications: 1. The sidewallc shall be constructed out of concrete unit pavers and shall be a minimum of eight feet wide in all locations, and shall maintain the undulation shown on the approved plan, and lie handicap accessible. 2. The improvements south of the existing roadway shall include a 1-foot drive lane expansion, a 4-foot bike lane, a 2-foot curb and gutter, and the sidewalk described above. c: r:..:...emos~pinos.923 • b .~ r3.k ~~. o~ ~1~3 ~~1~ I,~~~ ~~owba~ ~~~iois;~~o~~v~~~,~ ~ ~ li ~~ ! l • `~,^ ' ~"°::~.1.tI0I~'.;'r~t~'S0h[Id; r, ~ r~ ~ a N • ,., I ~. i •\ i~. _._^. ~ ~ ~ k is . a.. i I yyyl ~ ` ~ ~ d' ~, ~;~ I o ~ ; . ,.._ ~ ~ ~ _ fsru .~ I A ~ ^b~ ~ +~ Ott ll u~ ~-~ r. -1 ' . ~ ~ .~,. ~ ~ n~ ~ I~. 'f,,!~~,~ ~ D~'~j ~o~ ~ 80l ~ a ~ a-" ~ Z 'f ~ r...,k~ to ~„~ a-'... > *. . ~ '~""~t .... t ~ '` ' ~. ~ .~..~ ,. . , , ,y ~ `z ~~ ~~. ~~ s s ~~ . ~. 1 .. s ~. ~ .~.: •. • .•.. '. ~• .' . .. .• :Y+~ .. ,. ~~ ~ ~ • . '.. ~ l ~-~ ~ = ~ , _ a r ~ ~ ~~ . _... ,, ~ ~` ,~ l" d \~ ~ 1\ • ~~ ..~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~ - ~ \ -~- ;.. .- ~.. . _ r ~.. ~ Y •. •. '~~, .. % i ~~~ 1 ~'~ ~... • • r ~ 1 . •~_ ~ . •~ :~ ~ . ~ • • u E i ~~ a C~ ~'~~ , f ~! ~ ~ -- , ~~ ~_=~ -~~>> ~. ~ ~-~ gg 4 r'. ~ 4 ~ / '-'a`;~~- '' 1 ~ a i ~ ~ fir. ~~~ ~L\T ~Y i ~' ~~ ;~ ~ r . ~ ~,-,~ ~ ~,*', ~~~ ~, ., ~ ~; .\ w~ 1 ~. >., ~ S/t )! \ _ ~~ r~..~ \~ ``~~ `\ ~`~\ ~/ \ f O \~ 9 ~ ~ y~ ~~ ~~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i \ ,I .~.1.uv,v ,:.IU aUN ti• S.` f `~ ~~ 7 I is .. {"{ ! . ,'r,, '.~a ar+ ~.. 1 . ,ti ry. __._..... I i, 1~,,~_ i 8 V ,. I , .. I e Px ~ ..~.. ~ ~~ ~. ~: ~ ( ~I • • ~1 ~4 ,~,~ ~ ~~ ,. w ~~~ { erg ~`~!~ r~~ '~'' -~~~ -~ .` ~ s A 1. .~ S ~ ~ i i s~" _ ,~~y ~` .~ ~~ ~, ~ ' " ~ , `^,. lY ) ~~~ . ~ ~ . ~ i ~,, r ~~ _' .~+ "~ = iil ~~ ~, lam" MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Request for a worksession for an exterior alteration to the Bridge Street Building in order to allow the construction of a new entrance to the Crazy Shirts retail space, Condominium Unit No. 2, Bridge Street Condominiums, Bridge Street Building, 250 Bridge StreetlLot D, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: The Mainland Company, Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer ,.... ~.; . ~ j ,6 ,:a x+.h ,.. ~.. ~..~,. ~~~}.r i9..Y. AEf ~ s. . ~~ .dN.d.r°. ~... 6.o- .~°°$`'i. .e` I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Bridge Street Building faces onto Bridge Street, Gore Creek Drive and Wall Street. The existing entrance to the Crazy Shirts retail space is from Bridge Street. Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposes to construct a Wall Street entrance to the retail space and to modify the businesses Wall Street facade. Currently, there is an emergency fire access from Wall Street into the retail space, but no pedestrian access. The applicant proposes to construct a bay window in the area where the emergency fire access door currently exists and to construct a double door entrance-way into the retail space in the area where a bay window currently exists. Additionally, there is a small 20 square foot recessed area which would be infilled with an additional bay window. In order to construct the WaII Street entrance proposed, a 55 sq. ft. area of an existing planter will need to be removed. This planter is located in part on property awned by the Bridge Street Building, and in part on property owned by the Town of Vail (TOV). Of the 55 square feet of planter area to be removed, 25 sq. ft. is located on Bridge Street Condominium-owned property and 30 sq. ft. is located on TOV-owned property. Under the redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposes to infill the area between iwo existing planters with a new planter. The new planter will provide 39 sq. ft. of additional planter area, resulting in a net loss of 16 sq. ft. of planter area. The addition will match the existing exterior detailing. The request does not require a site coverage variance. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning characteristics for the exterior alteration request. 1. Zone District: Commercial Core I 2. Lot Area: 7,750 square feet • 3. Site Coverage Allowed: 6,200 square feet {80%} Existing: 5,850 square feet {75.5%) Proposed: 5,868 square feet {75.7%} Net Increase: 18 square feet 4. Commercial Square Footage increase: 33 square feet 5. Parking Pay In Lleu: $880 III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Form of the proposed planter. The issue is whether the PEC believes the form of the new planter is acceptable, or whether it should be more organic andlor larger. A straight wall connection of the Wall S#reet face of the two existing planters flanking the existing stairs would result in 64 sq. ft. of additional planter area. Under this alternative design, the net increase in planter area would be 8 sq. ft. Staff would like to see a net increase in planter area. 2. Amount of landscape area to be removed vs. amount of landscaped area to be added. 3. Need for vertical landscape? Staff believes the applicant should make provisions for aspen trees within the planting area adjacent to Crazy Shirts. 4. Applicant must submit letter from Condominium Association supporting proposal as submitted. 5. Staff believes applicant should must take al! necessary precautions to protect the existing aspen located adjacent to the building infill area. This includes setting new bay window facia back from the plane of the existing fascia. 6. Staff views the exterior alteration improvements, as proposed on the structure, to be positive. Under this development proposal, there will be an upper-level walkway which will connect the Gold and Silversmith of Vail business and the Crazy Shirts retail space. The creation of an additional store front on the west side of the building will add additional street life and pedestrian interest to Wall Street. clpeclmemoslcrzyshrt.909 • • 1 4 4 r ~ i ~ • f ,, _ ... ~ I ~; _.,...4._._. H ~ ~ -~ ~1 H ~ ~~ •~ ~^ X~iM ~ ' ,~ ~~ o~ ...•. ~~ ~e rb :~ ~ , ~' ~ I I 1~``\ T 1 y i ~ ~ n I II ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m s ! ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~~~ i ~ ~ - a ~- .~ ~ I A r ~ ~ ` ~ ~u ~ ~ v ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ /, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. -~-~ / ' ~ ~ , ~~ _ w a ~~. '~ ~~ ~ A ~ a ~ ~a ~~ .~ I---- L { ~ '-. Il. - f ~ 0 ~ - .~, ` `.~ ~• •~ :.~:J~7~.'i •'1~~. .. U \Q J t f , LJ lu ~i i ~i ~ ~~ IQ ICI L~ I~ ~ i ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~~ 'i ~' . ~ , ~~Y~~ f i~ b O ~~ Q~ _~ i ~I ~~ ~I J~ 1 o` oaf wflQ Qav i~ _I • 1 ~~ . • • ~ ~a~ ~ - ~ ,~ ., ~~ (j! ~~ ~ I -~ ~ i 1 ,t ~ ~- u ii ,~ li rL i , {( 1~ r ti~ ~'' ~} ~~' 'r Ff . ~ ~. { i "t~i~ ~ ~ ii ~+ , r ~~ ,-T tiii; '~p ~ ,~ a • i ~ ~1 i ~~. ~1~~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ •~~ ~ ~~• },~ ~ . ~ , =,'~ r L, ~ @=~ ~~ t~ f• aO ~~ ~ ~ ~~, '! .~{{ ~ ~ • ~ ~, ; ~. . 4 , (~! :a - 1 ,, , .r r~ ya~il ~ y ~ 1i n ~"~ ~ _ .~ ~ 1 I . - ~' ~'~ ~ ~ ;1.1~+ r t I h? ~ ~ .,',~itit ~~' t ; 4i, ~ ~ U _ • ,~~ ! ~- ~t a ~ ; .>~I , W 0 • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section clarify the definition. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 18.D4.3fi5, Definition of Site Coverage, in order to ,~ ,. , .,r. ~ ~ w~~w~ 1 Under Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1990, which was approved on December 4, 1990, the definition of site coverage was revised to read as follows: "iSA4.360, Slte Coverage. 'Site coverage' means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of the site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, 'building area' shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include all walls, carports, porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkwavs. In addition to the above, building areas shall also include any portion of roofed overhang, save, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns." Since the time of the adoption of this definition, there has been debate regarding what constitutes a "covered or roofed walkway." Following an appeal regarding a staff interpretation of this definition, the Town Council instructed the Community Development Department staff to amend the definition of the site coverage so as #o clarify what constitutes a "covered or roofed walkway." Staff proposes the definition be amended so that the definition of covered or roofed walkways coincides with the Section 18.58.060 of the code, relating to balconies, decks and stairs above ground. Section 18.58.060 of the code reads, in part: "A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend- over a lower balcony or deck, but in such case, shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck." Staff proposes the definition of site coverage, Section 18.04.360, Site Coverage be revised to read as follows: • "...Building area shall include all walls, carports, ports cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. For the pumoses of this definition, a balcony or deck ~nr~lACtina from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway. but in such case shall not be deemed a roof or covering over the lower balcony. deck, or walkway. In the addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of roof overhang, save, or ..." c:lpecltovlsiteco+r.923 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 14, 1991 AGENDA 11:30PM Site Visits 1:30PM Worksession 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Worksessfon 5. 1. A request for a worksession for Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village (Cosgriff Parcel}, to review a development plan, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of the Westin Resort, Vail. Applicant: East-West Partners Planner: Shelly Mello Pubflc Hearlna 1. A follow-up to the August 12, 1991 PEC review of the staff approval of the minor amendment for Garden of the Gods, SDD No. 22, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Fiiirlg1365 Vail Vailey Drive. - ~ Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello 1. 2. A request for a minor amendment to the Golden Peak development plan to allow for the installation of a rope tow lift, 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jill Kammerer 4. 3. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance to the parking standards, Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for off-street surtace parking at the "Holy Cross parcel" which is generally located on the north side of the South Frontage Road east of and immediately adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek. Applicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jill Kammerer 8. 4. A request for a conditional use permit for a cellular telephone "cell site" at Red Sandstone School, 551 North Frontage Road/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: The Waiter Group Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3. 5. A request for a setback variance for a garage at the KaiserlHall Residence, 4913 Juniper LanelLot 3, Block 5, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Ursula Kaiser/Robert Hall Planner: Shelly Mello 2. 6. A request for a setback variance far the Sipf Residence, 3876 Lupine ©rivslLot 14B, Block 1, Bighorn 2nd Addition. Applicants: Eric and Susan Sipf Planner. Andy Knudtsen 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32.030 - Conditional Uses in order to allow well water treatment facilities as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner: Mike Mollica 8. A request for approval of a wetland mitigation proposal for areas along Gore Creek and Booth Creek. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District Planner: Andy Knudtsen 9. A request for an amendment to the approved conditional use permit in order to construct a snow dump on the property generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops. The property is more specifically 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 $; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence along the northerly ROW line of I-70 following two courses: 1 } S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 2} 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the Left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34"E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03"E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27"W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicants: Town of VailNail Associates Planner: Andy Knudtsen 10. Information Update -Eagle County 1041 review for Phase Il of the proposed Homestake Water Diversion Project. Planner: Kristan Pritz 11. Information Update -Spruce Creek Phase III, site plan modifications. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 12. Information Update - Streetscape Master Plan. Please review your draft copy of the Plan, for PEC review on October 2$, 1991. Planner: Mike Molfica 13. A worksession to consider rezoning Lots 3 thrcugh 9 and 12, Vail Meadows Filing No. 2 from Agricultural and Natural Open Space to Residential Cluster. Applicant: Vail City Corporation and David Elmore Planner: Andy Knudtsen WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA 14. A request for a satellite dish antenna variance for the Jackalope Cafe and Cantina, 2161 N. Frontage Road WestlLot 2A, Resubdivision of Lot 2, Vail Das Schone Filing #3. Applicant: Jackalope, lnc. Planner: Mike Molfica WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA 15. A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vaii Village 1st Filing1395 MIII Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz TABLED TO OCTOBER 28, 1991 # 6. Discussion of a meeting date far the appeal of a home occupa#ion license revocation. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 14, 1991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donavan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mella dim Shearer Betsy Rosolack Gena Whitten Amber Blecker The worksessian was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at approximately i :55PM. 1. A request for a worksession for Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Villaee fCossriff Parcel), to review a development elan, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of the Westin Resort, Vail. Applicant: East-West Partners Planner: Shelly Mello Mark Smith, Jerry Mullikin and Ned Gwathmey represented the applicants. Shelly Mello began the discussion of the proposal by stating staff believed the project needed to be more materially compatible, a landscape plan, and a final survey were needed, and since it was an unplatted parcel, a minor subdivision would be necessary. Diana Donovan was unhappy that the property would not remain open space, and the Commission agreed with her. Jim Shearer did pat mind a difference in materials, and believed that the applicants should try to "bring up" the neighborhood. Ludwig Kurz thought that, since there were distinct styles, urban and hotel, that compatibility was impossible. He said he could live with the design presently submitted. He was more concerned with both landscaping and street surface materials. Ned Gwathmey asked what the opinion of the Commission was regarding a metal roof, and which type should it be. He advocated shake shingles stained to match the existing surrounding buildings, but did not believe a material match was the best solution. He suggested spraying the shake shingles to achieve a compatible roof color. Kathy ~i Langenwalter did not see a problem in not using a metal roof, as long as the roof lines were compatible. She suggested perhaps adding more stucco and changing the railings for a more refined appearance of the building. She also believed it was important to continue the paving pattern which was used in the Millrace project. She was concerned with the layout of the project and the difference in scale between the hotel and this project. She said it felt like the east unit was very close to a large building. Ned asked if a landscape plan would be necessary for approval. The Commissioners told him it would. Chuck Crist asked if employee housing would be a part of the devel~,t,~,~ent. Shelly said staff would not require it as a condition of approval, as there was a reduction in density from the previously-approved plan. Chuck asked if the applicants were interested in providing a caretaker unit. The responded that they were not. Shelly said staff would be supportive if such a unit was proposed, as long as it was integrated into one of the proposed units. Kathy brought up the issue of parking. Shelly explained the proposal had 4 spaces mare than the Town required. Kathy wondered where guest parking would be provided. Kevin McTavish, the manager of the existing units at Millrace, shared Kathy's concern, stating that their project had no guest parking, and it was a major problem. Ned asked what a reasonable number of overflow parking spaces would be. He was not apposed to providing addirional parking, but indicated it would require additional paving. Kathy suggested perhaps widening the circle. Ned agreed to look at different possibilities for providing additional parking, Kathy said she would prefer to have adequate parking for the project rather than insisting the project meet the 75% enclosed parking requirement. After a general discussion regarding parking, Connie Knight asked if there were any problem with the bike path running across the project. Shelly said there should be an easement, and agreed to check the Special Development District documents to make sure. Kevin McTavish reiterated that the present parking plan was inadequate. At this time, the public meeting was begun. 1, A follow-up to the August 12, 1991 PEC review of the staff approval of the minor amendment for Garden of the Gods. SDD No. 22, Lot K, Black SA, Vail Village 5th Filina/36S Vail Vallev Drive. Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello explained the differences between what had been submitted for the PEC approval of the SDD, building permit and what was built, and the discrepancies. Staff asked that the Imt,~., cement Location Certificate (ILC) and future surveys reflect the fact that the property lines not close. The sources of the discrepancy were attributed to three factors. The • 2 first is a difference in drawings. The submitted site plans at both PEC review and building permit were soft line drawings. The LL.C. is computer generated. It is difficult to accurately scale and compare a soft line drawing and computer generated drawing at 1 "-20" scale. The second source of change was generated by a need to adjust the building in order to ensure that the building footers were not located in the right-of-way. The third reason is that only 2 control points, 4 feet from the north and 2 feet from the west property lines, were used in locating the building through the process. Because of the non-rectilinear shape of the lot, and form of the drawings, these control points were maintained, but still allowed for a slight shift in the building. Shelly indicated that the building was slightly turned from what was approved by the PEC, but the result was that the proximity to the view corridor was increased. Staff believed that the shift was reasonable. Diana Donovan was bothered that after thorough review by the PEC, the building had to be moved in order to accommodate the foundations. Kathy Langenwalter confirmed that the sources of the discrepancies were reasonable. After a discussion regarding the effect of the slight change in building location, Kathy asked that the Town copies of all surveys reflect the fact that the property lines did not close. Since the Commission agreed with staff's approval of the minor amendment, no action by the PEC was necessary on this item. 2. A reauest for a minor amendment to the Golden Peak devel~u.f~ent elan to allow for the installation of a ro_ ne tow lift. 498 Vail Vallev Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Anolicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the minor amendment to the development plan with conditions. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, said he would prefer not to construct an earthen berm to the west of the proposed lift unless Mr. Brown, the adjacent property owner, requested one. He suggested using a snow berm instead of an earthen berm with landscaping to screen the lift from the adjacent property. Jim Shearer asked that Mr. Brown and the Meyers be contacted again for their input. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about a buffer for privacy and noise control. She preferred to see the base of the lift moved to the east. Joe Macy indicated such a move would result in a loss of ski terrain. • Ludwig Kurz believed the proposal was an inoffensive installation, and would not result in a problem for the neighborhood. He did not believe it would make sense to move the base of the lift uphill, nor to install a permanent berm. Diana Donovan did not believe a berm needed to be required at this time, but wanted an allowance to be made to require its installation in the future if it became necessary. Joe Macy replied that the neighbors could always install a fence around their property if cross- traffic became an issue to them. He would prefer to remove the lift support poles in the summer rather than construct a berm and landscape it. Diana stated her preference of bushes being planted rather than a berm being installed. Chuck Crist asked what would keep out-of-control skiers from skiing into a house. For control reasons, he suggested a snow berm. Jae Macy replied that, most likely, a skier would simply sit down before they reached one of the homes. He reiterated that notices had been sent to adjacent property owners, and no one had indicated any apposition, but pledged to continue to try and contact them again. Connie Knight wanted the approval contingent on the adjacent t,~~~erty owners' approval. Kristan Pritz said that could be made a condition of approval, but an alternative would be that, if there was apposition, the applicant could return for an amendment to the proposal, if necessary. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a minor amendment to the Golden Peak development plan to allow for the installation of a rope tow lift, 498 Vail Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing, with the following condition: If either of the two adjacent t,~~~,erty owners requested mitigation by landscaping or through the construction of an earthen berm, within two years of the installation of the lift, the applicant must provide such mitigation. Ludwig Kurz seconded the morion. It was approved, 7-0. Jack Rush from Manor Vail was in attendance to express support of the request. 3. A reauest for a conditional use Hermit and a variance to the narking standards. Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municiuai Code to allow for off-street surface narking at the "Holy Cross parcel" which is generally located on the north side of the South Frontage Road east of and immediately adiacent to Red Sandstone Creek. Annlicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jill Kammerer Till Kammerer presented staff's findings on this request. Staff recommended at,~..,~~al of the request for a period of 2 years, with the conditions listed in the memo. Joe Macy, representing the applicant, thought a berm on the west side of the lot was acceptable, but that a berm on the south side was unnecessary, as the grade of the lot was high enough above the road that cars parked in the lot would not be visible to drivers on the • . South Frontage Road adjacent to the lot. He also had difficulty with condition number 6, requiring the drivers to stare their cars on a long term basis only. He said there was no way he could guarantee compliance with that condition. Kathy Langenwalter agreed there was no way to control when people could take their car from the lot, but suggested including the condition in the letter sent to residents of Timber Ridge. Kathy continued by stating that if, in 1993 the applicant wished to continue use of the parking lot, more permanent improvements would likely be required. Jim Shearer requested that the "long term" be defined in the letter to residents. He could agree with berming only the southwest corner of the lot. Connie Knight left the meeting at approximately 3:10PM. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for a variance to the parking standards, Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail. Municipal Code to allow far off street surface parking at the "Holy Cross parcel" which is generally located on the north side of the South Frontage Road east of and immediately adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek be approved with the conditions as follows: 1. The applicant construct a 3-4 foot high earthen berm along the southwestern corner of the rl~rertY to screen the parking lot from the South Frontage Road and, further, the . applicant seed this berm with native grasses in the Spring of 1992. 2. The conditional use permit be effective until May 15, 1993. After that date, if the variance and conditional use permit is extended, further improvements will be performed, such as paving, extending the berm, and landscaping. The improvement to be required will be determined at such time as approval of the variance and conditional use permit is reconsidered. 3. All of the existing evergreen trees be protected by snow fences. 4. Surface run-off pollution control, as i,~.,YOSed by the applicant, be t,~.,~ided. 5. Applicant notify each V.A. employee who rents at Timber Ridge that it is illegal and extremely hazardous for pedestrians to cross I-70, and the only safe way to cross I-70 is via the pedestrian overpass or by crossing under I-70 at either the West Vail or Main Vail interchanges and, further, the applicant notify each V.A. employee who rents at Timber Ridge that residents will be allowed to store cars only on a long-term basis on the Holy Cross parcel. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 5-0. • Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for a conditional use permit to allow far off-street surface parking at the "Holy Cross parcel" which is generally located on the north side of the South Frontage Road east of and immediately adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek be approved per staff memo, with the conditions as noted above. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, b-0. 4. A reauest for a conditional use Hermit for a cellular televhone "cell site" at Red Sandstone School, 551 North Frontage Road/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Potato Patch. Aovlicant: The Walter Groun Planner: Andv Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented the request. Staff recornrnended approval of the permit, with the conditions listed in staff's memo. The applicant, Dave Rutter, said he had a couple of clarifications to staff's memo. First, the dish to be installed on the roof was not a satellite dish, but apoint-to-point relay from Dowd Junction. Second, the carrier was McCaw Communications, acting under the name Cellular One. Kathy Langenwalter asked that the shed roof be removed over the door, and the flat roof over the addition be extended. The applicant agreed to that change. Kathy also asked that, if the existing grade were lowered, and the wato,~,~oofing were exposed, it would be cleaned up. • She strongly encouraged avoiding exposing the wa~~,~Y~.,ofing. Kathy wondered if more cell sites would be necessary in the future. The applicant hypothesized that, if 30-50,000 subscribers were signed up in the Valley, another site would be necessary. He did say, however, that an additional site in East Vail may be needed. Kathy questioned how the applicant was working with the school, and if the dumpster enclosure was acceptable to the school. The applicant responded by saying they had not specifically addressed the dumpster, but the applicants had committed not to affect the operation of the school. Ludwig Kurz was concerned with traffic and parking issues, and asked what kind of maintenance was going to be performed on the twice monthly visits. The applicant indicated it would be preventive maintenance, specifically to check on the batteries, and the visits should be approximately 30 minutes in length. He said if there was a power outage, for instance, an unscheduled visit might be necessary. In addition, approximately every b months, a 2 hours maintenance visit would be necessary. Diana Donovan was concerned about the timing of the construction, as parking was a problem at the school. The applicant said the concrete would be formed off site during the week, and poured during the weekend. When the trench was dug, a 24-hour watch would be posted to ensure safety. • 6 Connie Knight asked if any hazardous chemicals or coolants would be used on the site. The applicant indicated that the only possible hazardous material was the battery, which was a closed cell, similar to a flashlight battery, designed to last ayr.~,ximately 20 years. There were no emissions fi.,,~, this type of battery. Diana wanted to ensure that the concrete would look the same as the existing. She also wanted a condition that the construction schedule be arranged with the school. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for a conditional use permit for a cellular telephone "cell site" at Red Sandstone School, 551 North Frontage Road/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Potato Patch be approved per staff's memo, with the additional conditions that the construction schedule be approved by the school, the roof of the building be extended over the shed and the existing, sloped roof be removed, that nn waterproofing be exposed, that the landscaping planted in conjunction with the construction be guaranteed for a period of 2 years, condition i(c) of staff's memo be moved to condition 2(c), and that the design of the trash dumpster be coordinated with the school. Tim Shearer seconded the motion. It was apt,~.,~ed unanimously, 6-0. After an approximate 5 minute break, the meeting continued. 5. A reauest for a setback variance for a aara~e at the Kaiser/Hall Residence. 4913 Juniper Lane/Lot 3. Block 5. Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Ursula Kaiser/Robert Hall Planner; Shelly Mello Shelly Mello explained staff's position on the request, recommending approval of the setback variance to allow and enclosed parking space of 10' x 20', but not for the additional storage area. Galen Aasland, representing the applicants, said the reason for the storage area associated with the garage was needed for Mr. Hall's hobby was the restoration of cars. He said the house had been built on bedrock, and location of the garage in any other location was virtually impossible. Shelly informed the Commission of the conditions the Design Review Board had placed on the project regarding the compatibility of the primary and secondary units. Jim Shearer asked if the colors on the addition would match the existing. Galen replied they would, and that the DRB had placed that condition on their approval. Kathy Langenwalter was not comfortable with granting the variance for a third garage space, as she did not see a hardship, and did not believe a third enclosed space was required. Ludwig Kurz agreed, stating he could not support a variance for an extra garage. • 7 • Chuck Grist questioned why the foundation for the garage had already been poured. Galen confirmed that it had been poured, and said that if the variance was not approved, the area would become a carport. Chuck supported staff's recommendation. Gena Whitten asked if both homes were connected. Galen replied that they had been at one time, but no longer. Gena did not see a hardship sufficient to warrant a variance for an additional garage. Ursula Kaiser stated she believed a hardship existed, since when she bought the property, none of the difficulties had been disclosed. She was not aware of what it would take, financially, to renovate. The estimates for the remodel had increased from $6{},000 to approximately $330,000. Diana explained that the Commission could not consider financial factors in establishing a hardship. Ms. Kaiser said that the project had a snowball effect, and that this was the only practical solution left to them. They never would have started this project as a renovation if they had known what existed, and would have simply started over. Robert Hall added that he believed the large rock the house abutted was a hardship, as they had to jackhammer and blast to have any building in that area. Ms. Kaiser also said that she believed a carport in the Iacation of the prapased garage and storage area would not look right. Shelly reiterated that the applicants were using available GRFA and a portion of the 250 Ordinance for the garage. . After a general discussion regarding possible siting of the garage and driveway, and possible options, Kristan Pritz said staff believed the proposal was the best option. Staff did not consider the fact that this was for a third garage, since the applicants were willing to use GRFA to construct it. They believed the applicants would not have proposed it unless it was a definite need. Diana did not fmd a need for 3 enclosed garages a hardship. Kathy saw other options, and suggested moving the entry. Gena requested that the DRB conditions be met before any variance was given. Shelly informed her that design issues would be addressed when the Design Review Board reviewed the 250 application. An infarmal discussion of possible options took place. Galen Aasland requested the item be tabled. Jim Shearer moved to table this item, and Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. It was tabled by a vote of 6-0. • S 5. A request for a setback variance far the Sivf Residence, 3875 Lupine DrivelLat 14Bti Block 1. Bighorn 2nd Addition. Anvlicants: Eric and Susan Sivf Planner: Andv Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen illustrated on the site plan how the proposed construction and requested variance fit on the lot. Staff recommended aYY..,val of the request, with conditions. Connie Knight returned to the meeting at 4:35PM, Steven Riden, representing the applicants, stated that the decks ct.,~c,~,tly surrounding the house would be removed. The applicants had worked with the neighbors to the south, .and agreed that no development would occur that would block the neighbors' views. They had also agreed to work with the stream and around the existing tree. Ludwig Kurz asked how far the stairway base would be from. the tree. Steve said that same of the existing concrete would be removed to help the tree. There would be no negative impacts to the tree itself Ludwig also asked if new siding would be added. Steve said it would. Kathy Langenwalter asked if there was an adequate area of driveway in front of the garage. Steve described how it functioned, and showed why the turnaround was designed as it was. Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a setback variance for the Sipf Residence, 3876 Lupine Drive/Lot 14B, Block 1, Bighorn 2nd Addition, per the staff's memo, with the conditions listed by staff. Gena Whitten seconded. The variance was unanimously at,t,~.,~ed, 7-0. 7. A request to amend Chanter 18.32, Agricultural and Oven Space, Section 18.32.030 - Conditional Uses in order to allow well water treatment faciliries as a conditional use. Anvlicant: Vail Vallev Consolidated Water District Planner; Mike Mollica Mike Mollica reviewed the staff memorandum and, in summary, indicated staff supported the request, and did not believe it conflicted with the purpose section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. Ludwig Kurz asked what the typical building size far a treatment facility would be. Kent Rose, engineer for the applicants, said that the building proposed would be approximately 14' x 24', which was smaller than existing building, located at the east end of the golf course. Mike added that the Water District and the Vail Recreation District were working together tv design a building which could also serve as a rain shelter for golfers. • g . Diana Donovan asked if they believed there would be larger buildings, and how many treatment facilities were anticipated. Kent Rase replied that he doubted the District would ever again treat surface water. The prnpased well could be the only additional water source developed for awhile. He mentioned that the previous well developed on the golf course was reviewed as an accessory use of the golf course since it contained restrooms. Kent indicated that every well may not need separate treatment faciliries. Ludwig Kurz moved that the Commission recommend approval to the Town Council of the request to amend Chapter 15.32, Agricultural and open Space, Section 18.32.030 - Conditional Uses in order to allow well water treatment facilities as a conditional use. Jim Sheazer seconded the motion. It was unanimously at,t.,,,ved, 7'-0. 8. A request for atsU~.,ral of a wetland mitication ..~...,osal for areas alone Gore Creek and Booth Creek. Annlicant: Unner Eaale Valley Water and Sanitation District Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the changes to the proposal since the worksession. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the adjacent property owners had been notified. Bob Waver said that all of the proposal was on Town-owned land. Kristan Pritz continued that this was like a master plan, and adjacent property owners were not specifically notified. However, if a modification to the floodplain was necessary, the affected property owners would be notified of the proposed rnodificatian. Kristan said that the wetlands would be maintained by the Town once they were restored. The director of the Water District, Warren Garvy, said that the cast for maintenance was designed to be negligible. Kathy was concerned that, where lots of willows were planted, eventually the stream access would be restricted. At that point, the consultants explained the plans in detail, showing what types of plantings would occur in the proposed areas. Kathy asked if there was along-term establishment requirement. Bob Weaver replied that, as part of the permit, monitoring and performance standards were required to be established for a period of 5 years. Diana Donovan asked that the District be careful about restoring wetlands around Bald Mountain Road, as lots of small animals could follow the stream, only to be killed trying to cross the Frontage Road. She indicated this was a current problem, and didn't want the area restored to a point that more animals were lured to their deaths. The consultants discussed whether the District should substitute another area for mitigation than the proposed paz-3 course, and require the developers of the course to perform the restoration in that area. They concluded that the proposed imY~.. cements be completed under 10 this project and that the golf course developers take the responsibility of maintaining these improvements. Gena Whitten moved to approve the request for approval of a wetland mitigation proposal for areas along Gore Creek and Booth Creek per staff memo and the attachments, with the recornrnendation that areas F, G, L and Q be the preferred restoration areas, and areas O, N and K be possible areas for restoration, as shown on Exhibit D of the staff's memo. Connie Knight seconded the motion. The recommendation was unanimously approved, 7-0. 9. A reauest for an amendment to the approved conditional use Hermit in order to construct a snow dump on the prnpertv generally located west of the Town of Vail Shoes. The property is more specifically described as follows: That Hart of the North 1/2 of Section 8, Township S 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 I-70; thence alone the northerly ROW line of I-70 following two courses: S75°28' 18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 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 N$9°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. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the .,.,,,,~erty described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 beins S89°46'27"W as shown on said annexation oats. Applicants: Town of VaiUVail Associates Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained that the requested change in the apr~ ~ red conditional use permit was to build a portion of the snow stoxage facility this fall, and the remainder of it next summer. Greg Hall, Town Engineer, said that, due to the time remaining in the current construction season, only half of the project could be completed. Kristan Pritz indicated the • 11 . project was brought back to the Commissioners because of their concerns regarding water quality and visibility. Diana Donovan asked that, if a portion of the berm were constructed this year, could Public Works guarantee that the existing snow storage facility would not be used. Greg could not commit to that, as it depended on how much snow fell during the season. He did agree to avoid the use of the current facility if possible. Diana also requested that top soil to be stockpiled be located in areas to be disturbed by the construction. This would minimize the impact to the area azound the snow dump, and to kill as little sage as possible. Tamra Nottingham, representing Vail Associates, pointed out that the lease did not exactly match the legal description noticed for the conditional use permit. Kristan explained that the permit was for a specific set of plans. Though the legal description was broader than the construction area, V.A, would not need to be concerned about development on the rest of the parcel at this time, since all construction would have to comply with the aYy~ moved plan. Kathy Langenwalter questioned if all of the approved plans would still be completed. Mike Mollica said this was basically a request for a phasing plan, and that all the work would eventually be completed. Kathy also requested that the lighting would be minimal in the area. Andy said that angled lights would be used in the area, and there would be very little . visual impact. Ludwig Kurz moved to amend the approved conditional use permit in order to construcC a snow dump on the property generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops. The ~,~~~yerty is more specifically 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°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 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 chard which bears N89°36'34"E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; • 12 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 20.450 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the ri°rert3' 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. The motion was made per the staff memo, with the additional condition that any top soil stockpiled in the area would be stored in an area to be disturbed under the at,Y,uved plans. rim Shearer seconded the morion. The unanimous vote, 7-0, approved the motion. The staff made several informational updates to the Commissioners. 15. A request for a wall heisht variance far the Chester Residence, Lot 19. Block 1, Vail Village 1st FilincJ395 Mill Creek Circle. An~licant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz Kathy Langenwalter moved to table the above request to October 28, 1991. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7-0. . 16. Discussion of a meeting date for the anneal of a home occunativn license revocation. After discussion, November 20, 1991 at 9:OOAM was the preferred date and time for the above special meeting. Staff would pursue this date and inform the Commissioners at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30PM. • 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT; A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow a temporary parking area on the Holy Cross parcel. Applicants: Vail Associates, Inc./Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer I. BACKGROUND On November 2C, 1990 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit in order to allow a temporary parking area on the Holy Cross parcel, and a request for a variance from the design standards requiring all parking lots to be paved and landscaped. These approvals were effective for a period of one year. The requests under consideration at this meeting are more or less identical to the requests reviewed by the PEC in 1990. The Town of Vail's 1994 option to purchase the Holy Cross parcel from the Holy Cross Electric Association has expired. Holy Cross Electric was unable to deliver free and clear title to the parcel. Therefore, acquisition of the site by the Town at this tune is no longer being actively pursued. The applicant has requested this conditional use permit be permanent, however staff recommends the permit be effecrive, through the 92/93 ski season, until May 15, 1993 (a period of 2 years). In April of 1990, the Arterial Business District (ABD) section of the zoning code was amended to allow "private ofd street surface parking" as a conditional use in the zone district. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE This conditional use permit is a companion proposal to a request for a variance f..,~=~ the design standards requiring all parking lots to be paved and landscaped. The variance is discussed under a separate memo. • • Vail Associates, Inc. (V.A.) proposes to Iease the Holy Cross Parcel, in order io y~,,,ride long and short term parking for Vail Associates employees who reside in the Sunbird Lodge and Timber Ridge. Timber Ridge restricts parking to one space per dwelling unit. V.A. typically has two to three employees in each unit. Each employee typically has an auto, resulting in a need for off-site storage of autos. Additionally, V.A. has committed 15 of the 101 spaces which the Holy Cross lot will contain, to The Lodge at Vail for Lodge employees who reside at Timber Ridge. The Holy Cross parcel is located in the Arterial Business District zone district. In this zone district, private off-street surface parking is considered a conditional use. Even though parking and storage for Holy Cross Electric currently occurs on this site, a conditional use review is required as the parking use is being expanded. The applicant will delineate short term parking areas versus long-term parking areas on the parcel. V.A, estimates at,t,~.,~.imately 2S%a (or 25) of the 101 autos stored on this site will be used on a daily basis and 75% (or 76) of the autos will be stored ail winter. A portion of the north side of the parcel adjacent to I-70 will continue to be used by Holy Cross Electric and its contractors for equipment storage. The applicant r~~roses to control run-off from the site into Red Sandstone Creek, which is located west of and immediately adjacent to the ~~„~.osed lot, through the installation of hay bale silt traps. This system will be installed along the western edge of the lot. Use of hay bales to trap sediment is a standard technique used in road construction. The bales will be held in place by rebar driven through the bales and into the ground. Under the previous approvals, the lot was screened f.,,... South Frontage Road by snow berms. Because the request is for this parcel to meet V.A.'s winter employee parking needs for a number of years, staff recommends this lot be screened from the South Frontage Road by an earthen berm and, further, that V.A, seed this earthen berm with native grasses in the spring. Snow storage will occur on the southwest corner of the site. The Iot is already Iit for safety and security purposes. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: • 2 • A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. There are no specific objectives of the Town that directly relate to this request. The following Land Use Plan policy statement indirectly relates to this request: Policy 2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) Increase busing from out-of--town. b) Expanded paints of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to ~~., side temporary surface parking. d) Addition of structured parking. The temporary lot will ra.,~ide parking far employees who might possibly be using spaces that could be used by skiers. . The staff's preference is to have residential projects, such as Timber Ridge, designed to provide adequate parking on-site as opposed to creating outlying lots to meet their parking demands. 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 use will have no effect on these particular considerations. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the users of the parking area will have easy auto ingress and egress to the parking lot. The speed limit along the South Frontage Raad in this area is 25 mph. Visibility from the parking lot entry is excellent. There are no adjacent egress and ingress points which would create traffic congestion. • 3 ^ . In 7uly, 1991, the Colorado Department Of Highways (CDOH) converted the temporary access permit to this site for employee parking a permanent t,~,~,..it. As previously stated, the applicant proposes to store snow along the southern and southeastern edges of the lot. The snow storage along the southern edge of the lot would create a "berm" which would visually screen the lot from the South Frontage Road. However, because it is likely this seasonal parking use will continue for a number of years, and possibly be utilized during the summer months, staff recommends the applicant construct an earthen berm to screen the lot from the South Frontage Road and, further, that the applicant seed this berm with native grasses in the Spring of 1992. Pedestrian safety is a concern. Users of the lot who reside in Timber Ridge may cross I-70 to access the lot. The applicant's representative has indicated V.A. will provide a written notice to each Timber Ridge employee using the lot. The notice will discuss the illegality and hazards of crossing I-70 and notifies residents of the location of I-70 pedestrian crossing points (see attached). Staff believes Timber Ridge residents may continue to choose to cross I-70 despite any written notice V.A, may r.„ side. Other than concerns regarding pedestrian safety, staff finds the ~.~..~.osal has no negative impacts on any of the other above-listed considerations. C7 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. Adjacent land uses are: I-70 on the north, a gasoline station, a sewer treatment plant and an office building on the south; to the west is Red Sandstone Creek and across the creek is an office building; and to the east is V.A.'s maintenance shop. Properties to the west are well screened by the vegetation which occurs naturally on the creek banks. In order to avoid damage to the root system of mature evergreen trees, staff believes the applicant should install a snow fence{s) around these eve.~.:,ens. Property to the south is proposed to be screened by snow berms. However, staff recommends an earthen berm be constructed to screen the lot. The V.A. maintenance shop to the east will not be impacted by the parking lot. Staff finds the proposal has no negative impact on the above considerations. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followins findings before granting a condirional use Hermit: • 4 A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends arr~..val of the temp.,,~.,~ parking area subject to the fallowing conditions: 1. The applicant construct a 3-~ foot high earthen berm along the southern edge of the property to screen the parking lnt from the South Frontage Road and, further, the applicant seed this berm with native grasses in the Spring of 1992. 2. The conditional use permit be effective until May 15, 1993. . 3. All of the existing evergreen trees be protected by snow fences. 4, Approval of the companion parking design variance request. 5. Surface run-aff pollution control as proposed by the applicant be r.~, rided. b. Timber Ridge residents be allowed to store cars only on a long-term basis on the Holy Crass parcel. 7. Applicant shall notify each V.A. employee who rents at Timber Ridge that it is illegal and extremely hazardous for pedestrians to cross I-70, and the only safe way to cross I-70 is via the pedestrian overpass or by crossing under I-70 at either the West Vail or Main Vail interchanges. We find that the location of the temporary parking lot and the conditions under which it would be operated are in accord with the conditional use criteria and the purposes of the Arterial Business District. o y~W,erno~~no~y~r~2.ala • , ~Vail~ ~~ ~ ' ~~.~ Vail Associates, Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creei~' Resorts December 10, 1990 Dear Timber Ridge Resident, Each season a situation develops which causes concern to arise among both Town officials and Employers. The issue is Pedestri- ans illegally crossing I-70 placing themselves as we11 as those traveling on the highway at risk of serious injury. Last winter one of our employees was killed as he attempted to cross the highway near the Cascade Club. This was an unfortunate and clearly avoidable accident which no one wants to occur again. T am writing in response to a request from the Town and as a cancern that you be made aware of the danger involved in crossing . the highway. The only safe and legal way to cross I-70 is via the pedestrian bridge at Lionshead or the underpass at the West Vail or main Vail exits. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Have a safe and happy holiday. Sincerely, ,,.~ / ~/' - - ~. 'Jerry ~ fiver V.P. Adma.nistration Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado $lb5$ • USA - (303} 476-5601 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a variance fi.,,f~ the parking design standards which require all parking lots be paved and landscaped in order to construct anoff-street surface parking lot on an unplatted parcel of land commonly known as the "Holy Cross" parcel, which is generally located on the north side of the South Frontage Road east of, and immediately adjacent to, Red Sandstone Creek. Applicants: Vail Associates, Inc./Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Planner: Jill Kammerer .. K. t#-0E49Y,8fPyd? 'Y rr ~•r.~ ~'+ ,gymkN ^,Y^~- :?~,~,Y r, f ~. ti • I. DESCRit'itON OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED Vail Associates (V'.A.) is requesting a conditional use permit and a variance to the parking standards which require that all parking lots be paved and landscaped. The companion conditional use permit is discussed in a separate memo attached. On November 26, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Cornrnission approved a conditional use permit and a request for a variance from the design standards requiring all parking lots to be paved and landscaped in order to allow a temporary parking area on the Holy Cross parcel. These a~.~.,~,~als were effective for a period of one year. The requests under consideration at this meeting are more or less identical to the requests reviewed by the PEC in 1990. A 101 space parking lot is proposed far the Holy Cross parcel. The applicant is seeking permanent approval to park cars at this location during the ski season. The site is owned by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. The lease agreement to use this site for long-term parking and storage of vehicles belonging to V.A. employees who reside at the Sunbird Lodge and Timber Ridge is between V.A, and Holy Gross Electric. In addition to providing parking for V.A.'s employees, 15 spaces will be made available to Lodge at Vail employees who reside in Timber Ridge. n U • The applicant is reauestin~ a variance from Sections 18.52.080(E~. (F~ -Off Street Parkin and Loading. Parkins -Standards, the design standards which require all narking Iots to be Waved and landscaped. The applicant has requested this variance remain in place permanently. There are arrr„ximately 101 parking spaces available in the Holy Cross lot and each vehicle using the lot would be identified with a parking pass assigned. to them by V.A.'s housing manager. Public access to the lot will not be permitted. V.A, has indicated that approximately 75% of the parking in the lot will be for long-term vehicle storage and approximately 2S% of the parking will be used on a more regular in and out basis. Vail Associates' site plan for the Holy Cross lot takes into account snow storage, drainage control, parking and Hnly Cross equipment storage areas. Each of these aspects of the plan will be handled in the following manner: Snow Storage and Screening Snow will be pushed to the southwest corner of the lot and stored there. From the southwest corner of the lot north to the tree line, snow will also be pushed west and bermed along the west side of the lot. Snow will also be pushed to the south end of the lot to create a berm to screen the lot from the South Frontage Road. As the request is to continue this use for a number of years, • staff recommends the applicant construct an earthen berm to screen the lot from the South Frontage Raad and, further, that the applicant seed the berm with native grasses in the Spring of 1992. Drainage Sheet drainage flows from the center of the lot to the west and east. V.A. will install a row of hay bales along the western edge of the lot which will reduce the amount of sediment reaching the creek. From the center of the lot east, sheet drainage will flow east and then south until it reaches the drainage ditch along the north edge of South Frontage Road. Drainage will then flow west to Red Sandstone Creek. Three hay bale silt traps will be installed in the above drainage ditch to trap any sediment before it reaches Red Sandstone Creek. Use of hay bales is a standard and proven technique used in road construction to trap sediment. Parking Apy..,,.imately 101 spaces would be provided in the lot, The parking demand for the Holy Cross lot is as follows: • . Sunbird Lodge: S3 spaces Timber Ridge: 28 spaces Lodge at Vail: 15 spaces Vail Associates Shop Employees: 5 spaces Total: 101 spaces Storaee Holy Cross Electric Association will continue to use the north end of the lot for storage of materials, etc.; this area is screened by trees and fences. In response to staff concerns regarding Timber Ridge residents crossing I-70 to get to the lot, Vail Associates will commit to notifying each employee who rents at Timber Ridge that it is illegal and extremely hazardous for pedestrians to cross I-70. Further, V.A, will notify the employees that the only safe way to cross I-70 is via the pedestrian overpass or by crossing under I-70 at the West Vail or main Vail interchanges. On July 17, 1991, the Colorado Division of Highways (CDOH) informed VA that the CDOH had made the access permit permanent. CDOH has estimated that the lot will generate 52 auto trips per day. II. BACKGROUND With the addition of the Holy Cross parcel, V.A. will manage its parking facilities in the following manner: The Sunbird Lodge The Sunbird Lodge was originally constructed as a time share project. Four or five years ago the project went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sat empty until V.A. purchased the building at foreclosure. The Sunbird Lodge is located immediately adjacent to V.A.'s Lionshead Gondola building. Sunbird has below grade parking. This parking is to be utilized by V.A, employees who do not live or work in the Sunbird. V.A. runs a 24 hour a day operation and Joe Macy, V.A.'s Manager of Mountain Planning, has indicated the reason for not allowing Sunbird residents to use the lot is to make it available in the evening for V.A. night shift employees. Parking demand generated for the Holy Cross parcel by Sunbird residents/employees is 53 spaces. North Day Lot The north day lot is limited to V.A, employees who car pool. • 3 • West Day Lot The west day lot, located west of the Marriott Mark is V.A. owned and operated for employees. At 9:30-10:00 a.m. or so, if parking spaces are remaining in the lot, V.A. knows its employee parking needs aze met and the lot is opened to the general public. Landmark Building V.A.'s legal and real estate devel.,r~,aent offices are located in the Landmark Building. Approximately 10 covered spaces within the building are available for management level employees. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the 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 Holy Cross parcel has been used for pazking and storage since 1970. Land uses in the area include parking lots, a commercial building, maintenance yards, a service starion, a waste water treatment facility and warehouses. Each of the above uses has parking associated with the use. The adjacent properties would not be negatively impacted if pazking and storage continues to occur on the Holy Cross parcel. Potential future uses of the site are: an interstate highway exchange, pocket pazk, affordable housing site and of course, parking. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and unif.,.....ity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. V.A. proposes to use the lot to Y~., vide long and short i:.=.~. pazking for their employees. The applicant is requesting a permanent variance. The variance and conditional use permit granted by the PEC in 1990 were effective through May 15, 1991 (one ski season). Staff recommends the use of this lot for • • seasonal parking be approved for a period of 2 years. Staff believes it is a hazdship to require V.A. to pave the .area given the staff-recommended temporary nature of the use. This type of limited and temporary variance was also ayr,~u red for the Town of Vail at Ford Park which means this request is not a 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. The ~,.~. ~rision of parking for Timber Ridge and Sunbird residents/employees at this location frees up parking spaces at other sites to meet other employee parking needs in Lionshead. Thereby possibly making parking more available to guests and improving the communities parking facilities. The public safety issue continues to be a concern to the staff. Staff believes that regazdless of any written notification delivered to Timber Ridge residents regazding the dangers of crossing the Interstate to get to the lot, this situation may continue to occur. 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 fallowing reasons: a. The strict literal int:,.~,.+~tarion 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 int:,.Y~atation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • , IV. IZ.ELA i trli POLICIES IN TIC VAIL LAND USE PLAN Policy 2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) Increase busing f~.,~.~ out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d} Addition of structured parking. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of a temporary variance (until May 15, 1993), to the paving and landscaping standards, based on findings B(1), B(2), B(3)(a) and B(3)(c) with the conditions that: 1. The applicant construct a 3-4 foot high earthen berm along the southern edge of the property to screen the parking lot from the South Frontage . Road and, further, the applicant seed this berm with native grasses in the Spring of 1992. 2. The conditional use permit be effective until May 15, 1993. 3. All of the existing evergreen trees be protected by snow fences. 4. Approval of the companion conditional use permit request. 5. Surface run-off pollution control as proposed by the applicant be provided. d. Timber Ridge residents be allowed to store cars only on a long-term basis on the Holy Cross parcel. 7. Applicant shall notify each V.A, employee who rents at Timber Ridge that it is illegal and extremely hazardous for pedestrians to cross I-70, and the only safe way to cross I-70 is via the pedestrian overpass or by crossing under I-70 at either the West Vail or Main Vail interchanges. • 6 In summary: Granting the variance request will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as the use of this lnt for parking for seasonal employees will provide much needed additional seasonal parking and, therefore, may free up parking for guests, which would improve the community's ability to meet community parking needs. Further, by V.A. notifying its tenants that it is illegal and dangerous to cross I-70, the likelihood of employees crossing I-70 is decreased. Approval of this variance request is not a grant of special privilege as this type of limited and temporary variance was also approved for the Town of Vail at Ford Park. The variance is warranted because the strict into~Y.:,tation or enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title because the use of this lot by V.A. is seasonal, and is limited to May 15, 1993. The variance is warranted because the strict in~~,Y,;,tation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by Holy Cross at this location during other times of the year. If, in the future, another extension of the variance and conditional use permit is requested, staff strongly recommends that a permanent drainage solution, and permanent paving and landscaping be installed. ~:,,.~ ..,~,~~noiy~~i.s~a 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, for Cascade Village, Millrace N, to ay~,x.,ve a development plan, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of the Westin Resort, Vail. Applicant: East-West Partners Planner: Shelly Mello ~,''< ," I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a worksession to review a proposed major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area D to allow 6 dwelling units with a maximum of 9,650 sq. ft, of GRFA on the Cosgriff property, also known as Millrace IV. A minor subdivision has also been requested as part of this ~,...~.osal. The parcel is bound by the Westin Hotel to the east, Millrace, Phases I, II and III to the north and west and Gore Creek to the south. Currently, an event tent and volleyball court are located on the property and would be removed if this request is approved. The parcel is 1.OS acres, or 45,735 sq. ft. and was zoned as an SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. Access to this property is gained through an easement across the existing Millrace project. Originally, this parcel was to be developed with the same design concept as Millrace. The property has since changed ownership and the current owner does not wish to continue the . Millrace development concept. The applicant is not requesting any additional development over what was previously approved for this parcel. There were two development scenarios originally apN~.~,+ed for this parcel. The overall GRFA will be 1,550 sq. ft. less than what is currently approved for the 8 D.U. scenario and 4,350 square feet under the approved 32 A.U. scenario. 11. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The development plan for this parcel allows for either 32 accommodation units with 14,000 sq. ft. of GRFA or 8 dwelling units with 11,200 sq. ft. of GRFA. The current proposal includes 6 dwelling units with the following: No. of Units Unit Type A 4 @ 1,567 = Unit Type B 1 @ 1,70E1 = Unit Type C 1 @ 1,6$2 = TOTAL: * GRFA calculations exclude overlapping st TOTAL GRFA* = 6,298 = 1,700 = 1,682 9,650 airs and a Garage (4) 1-car a@ 281 = 1,124 (1) 2-car ~a 423 = 423 (1) 2-car @ 423 = 423 1,970 ll mechanical areas. Comparison of Approved and Proposed Development Plans Approved Approved Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Proposed Density (# of Units) 32 AUs S DUs 6 DUs GRFA 14,000 11,200 sq. ft. 9,650 sq.ft. i 2 Credits Given None Overlapping stairs not counted; mech- Same as Scenario 2 anical; 300 sq. ft. garage credit per provided space (in accordance with N.c.vious multi-family GRFA regulations) Height 48 ft. 48 ft, 34 feet max. Setbacks None 60 feet from existing Same as Westin/CMC Bldg.; Scenario 2 50-foot creek setback Site Coverage 35% 35% 14°10 or 6,600 sq. ft. Site Development --- --- 7,000 sq. ft. (t~ardscape not considered (roadwayldriveway) site coverage) 15.3%, 2,100 sq. ft. (bike path) 4.5% Landscaping 50% 50% 66.2% (includes area extending into Gore Creek; does not include any hardscape) Parking 26.8 within Cascade/ 16 12 required Waterford structure (75% enclosed) 16 r..~YOSed ($ enclosed or 66%, 8 surface) III, BACKGROUND When the development standards for this parcel were approved, no devel~,Y~,.ent plan for the 8 dwelling unit scenario was submitted. At the time, the staff was concerned with the proposed density of 8 units with 11,20(} sq. ft. of GRFA. It was a~,N.~ aed with the • , understanding that a site specific ~.~ ~~,osal would be submitted at a later time to determine the feasibility of the scenario. The staff feels that the current r~.~YOSaI, which includes a decrease in GRFA and density is very positive, IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRS ~ ~,RIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this ~..,Yosal are the 9 Special Devel„~,~..ent District (SDD} devel~t,~~~ent 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. The applicant is Y~.,YOSing 6 dwelling units, 2 free standing units and 2 duplexes with 1- and 2-car garages. The materials are different from that of Millrrace and the Westin, but the applicant is proposing to use the same color schemes used at the Westin and Millrace. The proposal also includes a change in the paving material from the Millrace project. The applicant's objective is to create an individual identity for the project with different materials, but they will use a similar color scheme to tie the • projects together. The staff finds that more attention should be given to the compatibility of the proposal with the existing structures, specifically in the types of materials proposed for paving, siding and roofing. The ~,~~,Nflsed site plan with detached units will maintain views for the surrounding r~ uYerties which the staff feels is positive. In addition, we feel that the reduction in height from 4$ to 34 is also positive. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. • The proposed low density housing use is compatible with the surrounding area and is in keeping with the original approved development scenario. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter is.sz. The total parking requirement for this project is 12 spaces. The proposal includes 8 (or 66% of required) enclosed parking spaces and $ surface spaces for a total of 16 proposed spaces. There will be 4 parking spaces provided over the required amount. • , Each individual unit will meet its parking requirement with at least 1 enclosed space. The percentage of enclosed parking is less than what was previously required. The staff feels that, with adequate landscaping, this is a better solution because of the increased mass, which would be necessary to enclose the l additional parking space needed to meet the 75% enclosed parking requirement. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. There are no elements of the Town Comprehensive Plan, Town Policies and Urban • Design Plans applicable to this proposal. When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of song- and short-term housing. The ~,.~~.osal for 6 dwelling units is in keeping with this development plan and, in staff's opinion, this is a more appropriate density for this N. ~~erty. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The proposal will need to comply with the Town's floodplain and creek setback • G requirements. This survey information has not yet been submitted. 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 proposed development is located on the north end of the property away from the creek. There are four mature evergreens on the property which are r~.,YOSed to remain. Special care will need to be taken to insure these trees are saved. There is limited existing landscaping on the remainder of the property. The staff would request a . landscaping plan be proposed to r~ ~ ride a buffer between the Westin and the proposed units, and that the existing landscape treatment between the bike path and the existing Millrace units be continued fnr this project. A detailed landscape plan should also be proposed for the center island in the cul-de-sac. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. A 20-foot roadway with a cuI-de-sac at the end will provide access to the units. This proposal has been approved by both the Fire Department and Public Works. Access • easements are provided across the Millrace project for this parcel. Slight adjustments to the legal description of this easement will be necessary in order to obtain proper alignment between the existing roadway on the Millrace property and the proposed roadway for this project. The applicant will be required to record these adjustments with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the release of any building permits for the project. H. Functions! and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The applicant is proposing that the 4 mature evergreens remain on the property . In addition, the staff requests a landscaping plan to buffer the project fi.,..~ the surraunding properties and the bike path. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This request will not affect the phasing plan for this SDD. Because the proposal provides parking on-site, the development of this site will no longer depend on the Cascade/Waterford parking structure as previously approved in Scenario A. • 8 A minor subdivision will be necessary because the parcel remains unplatted. V. STAFF CONCERNS There is no formal staff recommendarion at this time. The intent of this worksession is to give the applicant feedback on the request. Staff feels that, in general, this request to decrease numbers of units, GRFA and site coverage is an appropriate plan for the parcel. We believe more attention should be given to making the project more compatible with the surrounding projects. Also, some consideration should be given to the r~~, ~+ision of restricted employee housing on the property in conjunction with the proposal, such as a caretaker . apartment. However, because the proposal does not request additional density or development rights, the staff feels that it is not appropriate to require employee housing as part of the proposed project. In summary, the staff concerns are as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architecture with existing, surrounding developments. 2. Landscaping which buffers the project from surrounding developments. 3. Compliance with floodplain and 50-foot Gore Creek setback. • 9 ~. A minor subdivision mus€ be apr~~.~ed prior to the release of a building permit for the project. c ~pec~rnemos~rsacade.014 • i ~Q • ~~ 0 ~~°v ~~o~ ~~j ~~O ~ W o c~ w `~ u Z O N ~~ a U~ I I f I I f I ~ d Q V~ _~ ;~ :" i~ ,/ .~ ~~ 1, ~~ ~~ ;, ,, ~ 1 ,, ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~, ~ ~~~ 1a \\, \~\ L O ~~ }~~ ~~ m~ Z da U~ Um _J i t 1 f +J ~~.~~~ -Y ~ • 0 .~ ~~ ... • r~ u 1 r ~~. -~ ~_ '-~ E ~ z't ~i'y f« , 1i1~~#~ ~ ~~~ ___-- ~ f W i - =-! i •..~; , x I '.~'__ I _.-~1 1i - ~s ~ ds. ~ -~ I ~ - ~ -' - - ~-~, - _-- -~ --- -- _ ~~ _- _ -~ -.~ ~ ~~ - ~ i ~.~~ i -=, q~~.F.••~., ~ ~,. ~ - ~- n ~~ 4~-- _ _T_ f.. i E~ i~-l ~.: =.1 ..~ ,~~ ., ~. .~ - ~.~.. _.. . ~ _. _ . ... .. - _. _ l ~ '~. ~ _ ~ ~~:_~ ....-- :tea-: -==~'~ ~ i~ i ~~~ ~ ~ _ . ;~... . " ii - _. 1 , .. _ , ~ ,~ , --t Z ._.~ 4 ~ll--I _~ ~~ ~~ .`-i-~ L~ ~~ L .~ ~~ ~J ~' xz ... i I rid ~5~ Ala "i~O yip •~ra ~ I _ ~_ ~ / ~_ ~ - ~ k ~~ ___ ~- -~- E j y ~ ~ it ~~ ~E' ~ i, :'l{` '., ____ i 1,~1'. d~ t'~ _ .. _.._... ' ._ '~.. \~I • 111 ~'.~ la .. .. _..,..~-., __.... .r A~t~ _.._~ .. 1\ rl l I. n u -: ~-= ,:~~; ~- - - ;~ I~ ~*y 'y" L Ei '~~ ', ~' -'', c~ _~ n " ~- a r ~,~~r ~~ I ~~ ~_~~~ -~--- ~i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Garden of the Gods Minor Amendment -follow up to PEC concerns; Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing. Planner: Shelly Mello Y t~ ~`r rr~v ";~,~gy8;~,P;; .~: s. ~~ Attached is a copy of a letter from Robillard and Associates which explains the source of the survey discrepancy for the Garden of the Gods project, which was discussed at the August 12, 1991 PEC meeting. It appears the title report legal description used for the survey completed by Eagle Valley Surveying did nat mathematically close. In developing the Improvement Location Certificate (LL.C.) at the time of the framing of the building, Robillard used generally accepted surveying practices to close the survey. {Please refer to the attached for more details.) It is the staff's opinion that the I.L.C. should remain as originally indicated by Eagle Valley Surveying - i.e., the survey does not close. Our Town Surveyor, Mike Brake, has reviewed the information and believes this is an acceptable solution, and is a standard surveying practice. The attached survey reflects the staff's request. After review of the I.L.C., the staff finds that there are changes in the building location. These changes can be attributed to 3 different items. The first is a difference in drawings. The submitted site plans at both PEC review and building permit were soft line drawings. The LL.C. is computer generated. It is difficult to accurately scale and compare a soft line drawing and computer generated drawing at 1 "-20" scale. The second source of change was generated by a need to adjust the building in order to ensure that the building footers were not located in the right-of-way. The third reason is that only 2 control points, 4 feet from the north and 2 feet from the west property tines, were used in locating the building through the process. Because of the non-rectilinear shape of the lot, and form of the drawings, these control points were maintained, but still allowed for a slight shift in the building. The resulting changes are as follows: (Please see attached drawings.} PEC/ Town Council Building Approval Permit* LL.C. Min. North Setback (east} 0 3 feet {4 at 3.4 feet (4 control paint) at control paint) point} Min. South Setback {westleast} 2'129' 2'125' 2.2'123.8' Min. East Setback {south} 22.5' 24' 24.5' Min. West Setback (north) 2' 2' 2' Please note these figures were generated from scaling the submitted drawings, and are approximate scaled dimensions. The pivot of the building has also impacted the overall ridge location. The result of the building shift, combined with the change at building permit, is a 3-foot shift in the north end of the ridge to the east. These changes do not impact the view corridor. The overall size of the building has not changed. . The staff feels that the degree of change in relationship to the size of the building is c:lpeclmamoslgarden.014 acceptable. The staff approves the minor amendment, since the change in the building location decreases the proximity to the view corridor and the changes were done to accommodate site restrictions. Father, the request meets the minor amendment criteria set forth in Section 18.4D.02D(B). ~~ IL_J ~obill~rd & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTWG ENGINEERS Cgnsulling Engineers Lantl Sun<'eyors Con5lruc~ion Managers Planner; PO Bqx 589 3u'.e ?.:5 rs~ ©~,~K .er„~;, Sao a ~~~;Way <, $ilvBrthOrne, Coln~ado OGaq(S $us~ness: (303) 4686281 Denver Oirgcr. 623-0426 • • August 1.3, J.991 Ms, Pam Hopkins SNOWpO[~ & HOi'KINS 20l Gare Creek Arive Vail, CO $1857 Dear Fam: The dimensions and bearings as shown on my improvement lt~cati.on certificatQ for Lot K, Flock 5-A, Vai.E Village, Fifth Filing, are based on arer~ting I~ot K mHthematical:ty by hoZda.ng the dirrtensians shown on the centerlines of Gore Creek Drive, Hanson Ranch Road and Gare Greek Road (akF~ Vail Valley Drive). l believe this was thy: beat soiutian to account for the error of closure that exists an the platted courses Shawn for Lot K, as well. as harmonizing this lot with its adjoiners. The net rest.tit is an area slightly larger than that Shawn on the platted Lot A, (west 17ne of 142.74' rather than 142.49' and past line of 122.45' rather than 122.38'). A generally accepted principle in distributing excess or deficiency is that the platted Right-af-Way shall receive full measure and excess or deficiency s~ial-1 be proport:ianed in the lots. 1 believe the construction of Lot K as shown fallc~ws this principle. Please feel free to call me if yon have any further quest;ians or need further clarifications. Sincerely, . ROBILLARD & ASSOCIATES Robert R, Johns, T'. L. S, .. ~~ Snowdon and Hopkins Architects 201 Gare Creek Drive 303 476-2201 Vail, Colorado 81657 October 8, 1991 Ms. Shelly Mello Town of Vail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Garden of the Gods Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) Shelly: I am enclosing a portion of Robillard's ILC dated 9/8/91 showing the new Garden of the Gods location and the location of the old building. T have dashed in as best i can the location of the building shown on the PEC approval set dated 12/11/89 and revised 1/26/90, 2/2/90, and 2/7/90. The Building Permit plan shows the N.W. building corner to be 2'- 0" from the west property line to assure that the footings would be on our property. The eastern section of the north building wall was dimensioned to be 4' from the north property line for the same reason. These two corners were located only because they were the most critical. The south part of the building and lot did not seem to be that critical to the neighbors. This did twist the building a bit further away from the northern neighbors. The PEC location shows the new ridge to be seven feet away from and parallel to the old ridge. This twisting caused the ridge and the N.E. corner to move approximately 3' more to the east and the S.E. building ridge and corner to move 3' to the west. I ~iope i,xsis explaS.nS 5uiiic:ieritly vahat happened at u h<. PEC approval and building permit submittal. We did pull the building away from the critical property north and west lines. This should be beneficial to the northern neighbor and not create more of an impact to them. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~~~~ , ' ~ S • Pamela W. Hopkins, AIA Partner SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS pw~;~ ~1. ~ ~ ~ ~; ; ,`.~,: yfli, -r' { ~ ~ "; .. ~. 5 -~ .~ O U `- .1 ~- ~~~~' CR~~ ~ pRl ti --- ...._ .-:.- .-- $4~~ vf~~~yV ,~ ~J. Q a ~.~~V~B'37` r ~: -; ~ ;g, ~~ /I ,'~' ~~ `;: '~~f~ rr "~`~ . ..,.,, `;,~. f~ ~Q~ ~~~ `4~Lti ' ~ ~~ }}} ~ 1 ~., ~T r r,P~j~~ ~ ~ .. `~\~~~4~ U~ ~! ~,y~'`~~L~,a N~~~, J .r~ 5''. xa. ~~~ l~ ~ ~. t ~~.i~~~ p~MI'~ lA~i~'~'~ ~1~- ~ ,Od Q \~ QO ~, ~o~~ti . ~` fir' 4.- = o ..~~_= .~~~ f~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to the Golden Peak Development Plan to allow for the installation of a rope taw lift, generally located at 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jill Kammerer r. Lusk .. .~a.;...;1s?:~,, ,~~r A '° .n:•:~Clt~; ....,. t. BACKGROUND On December 7, 1983, Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1983 imposed the Ski BaselRecreation Zone District on this site. Vail Associates, Inc., has submitted an application to amend Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Ski BaselRecreation Zone District, in order to allow the construction of a tow rope lift on the westernmost portion of the site. . ll. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The "Mitey-Mite" lift would be installed at Golden Peak between Chair No. 12 on the east, and Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing on the west (Mill Creek Circle). The base of the tow rope lift would be located approximately 30 feet from the western property line of the site, and would extend to the south, up the mountain, a distance of approximately 370 feet. A Mitey-Mite lift is essentially a tow rope with handles. The proposed lift would have a capacity of 360 persons per hour. The horizontal distance between terminals would be 375 feet, and the vertical rise would be 39 feet. The installation wauld be permanent, with the upper and lower terminals bolted to concrete pads. About 200 sq. ft. of grading would be needed for the terminal pads and loading areas. The rope and #erminals would remain in place during the off-season. The lift would load and unload on the east, and no lift shacks are currently planned, however two lift operators would be needed. All disturbed areas would be revegetated and restored to natural conditions. The applicant has indicated the lift is needed to accommodate "never-ever" ski school clients. Following their first day of lessons, the beginners would use the lift for the second half-day, and the second full day of their learn-to-ski week. After the second full day of instruction, skiers would graduate to Chair No. 12. The upper parts of the run served by Chair No. 12 are too steep for beginners to utilize after ahalf-day of ski instruction. The proposed lift would also provide access to the Vail Village and Vista Bahn lift. The applicant has further indicated a Mitey-Mite lift was operated in the '70s on the same general alignment. However,,the previous lift was dismantled and removed. • . III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Ski lifts are a permitted use outside the main building, as shown on the approved development plan, in the Ski BaselRecreation Zone District. A minor amendment to the development plan is required in order to allow fior the new Lift. The Ski Base/Recreation Zone District is more closely associated with a Special Development District than any of the other zone districts in the Town of Vail. In essence, the approved development plan for the Ski BaselRecreation District, in conjunction with the Design Standards/Criteria for Evaluation, shall establish the requirements for development and uses of the property included in the Ski BaselRecreation Zone District. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The development plans for the Ski BaselRecreation District shall meet each of the following standards, or demonstrate that either one or more of these standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. The developer will provide a buf#er zone In areas where the Ski Basel Recreation District boundary Is adjacent to a residential use district boundary. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that adverse affects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light, air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentially Incompatible factors. Based on the site plan submitted, the lower terminal of the Miley-Mite lift will be approximately 30 feet to the east of the westernmost property line, and the lift will be approximately 70 feet from the nearest residence. The terminals themselves are approximately 8 feet tall. The applicant has located the lift so that all off-loading and skiing activity will occur to the east of the tow rope. In sa doing, the lift itself will serve as a barrierlbuffer between adjacent residential uses to the west and the skiing activity. However, staff recommends the applicant provide a landscape berm on the western edge of the applicants' property, in order to provide aloes-level visual screen and visual privacy for the adjacent residential properties. Staff believes the construction of such a berm would adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, light and air, signage and other comparable, potentially incompatible factors. To date, there has been no feedback from the adjacent property owner as to whether he would be supportive of the construction of the berm. If the adjacent property owner would prefer not to have the berm constructed, staff would no longer pursue its construction. Staff further recommends the applicant consider shifting the base of the .lift slightly uphill in order to mitigate the impact the lift pole will have on the adjacent property owners' views and to provide additional visual privacy. Removal of the lift terminals in the spring would further mitigate the impact the lift would have on adjacent property owners. 2 B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration, safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust controls. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by police and f[re department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. Staff believes the proposed Mitey-Mite lift will have no impact on the above criteria. C. Functional open space In terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function. Under the proposed alignment, no trees or shrubs will be removed. The proposed lift will span Mill Creek. However, the applicant currently covers Mill Creek during the winter months to facilitate snow making and to provide a smooth surface over which individuals can ski. This t/2 culvert covering is removed each spring prior to spring runoff. A slight amount of fill may be required in order to smooth/even out the surface under the lift. However, it may be possible to use artificial snow to smooth/even out the surface under the lift. if the desired surface can be achieved with artificial snow, no permanent fill will be required. Some grading and excavation will occur in installing the terminal pads. As proposed, the Mitey-Mite lift would have no negative impacts on any of the above criteria. However, staff has recommended the base of the lift be shifted slightly to the south, uphill, in order to reduce the impact the base of the lift would have on views from adjacent property owners' windows. If the applicant were to shift the top of the lift a corresponding amount, no trees or shrubs would need to be removed. D. A variety in terms of housing type, densities, facilities and open space. The applicant's request will have no impact on the above criteria. E. Privacy In terms of the needs of: Individuals, families and neighbors. Given the location of the residences adjacent to the Ski Base/Recreation District, it is impassible to completely mitigate the impact of a ski area's operation on adjacent properties. However, by shifting the base of the Mitey-Mite lift to the south, constructing a berm and landscaping said berm, staff believes the impact of the proposed lift on the privacy of adjacent single family residences will be largely mitigated. The applicant has indicated that, in the past, some adjacent property owners have complained of skiers accessing the Mill Creek residential area from the ski area through their yards. In designing the Mitey-Mite lift, the applicant has taken this • , concern into account, and has responded to .this by designing the lift so fat all off- loading will occur on the east side of the lift. The tow rope itself will serve as a barrier to deter skiers from accessing the Mili Creek residential area from the ski area at this location. F. Pedestrian traffic In terms of safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination and attractiveness. The base of this lift will be an approximately 415-foot walk from the Gold Peak Ski Base Facility. By shifting the base of the lift further uphill, skiers will need to walk a greater distance. The proposed lift location and the alignment of the lift work well with the existing topography. Very little, if any, fill will be required in order to allow the operation of the lift to occur. Skiers who desire to use this lift will be required to walk across the base of the Chair 12 run, where many beginning skiers will be skiing down to que up to the Chair 12 lift lines. Staff has recommended the applicant direct access to the Mitey-Mite lift to a point north of the Chair 12 loading area in order to avoid the conflict with skiers. G. Building type In terms of appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. The applicant's proposal wilt have no impact on these criteria. H. Landscaping of the total site In terms of: purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and affect on the neighborhood. As previously stated, the staff recommends the applicant construct a berm and landscape this berm in order to mitigate the impact construction and use of this lift wiN have on the adjacent residences. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Mitey-Mite lift, subject to the following conditions: 1. The base of the lift be shifted to the south, 10-20 feet, in order to mitigate the impact the lift wil! have on views to the Gore Range from the adjacent residences. 2. The applicant construct an earthen berm and landscape the berm, subject to DRB approval, in order to screen the Mitey-Mite lift from the adjacent residences. This condition of approval is subject to the adjacent property owner's desire to have the berm constructed and landscaped. Staff believes the installation of the proposed lift, in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will meet the District design standards and criteria for evaluation. c:lpeclmemos~oldpeak.014 • 4 >;.'.. z . ,~ 4 1\ 1 et k .~ r 1 '~~ '1 i~l; j .i a ~~ s _ ,I i • r (s k~ ~~ [ ~~~~~ ! ~ ~ ~ I. ~ it r5 1 ' ~; _ ~ i t .3 ~t J/~ i ~ ~ ~ ' ~~< i ,5 ~ 1 ~ / ' 1 ~'''' 4r .` r t~, 3 r 't' k. r~ ~ ~ iii ~'~ 4`~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~' ~ !~ #' ~~~ ~; f / / ~ ;ti, ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,' ; it 5~\~ ~~%, : ,'~~3 , i,, ,,~ - I,~.'°:r : ,~ ~ :' ~., .' ~ - ~ ;. i. ~ ~, r . , 1 ~ ~II ,~ ~ \',~~~\~\\\~\ 5 1_`,515 4~, ~,,1 ~ '~ !~~ i i ~ v. _ ~'~ ~1~~ .j ~~1,~ '~\~ ~\\~~'~1 ii 41 ~ ti ~~' ~~t j ~ f ? , - - ~^--* ~ x~ fi~tt( \ ,\ ~ 'Si,. ~, 3 ~ i 5 1 1~ ~ ~ tt ` I l y J~ _ ~ y~ i ~ \. '~~ . \~. \ \ ~ w x ~ _ - ~ 11 `' t ,~.'~ ~ ! ~. s•55 .~ 4~,. --^- , •e ~_^-~ _` ~~.:_E. 'it'-, 'Fib y` _ Si ~~ ~, ~ _~, ! ~ , i ,fib` ~.r L~$y' ~, t .; ~ .« t K ~A., ~. }r ~~ ~, F'~~[t 1 ~~ ~~~'''~` a ~ `~. - L4 'w .. ~~~ ;~~ ~~ r - xf4'~'~'- ~ s~ ~.~- - ~ ~~ ~° :~ ~: .mot ..?,.~:Y=T"_,~ ~~' Y.... ~ AX: i,_ o-. :;~, , '~.ti ~.~ ~+{ry may::... i YM ~. i. Y tiJ "µ :+. e. /° }._ - r. ~ ° {~ •". - Kr ~ ~ ~:• _w°."~ k ~F .::~ r 4+ro~ j f~ ' I Y. ~x~ ry .;..~' ~y ~~ r r _. . MEMORANDUM, TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUB7ECT: A request for a conditional use permit for a cellular telephone "cell site" at Red I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant, the Walter Group, is proposing to construct a "cell site" at Red Sandstone Elementary School. The cell site will provide modular telephone service to the central part of Vail. It is similar to the cell site recently approved and constructed by US West at Solar . Vail. The cell site includes a 12' x 30' shed, to be constructed on the east side of the school, a 2- foot diameter satellite dish, .and four antenna to be located on the roof of the school. The antenna will be eight feet tall, will be set in 4-foot tall tripods, and will be located in the center of the roof. The shed will be constructed out of concrete to match the exterior of the school. The shed will be set into the hillside adjacent to the school building, and will have 5 spruce, 5 aspen and 3 shrubs planted around it. The Red Sandstone Elementary School site is zoned Public Use District. Staff has determined that this proposal is a public utilities installation, which is listed as a conditional use in this zone district. This is a consistent classification with the Town's previous decisions with US West and their cell site at Solar Vail. It is also consistent with decisions regarding the Town of Vail police department tower and antenna located at the municipal building, as well as Section 1$.54.050(C)(7), stating that roof antennas are prohibited unless they are approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission as a conditional use. The site is located in a rockfall hazard area and, because of this, a hazard study will be necessary prior to issuance of a building permit. During staff review, a concern was raised about the number of "cell sites" which may be located within the Valley. The applicant Y~~,~ided documentation indicating that two carriers are the maximum number allowed by the Federal Communications Commission. However, • • this would not preclude US West and this applicant from building more sites within the Town. Furthermore, the FCC could change its ruling. The Town's position on this issue is that "cell sites," as seen at Solar Vail, fit in relatively well with the surrounding area, as long as mitigation measures are taken, and that additional sites, each with its individual conditional use review, would not necessarily be unreasonable. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Standards for lot area, setbacks, height, density, site coverage and landscaping are all to be determined in the conditional use review process. The Public Use Iistrict does not list specific standards for these categories. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Devel~t,~„ent 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 Tw ~~.,., The purpose section of the Public Use District states that: "The Public Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot apY..,r.:ately be regulated by development standazds proscribed for other zoning districts, and for which devel.,Y..-ent standards especially proscribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes described in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfaze. The Public Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi- public uses permitted in the district are ap~,.~~,.:ately located and designed to meet the needs of the residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." 2 • Staff believes that a "cell site" is aquasi-public use which is described in the purpose section listed above. In addition to the fact that this use is listed as a conditional use for this zone district, staff believes that locating a "cell site" in this zone district is consistent with the development objectives described in the purpose section. 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 ~,. ~~.osal will not impact the Town services listed above. As a facility which emits elec..,,-~agnetic waves, there could be concern about health affects. The applicant has provided information stating that the frequency of waves emitted by a cell site is comparable to microwave ovens or cordless telephones. 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. Staff believes the impact on traffic will be minimal. The applicant is expecting that the cell site will be visited arr..,..imately twice a month. The maintenance visits will be coordinated with the school activities to make the impact as small as possible. 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 this cell site will have a low visibility. The shed will be screened by landscaping, and the satellite dish will be located at the rear of the building. The satellite dish will be visible only to people above the building. Anyone either on Vail Mountain or above the school will be at such a distance that the 2-foot diameter satellite dish will be unlikely to be noticed. The most visible component of the proposal will be the four 12-foot tall grey antennas to be located on the roof of the school. Staff believes that the grey color will help reduce the visibility of the antenna. In addition, staff believes that locating them in the center of the roof will make them less noriceable to individuals on the Frontage Roads and the Interstate. In summary, the similar cell site constructed at Solar Vail has generated very little • visible impact to the su~~~.anding area, and staff believes that this r•~rosal will be similar in its impacts. One concern about the improvements in the area involves the existing trash dumpster adjacent to the cell site. Staff believes that the dumpster should be screened with a fence to improve the character of the area. A similar improvement was made to the dumpster at Solar Vail when US West installed a "cell site" at that location. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin;~ findings before ~rantina a conditional use Hermit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the conditional use proposal. Staff believes it meets the conditional use criteria as discussed above, as well as the findings. Specifically, Finding A is met as the use is in accordance with the purpose section of the Public Use District. Findings B and C are met as staff believes it will be operated in a way that is not detrimental to the Town, and that it complies with the provisions of the Municipal Code. We therefore recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Secure approval from the Town of Vaii for asub-lease agreement between the Eagle County School District and the applicant. b. Provide a hazard report addressing the rockfall hazard. c. Install a screen around the trash dumpster. • 4 2. Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Plant 5 spruce, S aspen and 3 shrubs in the area around the mechanical building, per the attached landscape plan. The applicant shall ensure that the landscaping live for a minimum of one year past the date of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. If any plant dies within that period, the applicant shall replace it. b. Paint the antenna and satellite dish with anon-reflective material which matches the roof of the school, Please note that the approval of this conditional use permit will lapse if construction has not commenced within one year of the date of the PEC arr~.,val, and thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within one year, If apr~~. gal of this conditional use permit lapses, an application for approval of this conditional use permit must be resubmitted for reconsideration by the Community Development Department staff and/or the PEC. c:~pec4t-emos~plsonea.014 • • rn N ~ ~~ t -I 1 '1 z z ,{ f c~ ~ j , n Z ~I' ~ ~ ~ I m m m I ! X N m ~ ~~~i m ~ w ~ ~ ~ GZ1 u, .~ v ~ I '~ ,~ N .I f ~ p a z rI - + O 0 r ~ ( I ( C O b + ~ ~ f ~ r ~ ~ ~ O Z ~ ' c1 m ~ t f ~ o t j z o r X w C r ~ ~ 3J 1 1 ~ z '_ rn i ~ m :n m ~ 1 , 1 . 1 ' n o n z r ~ ~ czi ~ + P I ~^ m X ~ Ni ~ z n ~ m m G m a n n ~ ~' .. JJ z - ~y r b t, im ei ~a ~~ 4' ~~ ~ as ~: ~~~~ Q~a~ ,~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ • }~~~ I E S~"'- ~~'-~ ~~o ~~~ oaf $~ s I~ SZ 9~~ ~ ~^ ~+~q~ ~? ~~ ~ w~ ~ ~s ~' ~ ~t MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance for agarage/storage area at the KaiserlHall Residence, 4913 Juniper Lane/Lot 3, Block 5, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Ursula KaiserlRobert Hall Planner: Shelly Mello j r p~ .. ... ...... ~.,..,. . n...:n I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUES i~li Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant Y. ~Yoses to construct agarage/storage area, with 449 sq. ft. of floor area with a deck above, encroaching 5 feet into the 15-foot side setback. The addition would be located to the east of the existing residence, and would provide one additional parking space (according to the Town's parking requirements). A combination of remaining garage credit, available GRFA and a 250 request will be used to provide the needed square footage. The proposed addition would encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the side setback. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of this addition 10 feet from the east property line. Therefore, the anvlicant's reauested variance is to encroach into the 15-foot side setback a maximum of 5 feet for a length of 1d feet and 10 additional feet of encroachment less than 5 feet as the building tapers back to the 15-foot setback line. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zoning: B. Site Area: C. GRFA -primary coverage) Allowed: Primary/Secondary Residential 23,165 sq. ft. and secondary residences combined (under 1990 GRFA/site Existing: Proposed Increase: Remaining: 4,566 sq. ft. 4,355 sq. ft. 449 sa. ft. (38 sq, ft. from available GRFA/196 sq. ft. garage credit/215 sq. ft. of "250 Ordinance") 1729 sq. ft. (for secondary unit) 0 sq, ft. (for primary unit) • D. GRFA -Primary Unit (60%) Existing: Allowed: Proposed: • E. GRFA -Secondary Unit (40%) Allowed: Existing Available: F. Site Coverage (20% of Site Area) Allowed: Existing: Proposed Increase: Total Proposed: G. Height Allowed: Proposed: H. Setbacks 2,701.5 sq. ft. 2,739.6 sq. ft. 38 sq. ft. of available GRFA1196 sq. ft. gazage credit/215 of "250 Ordinance" 1,826.4 sq. ft 1,653.6 sq. ft. 172.9 sq. ft. 4,633 sq, ft. (20%) 4,019 sq. ft. (17%) 484 sq. ft. 4,503 sq. ft. (19.4%) 33 feet No change to existing height Side* Required: 15 feet Existing: 1S feet with deck encroachment of 5 feet Proposed: 10 foot setback * Area of requested setback variance. All other setbacks aze unaffected. i. Parking: The required 5 spaces are currently accommodated on-site. No additional parking is reanixed with this proposal. J. Proposed Primary Unit Garage Existing Gazage: Additional Garage: Total Garage: Garage Credit: - 404 sq. ft. (2 spaces} 449 so. ft. !1 snacel $53 sq. ft. 600 sa. ft. 253 sq. ft (38 sq. ft. of available GRFA; 215 sq. ft. of "250 Ordinance" 2 I ~ ~ ~. ,Q1 N; _ ~~ ~. ,~ i r `~ . ~ '' X30 - - - - - ., ~ 1 `,`~, ~ ' ~`'~~,,~~' '~_ ~ r ~+, ~ ~1 1 ~ ~ T i, ~ ~ f ![~1 ~,,1 4~ 1 .` r 1 4 ~.` 1 ~ ~/ 1 tf ~ 1f ! ffi ' '~ ° ~ 1 1~ 1 ~ I ~ '; ~ ~ ~ ~j- f 1 ~ ` ~ z ~I ~ t ~' t t r ~ ~ t ' C7 ~, ~ ~ ~~- 1 t 11 `> , `~j~ ~~ -. ~ ' rr ~' ,mE~l ~ ~---~ ~-%~ ~ .~' ~ ~ ~ j~j !~ 1111 t / 1~~ ~..~+! ~ ~ s ;~ ; t`,d ^, q "~r ! i~ I 1/ ,SIC ~ ~ 2q , ~~`~ti ~, `x+~~,, ff j J I ~---r-•. ?I~ i ~~ y r ZLd ~-+ -, ~ " ~~ f ,~ ~{y~y ~ ~` ''~ ro = ~i' PPP `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~r ~ ~' . ~ ~ ~, - ~~ • • • `' 11 u t. ~ V •; L~. ~ ~ ~ t F ~ _ - p J O ~ 'l" iV r r~ ~~~~~ ~q s'1~. . t~ ///III I - ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~ }}E ~ I v wFi ~ '~ `O S + 'r ~~ I i'r ~x jj{{V ~ I 3d ~ ~ ~•r~3 i I - ) i ~ ~ - „a 6 ' rr - _ ~ - - ~ q ~ _ __ ~ 3 ~-~ N ~- T9 1 / l.._. 4 _f i~y9'£ ( £i£ ~i Mai _ ~: 1~~ "' Y ~ I ,,Y1 ~~~ 41\.Jlf l J rt ~ ~i ~ I~~ ~ 4 i ~~ 7 4 u ~I ~~:,,: -_- .-s-..__- ~ - s 3 i I ~ ,sr o~ •,> r ~ ,rG ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ i. ~~ - ~ .w C, ,'bjOi-,6^ '~ ~ ~,7,1,' of - - I 'a~~ I +~ 1 .o.£ r T s ~~ • _ ~r4 ~~ '' ,1- ~ ~ .., ~u Min, .,. I ti Q i ~ ~~~. ~' ~ -~ r . `_ ., r 7 V ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T - ~ - - _ `1 ~~£ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ J~~ ~~ • 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. The staff finds that the degree of encroachment needed to provide both garage and additional storage would adversely affect the adjacent properties. The requested encroachment of the building into the setback is more than necessary in the staff's opinion. Although the area of the proposed addition will encroach no further into the required side setback than the r...~,osed deck above, the staff finds that it should not be considered a justification for a variance. After reviewing the plans for the house and the site conditions, it is the staff's finding that there arc other locations on the property which would accommodate the construction of a storage area which would not encroach into any setbacks. Aside setback variance which provides for a single garage space and no additional storage, if approved, is reasonable to staff, as the encroachment into the setback is minimized while allowing for a garage space which meets Town of Vail standards. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specilied 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 finds that relief from the strict and literal int:,~y~~tation and enforcement of the 15-foot setback requirement in order to construct additional enclosed parking has been granted to other sites in the vicinity. Therefore, the approval of a variance for this purpose would not be a grant of special privilege. We find the degree of relief should be limited to the area necessary to provide the proposed parking space which meets Town of Vail standards. There are other areas on the property available for storage, and we request that the applicant consider these areas before requesting relief to allow the proposed storage area to encroach into the side setback. 5 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 supports the applicant's desire to r..~~ide additional enclosed parking on- site. We, along with the Public Works department, feel that the Y.., vision of enclosed on-site parking is a positive improvement to the properties because it reduces the need for on-street parking on a regular basis. There will be no impact on any of the other above criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantin~ 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 inte~~,~+~tation 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 applicants' request to encroach into the side yard setback a maximum of S feet, with the condition that the storage area be relocated so as not to encroach into the setback. Although some relief from the side setback requirement is appropriate, the staff finds that the requested degree of encroachment necessary to accommodate the storage area is inappropriate. The staff finds there are other locations for storage which would not require any setback encroachments and we do not support the applicants' entire request for . this reason. We believe the request (without storage) meets the review criteria and findings 6 for a variance. Specifically, B is met in that setback variances have been ay~~i~ red for garages, provided there are no negative impacts on adjacent ~,..~~.erties. Therefore, the request is not a grant of special privilege. There are no detrimental impacts on the public or adjacent properties with respect to Finding B(2). The variance is warranted, as it meets Findings B{3)(a) and (c). c:lpec~rnemos~3caiser.014 • • n ~~~ i~~~ ;,~ ~~ ~~I -~-- ~# .._ _ *~-~ =-~- -, ~~. - _- - ___ ~ ; ~~ ~~., .. a ~:__.._.:... _.- _ _ f ~- ~ ~ -~~' ~` ~ [r ~ , ~ r '~ ~~~~~, ~ 4.si n~}a `r r `~`, t-; ~. I `~ .; S S J • MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Ocwber 14, 1991 SUBIECT: A request for a setback variance for the Sipf Residence, 3876 Lupine DrivelL,ot 1~B, Block 1, Bighorn 2nd Addition. Applicants: Eric and Susan Sipf Planner: Andy Knudtsen r ~ .~i"y~QF''" ~:4. ~ ~~ ~~~'` •{'-''°x' ~~- tr a ;~,~; •y~i ~fi a _ . ~ as ~fx • .•o-,.e f ~ . S' ~ ~ '' o4.7.a.+(~_ ~~ ...r. c3% ~o~~,o~, o f r~r fk,,,5~~t,}~ s{dr.., ry.;~~ .~~r#~~SC~:~!~.?i.~E'~i'Or:~~~~rn~E~ii/dinb:cfl5~~ ~ R ~ r.' i . k~~ s ~°.w$:3tk'!r%!~r~~.{/'{.~,a~lk I. DESCRtr i iON OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED . The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing single family home on this property. The addition would be for the first and second floors. The house, at this time, is located within the 15-foot side yard setback. The south elevarion of the house is approximately 32 feet high and is set back 6 feet from the side property line. There are decks which surround the house which extend completely across the side yard setback and, in one case, extend over the property line onto the neighbors' ~.~..rerty. In the remodeling effort, the applicant would remove all of the existing decks. New decks would be added to the rear of the house, which would meet the standards of the zoning code. There is also an evergreen tree, approximately 60 feet tall, located about eight feet from the eastern (front} side of the house. There are two parts of the proposed construction which require side setback variances. The fast is an approximately 25 sq. ft. expansion to the entryway. The other is an exterior ~ staircase which wraps around the approximately 60-foot tall tree, and leads up to the entry. If approved, both portions of the dwelling would have asix-foot side setback. In addition to the 25 sq. ft. expansion to be made on the main floor for the entry, the Iower floor will be expanded by the same amount to match what will be above it. • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Primary/Secondary Residential , Lot Sixe: 19,171 sq. ft. Allowed Existing, Proposed Height: 33 ft. 34 ft. 24 ft. GRFA: 5,097 sq. ft. 2,925 sq. ft. 3,341 sq. ft. Setbacks Front: 20 ft. 115 ft. 86 ft. Sides North: 15 ft. 34 ft. 19 ft. South: 15 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft.* Reaz: 15 ft. 104 ft. 87 ft. Site Coverage: 3,994 sq. ft. 975 sq. ft. 1,819 sq. ft. Parking: 3 spaces 3 spaces 3 spaces * Area of requested variance. 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. Staff believes the proposed addition and removal of the decks will improve the relationship between this structure and its neighbor to the south. Currently, the decks of the house extend up to the southern property line and, in one location, cross it and extend into the neighbor's yard, Staff believes that the applicant will reduce the amount of encroachment and improve the relationship to the surrounding structures by eliminating all of the decks on the southern side of the house. • The two parts of the r~.,t,osed addition which require a variance are the addition to the entry and the exterior staircase. In the case of the expansion to the entry, the structure will be located underneath the existing roofline and will not require an expansion to the roof to cover it. Furthermore, this addition will not be extended north of the existing building and would not reduce the setback any more than what it presently is. The exterior staircase is the other part of the proposal which requires a variance. In a similar manner to the design of the expansion to the entry, the staircase does not further encroach into the setback than does the existing house. The b ft. setback which currently exists would be maintained. Staff believes the architect has minimized the amount of mass and bulk an-site which is in the setback. During the review of this proposal, the staff requested that the size of the staircase roof be reduced and that the stairway location provide at least as much setback as the existing structure. These recommendations having been incorporated into the design, staff believes the remodeled structure will be an improvement over the existing relationship to the surrounding area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and liters! interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve t~ ~ , ..patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of . special privilege. Staff believes the location of the existing structure is a physical hazdship. The house is currently set back 6 feet from the side property line; the roof cave has a 1.5-foot setback. In addition to the location of the existing building, the arY=..ximately 60-foot tree in f~.,~.t of the structure is also a constraint. The architect needed to provide exterior access to the second floor, but had limited options due to the tree location. Because of the location of the tree and house, areas for additions are located within the side yard setback. Staff believes that relief from the strict int;,;r..:.tation of the setback requirernent for these components is appropriate to allow the expansion of the structure to take place. 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 there will be no impacts from the r.~,~,osed expansion on any of the issues above. • 3 B. The Plannine and Environmental Commission shall make the followins findings before erantina 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 int:,.r~;,tation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this tide. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable ro 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance, as we feel it meets the criteria discussed above. In additian, staff believes the findings are met. Specifically, Finding I is met, in staff s opinion, as approval of this request would not constitute a grant of special privilege. In other cases, staff has recommended approval of variances based on the fact that the existing building is already located in the setback, and the addition does not further reduce the remaining setback. Finding 2 is met as the request would not affect public health, safety or welfare. Finding 3(a} is met, in staff's opinion, as a strict inte.r.~,tatian of the setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship. Staff believes that, because the house was built b feet from the southern ~...~rerty line, and because there is an approximately 60-foot tall tree about eight feet from the northern elevation of the house, that there area physical constraints on the site. Based on the fact that the physical constraints limit the design solutions, staff recommends approval of the request with the fallowing conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall pave the entire driveway. • 2. Prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall plant 1 spruce and • 3 aspen between the r...rosed staircase and the street, and shall seed and regrade the disturbed portions of the site. o ~pecvr-emoa~sipf.014 • • ~ ~~~ N,O O q ~ 4 4a ~ n 1 ~ h O ~ J q v i q ~~ o ~. v x ` ~+ a ., ~' u 7 '? 3 +P ~rr ~ ~~~ ~.~ ~~~ ~. - ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~.I 4 ~ M ~~ .~, F ~~'_ __ --~- . "'~... ~ +~ t r ~ ~+ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ¢ r~ r , ~ ' .~~ .~ r _ 1 ~`~ 1 x !r' .~ i ; ~ ~ • ~r ~ ~ -. ~ ~ ,. 4 ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ , . ~ ~. . . 9~ k d ...i ~ ~.T e, .~. _ ~ -.- ' i ~- -fir- _~ _~~ -~~ .. 4 1 '~ /v' . _ +' - ~ j ~= .~ :.- ~~ _..__ ---- - - ---......1 i ~, ~~ I i 1 ~ ,, ._~~ , ~ ~ _ _ ~ . _~_ ffrS ~\ ~!' Y I ` '`~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ . ~a 1 ~~ f~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .. _ __~ ~~ I ~ . ~ '. ` . .. ~~ ' ~~ ', . ~--- _ _ . r _. _.... ., } I. ~ f:5: t ~ ~- ~. .. w- - ..~ ~ i~ ~ .____ _. ._ _ _._. ` .r'~ . .t . _ __. i ; __ 1 _. ._... ' __ ~...-.. .._._ _._ _ r_ . .~_~ ___ ~-..Y ..ice..-i---•. j ~_.._. ~L~..% __ i -- ~ ..~ ~~~ ~~ ~` ~~'~~ ~ ,f ~~ ~ 1~ ~ ,' 1 • ~, ~ +~~ '~ .' ~! ~;Y ~r ~~~ ~~ = t _.~ I • • • .~ ~(~ 1~=~1 ,Y ,~ .~ t _..~~ ~ __... -------- _~. _ _----1 ~ , .~ .. ~.. _ _ -~ - -- -- ~ ._._~.-----_--__ ~^------ I ~ I ~ _~~ - ~T ~. ~. r ,, ~ _... ~.._r_. 1 4 1 ---.r --, _ _ ...__ .. . _ _- ~._~.~---- ~ t ~- . _.~ _.~.._____. -- -W. _ _ I ~._._...-~----- - ~--___.___ ~..-- _.~r ----~` . _._ . _~._.._._._.__.,_.__..__._._ -.- -- s, .~ __ __ ___ .._ . _ _ . ~ .. E - _ _ r ~~_. ~_ :.:: ' l .___.__ .._, __._..~ ..~ I S .. f~' 1 _ _ _ _ ~ ~. .__~ .. -- ~ ;^a `~_ ~..~F .4.. 7 ~ ~` i=: 11t ;'~ +• ~;vn1 ~e.X :~ i ~~ . f .r' _ -.. ayes.:--....--_acs. :::s::_.._......_ _ ... r . f . _-- - % - r --I' ....~1-._- ~~ ...*...Y _.__..~_.-__ 1i __~- 1_~ ___. y _ ~.. .. '=gym t ,1 T , ; .. r -~.-J ~~~-. j f ffffff ~ 1. ! ~ _ ~~_ ~~~._~._ ~ f I ,'I ~ t • C" ~. O :'~, • A a& .~~~~~ s~ ~a~~, M M M ~~ 4 ~ V ` 1x11 ~o ~~ C ~ ~ ` •' ~~~ ~ t+ A i '~'', ~ ~ ~;~~~ ~~~ ~~~ o p~~.~g. ~~~ a~ .~ a a~a ~~~~g ~ -~~~ ~~~~~# )~. +~ ~' ~:> ~ ~ ~ ' ~ eTi 'O ' 'JN~~ '~.''~ 7tr7 ,. ~.4r ~~, ~ s -s~ . +v ~ ., f,, ssi z Q ./ x ~ ~ ~ `~ ~' _ o w x a x_z+~ o °r k ~w"~ ~~o ; b Q ~ ~ D U 7 !~ O yy i ~~pp Q"1~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ '~~ ~ ..s ~ „~ ~ , ~~~. M ~IMr'u ~ + ,f Al ~ k ~~ • ~ ~ ~. r s {fl/ ~ ~ f ~ a r f ~; •. ~ ~, Cl ! t ~r r ~ ~~ ~ !~ ~; ~ g r Zne~ ' --` ~ 4J ~ ~.~. ~~~ ~ 3 ~' `; ~ .~ Z g3! ! i+~ ~ ~k;'-'~ ~ ~ ;; ~ i ~ •}o~ ~ ~ ~ •0 l '' , ty~ 7! Y ~ ~ ~ Y f ~ ! I~ ~ ry~~ ~ V ~1 ~M• C i~r~~~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~ //~~ N ~ Q ' / j it rry ~~ ~z' ~" •, ~ Y 0 1tl 11 l y}~NCCC V M F +~,. ~ b N Y~ ~ L C6 ~ /Q7 8 ° 3p~rw p rr t 1~p A ~~ r ~(~? ~ bM O 4- rtj •p~.r ~ ~cwa,~4 1' ~~ n ~r ~~~ v T ~~ei ~ 1 r r n.• Q '~ X G h 1"' 7•~ N N G~ ~ t43f ~- ~r,,,-'~"'a w• .rr ~ ' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1~1, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32.030 -Conditional Uses, in order to allow well water treatment facilities as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner: Mike Mollica .., ,. ~ ~: ~ did ~ s Y. DES CRir' i iON OF THE REQUEST The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District is requesting an amendment to the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District to allow fora "well water treatment facility" as a conditional use. The purpose of this request is to ultimately allow for the construction of a well water treatment facility near the intersecrion of Vail Valley Drive and Gore Creek, along the Town of Vail Golf Course. This new treatment facility would be used in conjunction with a new well that the District is ~...,~,osing to drill (Well No. R-4), and this well location is described as follows: "Location: Proposed to be located within 100-foot radius from a point on the right bank of Gore Creek whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th P.M, bears north 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet." According to the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, the purpose of the proposed well is to provide an additional water supply, and to increase the reliability of the overall water system during periods of emergency mechanical failure of one of the existing wells. To prevent further depletion of existing stream flows, the proposed well will be used alternately with the three existing wells currently in the Gore Creek alluvium. According to Jerry Bender of the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, the District currently holds the rights to drill aYY,~ximately one-half dozen additional wells within the Golf Course area. At this time, the District has no intention of drilling any additional wells. However, should additional wells become necessary in the future, and should the District decide that additional well water treatment facilities are necessary, the staff believes that the condirional use permit review is the appropriate vehicle to review such a proposal. ;~ II. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST Although the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District holds the water rights to a number of existing and potential wells located on the Vail Goif Course, the Town of Vail is the owner of the land. As property owner, the Town Council, on October 1, 1991 (by a vote of 5-0), approved the applicants' request to proceed through the planning process with this application. III. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST A. Compliance with the purpose of the Agricultural and Open Space Zvne District. The purpose section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District is as follows: "The agricultural and open space district is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreation facilities and institutions are also suitable uses in the agricultural and open space district, r; u vided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site devel.,r~,aent standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. (Ord. 8(1973) Section 12.100.)" It is the staff's opinion that the applicants' proposed amendment to the zoning code does not conflict with the purpose section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District as described above. B. Suitability of existing zoning. The existing Agricultural and Open Space Zone District contains a fairly wide variety of permitted, conditional and accessory uses. These uses range from single-family residential dwellings, to public parks, to public and private schools and colleges, to ski lifts and tows, to cemeteries, to low-power subscription radio facilities. Because of the limited impact of a well water treatment facility within this zone district, and given the ability for the PEC to review such a proposal through a conditional use permit process, staff believes the requested amendment would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone district. C. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives? The District Water Court (Division No. 5) of the State of Colorado has concluded that certain water rights shall be decreed to the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. • . Many of the decreed well sites are located within the Gore Creek alluvium, which places their location in the general vicinity of the Vail Golf Course, Because the Golf Course area is zoned Agricultural and Open Space, staff believes that it is reasonable to add well water treatment facilities as a conditional use in this zone district. Staff believes that, with the project-specific review through the conditional use permit process, well water treatment facilities can be appropriate and compatible uses in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. D. Does the amendment provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community? Again, staff believes that, with adequate and site-specific review of a conditional use permit request, the proposed conditional use will N~~, aide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. Staff believes this amendment will provide for the beneficial use of the property, without compromising any of its long-term availability to recreation. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Dep. ~...ent recommends arr.. gal of the t,~.,~,osed amendment to add well water treatment facility as a conditional use within the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. Far the reasons stated in this memarandum, we find that this use should . be a conditional use, and that each t-~.,~,osal would be subject to the scrutiny of the conditional use permit review criteria. c ~pec~rnemos\wellwatr.014 • 3 • UPPER EAGLE VALLEY ~~ WATER AND SANITATIpN DISTRICTS ' 846 FOREST ROAD • VAIi. COLORADO SF667 (303) 4767480 September 23, 1991 Mike Mollica COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED - WELL R-4 PROPOSAL • Dear Mr. Moliica: The Vail Va11ey Consolidated Water District is petitioning the Town of Vail, to amend its AGRICULTURAL/OPEN SPACE zoning to allow for construction of a water well treatment facility as a conditional use. The specific area will be a meets and bounds description describing a utility easement allowing for construction, operation, and maintenance of the water facility. To prevent further depletion of stream flaws, the proposed well will be used alternately with the three (3} existing wells in the Gore Creek alluvium. The purpose of the proposed well is to provide a redundant water supply, and increase reliability of the water system during periods of emergency mechanical failure of one of the existing wells. The well water treatment structure has been designed and situated to provide shelter for golfers, minimal visual impacts, and no affect on open space area. The site will be visited far inspection an average of once per day throughout the year and will have no affect on any public facility of local traffic. Sincerely, ~~ ~ Jerry Bender Water Operations UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT • JB:bI PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS - ARi70WREALJ METRO WATER ~ AVON METRO WATER ~ SERVER CREEK METRO WRYER ~ 9ERRV CREEK METRO WATER Q~pA/II EAG LE~VAIL METRO WATER ~ EOWARDS METRq WATER ~ S_A3[E CREEK MEAOOW$ WATER ~ UPPER EAGLE VALLEV CQNSOLIOATEU SANITATION VAIL VALLEY CONSOLI L`ATEU WATER ~ VAfL WATER AND SANITATION AGRICULTURAL ADD OP£N SPACE {A} DISTRICT space objectives. Par3cs, schools, and certain types of private recreation facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the aEricuitural and, open space district, provided that the sites of these uszs remain predominately open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. {Ord. 8{1973} § I2.100.} . ........... .. ... 18.32.020 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the A district: A. Single-family residential dwellings; B. Plant and tree nursezies and raising of field, row and tree crops ; + C. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. (Ord. $(1473) § 12.200.} 18.32.fl30 Conditional uses. . The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Clr.apter 18.64: A. Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assz:nbly of more than two hundred persons together in one building ar group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility; B. Public and private schools and colleges; C. Churches, rectories, and related structures; D. Private golf, tennis, swirnraing and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges; - _ ... ~ ~ E. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and . ~ - religious retreats; _• F. Ski Iifxs and tows; ~~ '~ ~~, ~ G. Cemeteries; H. Low power subscription radio facilities. Ord. 15(1976 ~. ~ (Ord. 30(1988} § I; Ord. lb(l9$S) § 1; ) § 1(a}(part); Ord. 14(1975) § 3; Ord. $(1973} § 12.3fl0.} f _. -- ~,~ (Vail 8-7-90) r -1 ~J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commision FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a review a wetland mitigation proposal for areas along Gore Creek. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District Planner: Andy Knudtsen ,,,.. e r. :. a `.Sr ~ . e. !. E3ACKGROUND On January 28, 1991, Eagle County permitted a request by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to expand Black Lake Reservoir No. 1. The County, in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, has required that the District provide 1 D.75 acres of wetland restoration to mitigate the impact to the 5.4 acres which will be lost as a result of the Black Lake expansion. The Water and Sanitation District has hired Hydrosphere, a wetland consultant, who has identified four areas where new wetland areas can be, or have been, • restored. An existing parking lot at Black Lake No. 2 will be excavated and then restored to a wetland condition. It will provide .75 acres of the requirement. The Katsos Ranch open space area oxbow improvement will fulfil! 6.0 acres of the requirements. The other two involve intermittent distances of stream bank along Gore Creek, focusing on the stream banks in the golf course area. The bank improvements will result in a total of 4 acres of restoration. Three of these acres will be provided with new plantings in the areas of Stephens Park, Donovan Park, Booth Falls Road, and the eastern golf course. One acre has already been established through the "Fishing is Fun" project done in 1988. This project improved Gore Creek from Ford Park to the golf course clubhouse. Future improvements to be made will all occur east of the clubhouse. On August 21, 1990, the Vail Town Council passed a resolution supporting the expansion of Black Lakes Reservoir No. 1. The expanded reservoir will enhance in-stream flows during the winter, a time when stream flows are typically loaves#. When the resolution was passed, the Council recognized that over 1 D acres of wetlands would need to be restored to mitigate the impacts of the expanded reservoir. On September 1 D, 1991, the wetland mitigation proposal was presented to the Tawn Council. The Council approved the request to proceed through the planning process and generally had positive responses #o the project. • li. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Katsos Ranch After studying the Katsos Ranch area, the consultants identified a way to restore a portion of the area to a wetland condition. The specific area on which they are focusing is located east of the beaver ponds and west of the recreation path bridge aver Gore Creek. The plan involves constructing four drop structures, approximately two feet high, by grouping boulders together. These structures are identi#ied with large asterisks on the attached Exhibit A. The locations of these boulder groupings may vary, depending on the stream characteristics. However, there will not be more than 4 structures. The boulder groupings will be similar to those installed in 1988, in the "Fishing is Fun" project {see Exhibit B). In their report on the proposal, the consultants state that each drop structure "will raise the water surface elevation in the creek which wit! raise the local water table, adding to the hydrologic restoration of the area." The drop structures require approximately 2-5 hours to construct. Large machinery, like a backhoe, will be required to operate in the stream channel for that period of time. The drop structures may also increase the surface elevation of the flood plain. If this is the case, an amendment to the floodplain will be required. • Another major component in this effort is to re-open an ox-bow that has become dry. The consultants have stated that "a iarge dry ox-bow channel ...became hydrologically separated from Gore Creek between 1974 and 1983: based on review of aerial photographs. The separation could have been naturally caused due to a large runoff event, channelization and urbanization, or a combination." Making the oxbow function again entails directing enough water into the ox-bow to affect the soil conditions. A majority of the water in Gore Creek will continue to flow through the more direct channel. In order to achieve the goal of directing some water into the ox-bow, the consultants are recommending that a drop structure be built at the junction of the main creek channel and the upper branch of the ox-bow. The consultants are concerned, however, that this drop structure may direct too much water into the ox-bow during high runoff period. From a more detailed analysts of low points along the creek channel, they will be able to determine if this will be the case. If, after their research is completed, they find that too much water may enter the ox-bow, they will pursue a second option, which is a head gate. This is a second choice to the consultants, as the gate would require manual operation. It would, however, be more effective in directing the water to the appropriate channel. The drop structure would be constructed to fit the context of the stream bank. It would be built parallel to the main channel. The consultants predict that it will not be noticeable unless someone was directly above it. it would be constructed out of concrete, but would either side would be backfilled so that it was flush with the grade of the stream. The most noticeable aspect wit! be a 2-foot wide trench leading from the main channel through the control gate. Landscaping would be planted along the stream bank and continued along the gate so that it blended into the rest of the vegetation along the stream bank. • During the Council review of the project, one of the members stated that when the ox- bow was by-passed with a more direct stream channel, small inlets from the ox-bow to the beaver pond were left dry. As a result, the fresh water supply to the beaver pond has been reduced and has caused an algae problem. By reopening the ox-bow, the consultants hope that fresh water will seep into the pond and improve the water conditions. The consultant has stated concerns that the algae problem may be due not only to a lack of fresh water, but also due to an increase in water temperature. This project has the potential to help the situation. However, it may not solve the algae problem completely. The consultants would also like to provide an educational area, describing these improvements. As funding has not been secured, this may or may not be constructed. B. Gore Creek Riparian Zone Planting The other area within the Town of Vail which the consultants have identified to improve involves 2.5 miles of creek channel along Gore Creek. The consultants' report calls for "cottonwood, alder, birch, gooseberry, aspen, dogwood, and chokecherry to be planted in combination with willow sprigs along the bare banks of Gore Creek." Exhibit C is provided at the end of this memorandum, showing how planting improvements will be made to #~e banks. This vegetation will help stabilize the soil an the banks of the creek, and improve wildlife habitat along the creek. Exhibit D shows many different areas along the banks which were considered. The consultants focused on an area along the golf course, and are working with golf course personnel to the exact locations #or the bank improvements. Some other banks, which are not located in the golf course area, will also be improved. These include Stephens Park, Donovan Park, and the Booth Falls Road area. III. ISSUES issues staff identified in the review of this proposal include impacts to the floodplain and visual impacts from the improvements. The drop structures may alter the elevation of the floodpiain and if this is the case, Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District must secure approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA~ prior to the construction of any of the improvements. There is also the potential that the visual impacts from the improvements may alter the natural appearance of this open space area. The original proposal included an 18" x 18" irrigation ditch which would bring water around the south side of the wetland area directly into the ox-bow. Staff understands that this is no longer included in the proposal. The irrigation ditch would have been the most noticeable part of the work. Staff believes that the improvements will blend into the existing natural area better without the ditch. Regardicg the drop structures, staff believes that because they will look like those in the Ford Park area, that they will not significantly alter the character of the area. There are many positive impacts from the project, such as improved wetland conditions resulting in better ground water recharge and discharge, better food chain support functions, a reduction in erosion, and an improvement to animal habitat. Staff believes that there are really no negative impacts, assuming there is not a floodpiain issue and the construction is bandied in a sensitive manner. The consultants have been working with FEMA and will have a determination as to the impact of the proposal on the floodplain prior to final Town Council review. • 3 IV. REVIEW PROCESS The purpose of this Planning and Environmental Commission worksession is to allow the public an opportunity to express any of their concerns about #his proposal. As mentioned earlier, Council has approved the request #o proceed through the planning process with the understanding that the Planning and Environmental Commission would conduct a review of the impacts of the proposal. The action needed from the PEC is a finding that the impacts are acceptable to the Town and that the project should be allowed to proceed, or that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts, and that the consultants should propose other alternatives. After PEC review, the applicant will return to Town Council for final approval of the use of Town land. V. CONCLUSION F] Staff believes that the project offers several benefits without any negative impacts. Staff believes that the Town is fortunate to have these improvements made to Gore Creek at no cost to the Town. During the PEC worksession, it was noted that one of the bane#its of the project is to have the improvements made in the same riparian corridor where the impacts were made. The positive aspects include a benefit to fish and wildlife habitat in fibs riparian corridor, improved vegetation, which in turn benefits the food chain, as wail as an improvement of the water quality in the creek. Staff believes that one impact which may need additional review is the alteration of the floodplain. Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the wetlands improvement master plan (as shown on Exhibits A, C and D}, finding that the impacts are reasonable, and that the proposal is a reasonable use of open space land, with the condition that, if it is determined that the proposal will affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters or affect the 1 QO-year floodplain, the applicant shall request approval from the Town of Vail for a floodplain modification, according to Section 18.69.Q40(D}, and provide the necessary approvals from FEMA. Exhibits: A - Ox-Bow B -Drop Structure Pho#ographs C -Stream Section D -Valley Plan of Streambank Work c:lpeclmemoslwetland.01 b ~ 1 • ~ 1~ , i ~ /~~ ~.>r, ~ X11 r ..•~ ,r '~, ~ ~' ~~• .,,...~~~~~ .r' •; '" ~ ' \ ~ ~ ~ r J,.! ."k ~/ R ~ ~- 11 r ~~i~~ •r, ~ .~ ~ ~ ja ~ ( ~ ~ 1, ~• .l J r' 1 •'/ •~f~ ; ~'~'r~ f ,~,, . r: 1 i ;, .+ rj `" ' ~ ~ ` ` `~ ~ ct7 ,•~- ~~ 1{ ~ 1• ~ 5 ~~ i . ~. ,ice ~ 'Y ``•, ~ ~ ~;1 t. ) ~ `~ ~``~.• ~... ;, ~~ti 4 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ly~~, ',~ ~, r' 1 ~ i ion ?'` 'u ~~ ~'~ .~ ~ '1 ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ..~ r (j ~~ ~ ~ ' ~.'~ 1~~ (rte/ )j 1 ~~l is j ~. 1 _ ;C.~= ' i' ~ r~ Kat54s Open Space Area • • EXHIBIT B-- Examples of drop structures • • I • ~~ W s s ~~' ~ N $Q V W u ° ~ d ~' ', ~" n~ tr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ i M A„ r~~ ~~ 1Y 4 ~.. V ~~ ~ v ~a ~ ~ .°n N 4 ~~ O ~' a ~ i r t ~~ Section Stre~~8 EX~IgIT G' 0 D ~fl ~a ~ o tQ ~ N O N ~ ~ 4 r .Y r~ I ,~ s~ n .;,~ 4 ~q. G 4 70 ~° r+ `' ~ ~ L ~- ~ + , ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~; ~ x w ~ 1 ~ m Y• Q ~. ~ rr ~ ~ a. C ~~ G O C rr 'Q C~ `S t!~ ^ i~ K .,n ~~ ~ ~ , ~- ~ ~ ~ ' w $j ~i ~~ ~~~ tl r-, -~ '~- ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~. ~' .- w=. J 1 }~~ ~L, j ~'~~.~~~J 11 1 ~~~~r',~ r(~ if ~/l~} / ~ ~ f 1 ~;, ,LV ~~~~ ~~r ~ _~~} 7~.~ti, ~~ ?_; 4~ .~~'' ~-~~ ~.~ u EXHIBIT A -- ~~~€~ ~~ a 5 `,• 1~/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~ N \~ ~- ~ ~T h ~ ~. w ~4 Qr ~ ~, `~ J f~ ~, .se . .~~~ ~"' ~~~ 0 v • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to the aYr.,,ved conditional use permit in order to construct a snow dump on the property generally located west of the Town of Vail shops, The p~..r,;. t,~ is more specifically described as follows: That part of the North 1J2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the bth 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 1500.04 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section $, S00 23'03"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 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 55$0.00 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. '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 far the above parcel is the northerly line of Section $ being S89 46'27"W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Vail Associates/Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen ~ r u ~ ~ 6~ '~~ ~. * y j~' ~tt ~,y r < . ~ ! ??'r% rs~i~yo-~£}'>7 ro.. Y ^ ~. ' + f i ~v+' f~ aQ• Y~ °ir'~.'.' a ~ ~ '~` ~Y `~ y?f!'°'c~i rr ..,rN..~'~:3~:~ ~ ... s .~,.F ., ,r.-r,~~:`cs,~rlfak: ~.ti ~K• .t~,..s:h.~~j~• . 20 F.~`~~~w':~z r INTRODUCTION 't~ ~t~ ~~ 'Y~~ ~il~'1e t~~ ::::.:r:ai~s ~` c~~i ::: ~ +~~ ~e ~n~v~ s~g~ ~1~, v~h~~kt was ~~-~ed tin 1" ~ ~' ~. ~+~w~~r~rx ~~~ ~~ ~h~ I~ Qf yz ~~, short c+~~sl~~ti~n ac ::: ~~n~ in ts.,~~~~d~rt~ s~asan, ~td~ ~ ~~~ t a~~~ f~~t~~ ~~ tro~scf :,. t~f`f i~ l~~inn,~ ~ ,v~sed ~,~~rc~~~ ~~~ ~u~~t t+~ #h ~a~~i~t~ ~. ~nvnt~~htt~~ ~~~iss~a~ f ~~ ~~e<:;'~.' elf ~~ .ls ~.p~, clx~~g tly.~.,P~~.:lt ~~vc~,,~~,;. ~~~~es ~t ~ ~~t ~Qx ~ ~~~~g mod. ~~~tX~e~ ~o~t~~s~v~ t~ ~~ ~cmic~~ ~~ the ~~ ~vhi~h l ztsta~t~~d fd' ~ur+~ i,~ ~: the ~kattd~ wl~~.~~ e ~st~-~~s~exf dt~trg ~~~-. ~~s ~ppv~t ~n ~ etttc~, a ~tg~~aar ~~ r~e~t~ e ~m~ v~rh~~~ w~~ v'ew.:b~'. ~~ ~'~ . ~..~L~ ~.~f ,~ fir.:irtfonm~tit~~ I. DESCRir ~ SON OF THE PROPOSED USE The Town of Vail is proposing to construct a snow dump on the recently rezoned land (Public Use District) west of the Town Public Works Shops. The proposed use requires a conditional use review in the Public Use Zone District. The existing berm which screens the shops from I-70 and the south will be continued, at the same height, to the west. The berm will be landscaped with an additional 60 spruce, 15 douglas fir, and 17 aspen trees. The snow dump will be constructed by excavating below the existing grade approximately 10-20 ft., in order to increase capacity for snow storage. The design includes a 1S' wide loop road, located around the snow dump. The road will be built just below the top of the berm, which will be 30 ft. above the bottom of the snow damp. With this design, trcck drivers will start dumping snow in the lower level of the hole until it is full. They will then use the loop road, dumping snow :~.,~„ the higher elevation onto the lower level. There will be no retaining walls used to build the road. All slopes will be 2:1 or less, except for the slopes on the inside of the dump which do not exceed 1.5:1. Please see the attached plans. ~~'~k'>1`r 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: z e A. Considerarion of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the T.. rr... The development objectives of the Town, as stated in the purpose section of the zoning title call for: Section 1$.p2.020(B)(9}: "The conservation and protection of wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides and other desirable natural features." In addition, the Town's Land Use Plan states that: Policy 1.13: "Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use." And that: Policy 6.1: "Services should keep pace with increased growth." By relocating the snow dump from the hanks of Gore Creek to the proposed location, staff believes that the goals of preserving the stream tract are met. In addition, staff believes Policy fi.l, which calls for additional Town services with increased growth, will be met as the snow dump will allow for additional snow removal services. 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. Staff believes the proposed snow dump will not have a direct impact on the above-referenced facilities. There may be an indirect benefit, in that snow removal services may improve as a result of the expanded snow dump area. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. This new snow dump will allow for a smoother snow removal operation. By increasing the amount of snow that can be hauled, additional snow removal services can be provided. The Town shop entry off of the Frontage Road is adequate to handle the truck traffic to the snow dump. The Town sent plans • 3 for the r.~,r.osal to CDOH for them to review the impacts to traffic on the frontage road. Based on recent CDOH decisions, Town staff believes that they will have no requirements of the Town far this project. 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 has analyzed the potential impact of the snow dump on the surrounding character of the area in each of the following categories: a. Views from the Surrounding Area ~g~su~~x_ ~~ ~ During the Apri122, 1991 Planning Commission worksession, staff and the- Planning Commission identified several points which represented the most sensitive areas which the snow dump could impact. The map on the following page shows these areas around the snow dump. 1) The soccer field. Analysis done by the landscape consultants hired by the Town of Vail shows that the impact of the snow dump on areas like the soccer field (as well as points 3, and 4), are reasonable, because the amount of existing vegetation in the immediate area would screen the new snow dump. The large evergreen trees block the views of the new berm as well as the cut areas at the rear of the snow dump, 2) Fairway Drive/Fairway Court. This area has the highest elevation in the vicinity, and has some of the most direct views to the snow dump. The graphic section shown at the end of this packet shows the sight line from this area to the snow dump. As one can see 1'i.~~.a this section, the trees planted on the berm will work to screen both the cut slope on the back side of the snow dump as well as the snow dump operation. 3} Homestake Circle. The north end of Homestake Circle is sinxilar to the soccer field in that the existing landscaping around those homes screen the snow dump. < • 4) Hornsilver Circle. The north end of Homsilver Circle is also similar to the soccer field in that the existing landscaping around those homes screen the snow dump. 5) Vail Golf Course. The golf course does have clear views to the proposed snow dump. Though no residences in the area are impacted, users of the golf course could be. The berm would be visible. However, a benefit from the project is that the berm will be extended far enough to the west so that it would blend in with the existing hillside. This will be a much more natural resolution of the berm, and is a significant improvement to the appearance of the current berm. Note: At the Planning Commission hearing, the landscape consultant will show colored renderings of the proposed construction from some of these areas. The renderings were produced from slides taken from the areas, and will show that, what the snow dump will look like from these areas. • b. Landscanin~ ............ .............................. Thy ldsC~ptzt~ .plan a~em~.t~s the s~xne The landscape design concept for the berm is to make it appear as natural as possible. Trees will be planted in clusters, with a majority near the top of the berm and with others grouped in the middle and on the lower parts. The ridge of the berm will be undulated, so that it will not appear as a hard, horizontal line that would look unnatural. On the back side of the snow dump, the cut slopes will be revegetated. The landscape design concept in the area has been to break up the horizontal lines with groupings of native grasses and sage. We believe the taller trees, 9 feet, 10 feet, 12 ft, should be increased at the top of the berm to provide as much screening as possible of the trucks. Trees along the existing berm where the soil has sloughed, should also be removed or replanted properly. The natural planting configuration on the new berm is positive. Two types of revegetarion mix are proposed. The heartier variety will be used for the snow dump basin. The hillside's cut and fill areas will be revegetated with native grasses as well as transplanted sage. • c. Electric Lines 'k~~~ There are two sets of transmission lines in the vicinity of the snaw dump, One runs east-west, but is located at an elevation higher than the snow dump, and is not impacted. The line that runs north- south will crass over the snow dump. One power pole will have to be moved to the top of the berm, fi.,.,. which point the lines will clear the snow dump completely, There will be some new services installed from the transformer on the north-south transmission line to the Town shop. All new service lines will be located underground. Staff spoke with a representative from Holy Crass Electric. Staff believes it is unreasonable to require the undergounding because Holy Cross has indicated that an extensive length of line south of I-70 would have to be placed underground, instead of just the segment on the Town of Vail property. This work would also include baring under the Interstate. At a minimum, the Town will provide a conduit under the snaw dump berm for the future undergrounding of the line. The Town will continue to work with Holy Cross on the undergrounding of the lines. d. Access Road • p~ap4sa~~ ' "~`he. ~~s r~~ ~ ~rr~s~t~l ~~ th~~. p~~ ~: ~~d~, The width of the loop mad~~does not affect the visual impacts as much as the elevation of the road does. Staff would like to see the berm increased in height, or the road slightly lowered (in order to minimize visibility of the truck operation). The design concept allows for good screening of the dump, but could be improved so that it also provides better screening of trucks on the snaw dump loop road, The snow dump will function with drivers using the road to drive to a location where there is room to drop their snow, The truck driver will "jack-knife" the vehicle so that mast of the snow falls off the road into the dump. Some of it, however, will fall on the road. At the end of the day, front-end loaders will go out to move the snow around and clear the road. Until that time, trucks must be able to continue to drive the loop road. The 1S' width will allow for clearance for the trucks to pass azound the perimeter. 6 • e. ~htin~ <'";;~~"'`qj'~<:'~`'#;;j~ The Town is proposing to install 2 lights in the snow dump area, and relocate one which will be identical to those which c~~:...tly illuminate the Public Works Shops site. The two lights are needed to illuminate the area for occasional night dumping. The lights will be facing north, and will be located no higher than the existing lights (approximately 10 feet above the berm). The current lights which illuminate the parking lot of the site are not visible to the neighborhood. This is because they are facing north and are angled down. Staff has driven through the area at night and has noted that the lights which are visible are ones on buildings or are the lamp posts (similar to the Town and County lights} next to the offices. The ~,.,,YOSed lighting is needed to allow hauling and dumping at night. Though this is not on a regular basis, it will allow for this use when needed. • • , f. Water Oualitv proposed snow dump teas ueen aesignea in su~r~ a way w zl~~~~ ...µ~ the runoff from the snow dump will not impact Gore Creek. Soil tests done by the consulting engineer indicate that the percolation rate is very high in this area. Based on the soil tests, the consulting engineer expects that all of the snow melt will percolate through the soil to Gore Creek. There is virtually no better method to improve water quality than to allow it to drain through soil as ground water. The engineer has designed a drainage system, in the event that there is very hot weather with a quick snow melt, and the drainage demand exceeds the percolation rate of the soil. This drainage system design provides for a 40-hour detention period so that the water can drop any sediment b~.;,,e entering Gore Creek. The 40-hour detention period is a standard which has been developed that ensures that the water leaving an area is clear. The engineer has also designed larger overflow pipes at higher elevations in the event of an emergency event. These will be used to drain the snow dump without compromising the structural integrity of the berm or shop facilities. III, FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use Hermit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The planning staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit, based on the criteria and findings, Staff believes the first finding is met, as the snow dump, a public service facility, meets the purpose of the zone district in which it will be located. The Public Use Zone District calls for public uses, such as this, with the condition they be designed and used in harmony with surrounding uses, Staff believes that the visual analysis done for the snow dump, from the surrounding areas, shows that it is reasonably compatible. Furthermore, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of the Town, as defined by the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Title, Finding 2 is met, in staff's opinion, in that the snow dump will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. The one impact relaring to these issues is water quality, and staff believes the snow dump design provides a drainage system that will prevent poor quality water from entering Gore Creek. Concerning Finding 3, staff believes the snow dump complies with the applicable regulations of the Zoning Code. The zone district the snow dump will be located in allows the Planning and Environmental Commission to de,,,,,,,-,ine the development standards. Typical standards, such as height, setbacks, lot size and GRFA are net applicable with this proposal. The staff recommendation carries the following two conditions of apr... gal: ~~ .tial ~s t~ ~` : '*_'h~~',~,,*.i: g "~~? ~~afl-&'s 3 'a3~Bp in the-areas-were it h~5 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~~ • ~Crta uE'ci AT..re. Alrl~o~nbh _39t a 5~~3d#ti6n~f appr{;~~1, the 3x~rr ~3€ ~^. ~8-E~E.~`i: ~f `_~8~==tee , :~i5 ".he ~~nditit4ns ~kst ~qw'~`~~~t tl~. ~'~:.moti ~~` x • 9 }~ y~ ~,y,~y ...................:.::::~:,.:,;y::::.:.:.~:a~.:ao:r>:-~>sa:~ya,''•i':2~5'~a:,>yami:::;:?:};:::Y...::py,~+::[~:y'•.:i`>~:y:~:t:}a:;i ':: o-Y7:Tr •~•: : '`?Ci W~',~~~LR, #.~Gl~,iili-..~~~~~~_-#1G ~~Q:iL~ ~ki...~~ fiYS~~~ ~~VJ[H*: ~~~,~la`7-~1ls~,fJx x ;:~ fly. ~xNFV 4~1~ ~,iRR+~~ ~~ ~~'n~i# .cfs~i~~ ~~M+,+ ~~F Maaa~fR~1, ' ::: i;C:....~., .::;:;;y:~daLv,"t:~• :., j. •.;j':f~}'~~`[~Jf~:•:;:.:.... ,:~:::yCC~;[:{:::' ::: ~.5}:~.,}}>~1 }k~ x "i[<~~ F::XS':d5' : ' j~:~i:S}::r }: t:{°,CCi~:~"y: "C;::•::;i>v: i~::: ~.:y:~..; `f..~:: v :.:::•u:::[u': :..:..:.. .~.yy.~.. ~.~.y.~.... /..~.....y~..~.~.}..... ~~~ ~R7~~L4~~ ~ ;~RM: ~ -Rik ~.MRllli~ ~, ~r.~~~iV.4t. ~t~, G~ 7~~J~~~: N~~ 414E NH7'~, -l~~Vl'1!~~,i. ~;~~,n~+a~~.oia 10 • • MEMORAN©UM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 199E SUBJECT: Notification of Modi#ications Made to Spruce Creek, Phase Ili Site Plan Applicant: Mike Lauterbach Planner: Andy Knudtsen ,. , f , On August 12, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a development plan for the third and final phase of Spruce Creek. Mike Lauterbach, the applicant, had proposed six single-family homes, each with 2,3x0 sq. ft. This development plan was a reduction in density and GRFA from the 1979 Eagle County approval. After the PEC approval, the applicant re-evaluated the proposal, and decided that it would be better to delete one dwelling unit from the plan. The total GRFA for the site would remain the same. The difference is that it is divided among five single-family dwelling units instead of six. The attached sheet shows the conditions of approval which the PEG placed on the project. The last condition deals with GRFA, and the changes discussed above have been incorporated into that condition. Staff approved the proposed development plan change, with the understanding that staff would notify the PEC of the change. if the PEC would like to review the staff decision, the PEC may request a more thorough review. 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for developing a site partially covered by wetlands. b. Provide documentation from Holy Cross Electric Association that the unused electric easement running through the center of the property has been abandoned. c. Provide a drainage plan of the site for the review and approval of the Town Engineer. d. Provide the Town with $B,OOD in cash to be used for bike path construction at any location between Donovan Park and Dowd Junction. e. Provide an accurate estimate from Ted Huskey, from Holy Cross Electric Association, for the cost of undergrounding the utilities adjacent to this parcel. In addition to the estimate, the applicant shall establish an escrow account with the appropriate agreements which the Town may use to underground utilities. 2. Prior to submitting an application for design review, the applicant shall modify the site plan, and: a. Move the eastern building 5 feet to the east. b. Provide 4 more parking spaces, 2 on the east and 2 on the west side of fire truck turn-around. 3. The Town shall waive all application fees far employee housing, if the applicant requests any employee housing within one year of the approval date of this request. 4. All buildings shall be separated by a minimum distance of 14 feet, as measured from each founda#ion. 5. The total GRFA allowed on this parcel shall be i 3,8D0 sq. ft. Each of the 6 single family dwelling units shall be allowed ~8 ! sq. ft. of GRFA. The 225 sq. ft. credit is included in these numbers, and may not be added to the ~,39e ~ sq. ft. of GRFA allocated to each dwelling unit. A 2-car garage, with the corresponding 600 sq. ft. credit, will be allowed to be added to each of the dwelling units. c:lpeclmemoslspruce.0~ 4 i• ~~ l D '. { r 1 d~a ~ ~. r .Y. :~ ,~ ,.r " ~ ~ ~ _ g, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1~ ~! ~li ~ / / .i sJ ~ L ~ ~ I ~ r-- } ~` /~ t -:_,'q , ~. i 111' E ~,, III ~~~~ i ~ ,~~;'~r i 4~. ,. ~ ~'~„ _ ,[ ' / 1-~~..~~ '9 I ~ ' • Pf_ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 28, 1991 10:30AM Stree#scape Site Visit 1:OOPM Agenda Site Visits 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Publlc Hearin AGENDA 1. Discussion of U.S. Forest Service oil and gas leases within the White River National Forest. Applicant: Bill WoodlRich Phelps Planner: Mike Mollica 3 2. A request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Center Building, to allow an exterior balcony to be enclosed, Unit 312, 520 E. Lionshead CirclelLot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Celia Teuscher Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5 3. A request to amend Chapter 18.30 -Heavy Service, Section 18.30.030 - Conditional Uses of the Town of Vaii Zoning Code, in order to allow seasonal sale of plant material as a conditional use. Applicant: Richard billing Planner: Jill Kammerer 4 4. A request for a minor subdivision and major amendment #o Millrace IV- Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to approve a development plan, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, and more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW i/a NE'/a, Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W of the 6th principal meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 42°50'19" W 6fi9.34 ft: thence S 85°43'14" E 89.84 ft: thence S 57°25'30" E 1 fi9.46 ft: thence S 32°59'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S #;5°31'36" W 95.04 ft: thence 5 69°01'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23°24'09" W 319.09 ft to the point of beginning. Applicant: East-West Partners Planner: Shelly Mello 1< • 2 5. A reques# for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing/395 Miil Creek Circle. Appiicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz 6. A request to extend for one year the October 22, 1990 PEC site coverage variance to allow construction of a 60 square foot airlock at the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, 304 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village First t=iling. Applicant: John S. HolSzechwan Lion Planner: Jill Kammerer 7. Review of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan fior formal recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Plan addresses the general area from E. Lionshead Cir. to Ford Park, and includes W. Meadow Dr., E. Meadow Dr., Wiliow Bridge Rd., Gore Creek Dr., Vail Valley Dr., Bridge St., and Hanson Ranch Rd. Applican#: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Monica 8. Review of the Town of Vail Master Transportation Plan for #ormat recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Plan addresses loading and delivery, I-70, the bus system, parking and other transportation-related issues. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristan Pritz/Greg Hall TABLED TO AN UNDETERMINED DATE 9. Review of proposed Eagle County fireplace policies. Planner: Kristan Pritz 10. Review of Homestake II letter to Eagle County. Planner: Kristan Pritz 11. Review of a minor modification to the previously approved wall height variance for the Samuels Residence, located on Lot 11-8, Black 7, Vail Village First Filing/224 Forest Road. Applicant: Bernard SamuelslKathy Langenwalter Planner: Mike Monica 12. Review of a proposed view corridor ordinance Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA - TO BE DISCUSSED AT NOVEMBER 5, 1991 TOWN COUNCIL WORKSE~SS10Nf • !/ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 28, 1991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Monica Ludwig Kurz Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen Jim Shearer Shelly Mello Gena Whitten Amber Blecker Mary Dewing Absent Connie Knight Prior to the meeting, an extensive site visit was performed for the review of the Streetscape Master Plan. The following are the notes taken during that site visit. Mike Monica stated the written report had been based on the conceptual design plans, and expressed that he wanted the Commission to focus on discussing each sub-area and offer information to strengthen the intent of each sub-area. Kathy Langenwalter expressed that certain streets should be labeled. Specifically, she indicated Gore Creek Promenade, Willow Bridge and MIII Creek Circle should be labeled on the key map. Chuck Crist was concerned that Willow Circle was excluded from the plan. Mike replied that no changes were envisioned for that area, although something could be implemented in the future. Diana Donovan noticed that, in the key map, Hanson Ranch Road connected through to the east, when it actually did not, and that portion should be deleted. Kathy and Diana expressed that, on page 1, the Vail Village and Lionshead Urban Design Guidelines should be more clearly stated. Diana believed that all of the planning documents in the Town of Vail should be referenced. She also mentioned that all of the names of the plazas and public spaces should be checked, as she questioned if Slifer Plaza was also known as Slifer Square. Diana did not believe that using individual store names was appropriate, as they changed frequently. Mike discussed the East Lionshead Circle and Library/lce Arena Plaza sub-area. He discussed inclusion of bikes with vehicular traffic and pedestrians, especially the concern for the bicycles going through the plaza, indicating the plan discussed a dismount area at the Library. It was thought the dismount area could contain the area between the two control gates. Kathy did not think bicyclists should be included with the pedestrians. Diana did not believe the dismount area was appropriate, as she did not think bicyclists should have to dismount. However, enforcement for speeding should occur in certain areas. A discussion took place regarding what information should be at the bottom of the page within the text. Diana expressed it was difficult to determine what was going on within the text. Kathy believed it was because of a confusion as to which sub-area was being addressed, and perhaps the sub-area should be listed at the bottom of each page. This would also assist people who receive only a portion of the plan. Chuck asked if the bike racks would be uniform. Mike answered that public areas would have similar bike racks, benches, lights, etc., although uniformity would not be enforced in private areas. He also mentioned that the lighting along East Lionshead Circle would be exchanged with "Village" lights. Color for newsstands was discussed, with the consensus against black. It was suggested that they be painted green. Kathy stressed the importance of not having to paint the boxes, but being able to use stock colors, and perhaps the colors should be varied to blend with the surrounding colors, The location should determine the color. Mike explained the trash receptacles. It was agreed that the design was positive. When the bike racks were discussed, it was decided that the top horizontal bar should be metal. Kathy felt that this would last longer and be more appropriate fior the use. Diana was concerned with the 10" width, indicating bikes could not stand up in this type of rack, and suggested that a wheel control be investigated. Diana suggested heating the sidewalk along the Library chute, and Mike believed that was a good idea. Kathy was concerned with bikes being on the sidewalk. Diana believed that signage should be used to indicate the difference between bike and pedestrian paths. Diana addressed the bus turn-around in front of the proposed Performing Arts Center, and believed it should be addressed in case the center was not developed. She suggested landscaping along the hillside, with no presumption of a Performing Arts Center. The Vail International access plan was also discussed. The PEC felt the V.I. access should be from the Frontage Road. Diana felt the path behind the ice arena should become more noticeable. She did not think most people knew it existed, and suggested signage for the area. This might also assist in the bikelpedestrian separation which is a goal. On page 13, fourth line from bottom, the word "bike" should be deleted. The West Meadow Drive sub-area was the next to be addressed. Kathy and Jim Shearer expressed their disapproval of pavers crossing just in front of the hospital emergency entrance. They asked the bus stop be moved from this area, suggesting it be moved to the east to clear the drive. Mike explained it was located where it was for the bene#it of handicapped persons using the hospital. • 2 The ofd ski museum location was discussed, with Chuck suggesting an artwork be placed on that site. Kathy believed the intersection at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive should be softened, perhaps by curving the angles. Moving to the Crossroads area of East Meadow Drive sub-area, Diana felt there was a real problem with so many posts in the area, and an attempt to include lighting within the planters should be utilized to eliminate some of the posts. The area on Willow Bridge Road where it was proposed to become a one-way street was discussed. Kathy believed that a landscape feature should be added to delineate the change from atwo-way street to one-way. Diana was concerned with the radius of the Crossroads Circle turnaround, and suggested that some of the larger trucks may not have enough turnaround room. The next sub-area to be discussed was the area around the Transportation Center. Kathy strongly questioned the absence of a sidewalk along the north side of East Meadow Drive, as she felt one was needed adjacent to the Transportation Center. On the west end. of the Transportation Center, the crosswalks also needed softening, similar to what was proposed at Vail Road. Jim and Diana believed the area in front of the 5onnenalp Austria Haus should be restudied. Diana was concerned that the plaza area in front of the Transportation Center had turned into a very large expanse. Chuck was concerned with where a skier drop-off could be located. He said there was no current drop-off area, and Diana concurred with that assessment for the Village area. Diana did not believe the sidewalk an the west side of Village Center Drive was necessary. Mike said it could be a low priority, depending on what occurred on the South side of the Frontage Road. The Children's Fountain was the next area to be discussed. Diana said that the footings for all of the statues in the center of the fountain were unsafe and should be removed. She also stated the wall should be removed to make the fountain more open and inviting. Kathy agreed with Diana's assessment. Seibert Circle was discussed, with Diana believing a large tree should be maintained in the circle, as it was traditional. Shrub landscaping was not enough for this area, and she believed the plan should specifically call out for a large evergreen tree within the circle. Diana suggested screening the alley behind the Clock Tower (east of Gorsuch Building). Chuck believed the south end of Wall Street would be an appropriate location for artwork. Kristan suggested researching the easement adjacent to the Rucksack to determine if it had public or private ownership, and to determine if it could be an access from Bridge Street into . • , the Miil Creek Park. Diana was concerned with the steps leading up to the Lodge Promenade, suggesting they be heated. The East Village area was next discussed, with Diana expressing concern about the entry to Roger Staub park, stating it should be made more to look like a park entry. Jim #hought there might be a possibility ofi a meandering-type walk through the park, and suggested removing the fence adjacent to the street to make it more accessible. Kathy believed both summer and winter visitors should be addressed. She believed both pedestrian paths to Golden Peak should be maintained. She also mentioned that, on page $2, the south path needed to be changed to the north path. On the top of page $4, the seating area proposed for Mill Creek Court should be removed, and West Gore Creek Drive needed to be relabeled as East Gore Creek Drive in that area. Kathy mentioned that the entrance to Ford Park in front of Manor Vail needed an entry feature on Vail Valley Drive to help people become aware of the entrance. Diana suggested winter seating in the Village area. Kathy recommended boulder or stone seating, and disagreed with the statement discouraging caps on the walls, believing it should be dependant an the specific treatment. Ludwig Kurz agreed that statement was too generalized. Jim suggested evaluating stone walls on a case-by-case basis. Kathy asked that the types of rock walls should be addressed. Diana agreed, adding that pavers and benches should not all be the same, but similar materials for continuity be used, but allowing for variety. Continuing the streetscape discussion during the PEC meeting, the Commission discussed the concepts for the design. Gena Whitten expressed her overall concern about the area in front of the SonnenalplAustria Haus. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned that the Master Plan showed preference for a sidewalk on one side of East Meadow Drive. Gena continued her comments by commenting on Roger Staub park, believing a gate could be used to open up the park. Diana disagreed, stating that Roger Staub was a simple man, and the park should reflect that. Chuck Crist wanted to express his belief that it was not necessary to have absolute continuity throughout the plan, but that similar materials should be used throughout. He did not feel the benches were appropriate, as they appeared to be too Victorian, and he preferred a more alpine treatment. He suggested considering the benches in the context where they would be used. Kristan suggested thinking of why the bench was needed in a particular place, and that should help determine the design. Diana Donovan was concerned about the benches, stating they appeared to need a great deal of maintenance. • a Kathy was interested in investigating using stone or other materials for benches as an artistic statement. She believed an option should be made available for other types of benches. Diana believed that natural seating should be utilized. Jim Shearer was concerned that a delineation between pedestrians and automobiles occur when bath areas were at the same grade. He suggested running a "double soldier's course." Diana was concerned with the abundance of pavers, and suggested looking at the costs. Kathy suggested constructing the bus lane out of asphalt along the south side of the Transportation Center. Discussion ensued about excluding pavers in certain areas. Mike suggested having an option for pavers vs. asphalt in other areas as well. Diana reiterated the need for landscaping at the fire station on West Meadow Drive. Jim suggested installing a planter along the east side of the Village fire station to buffer the parking. This could diminish and screen some of the asphalt and cars in the station area. Jim also suggested encouraging private galleries to display art. After a discussion regarding logistics, Kathy suggested referencing the Art in Public Places Master Plan. On page 54, the streamwalk was not mentioned, and Kathy asked it be discussed in conjunction with the pedestrian bridge. She also felt Slifer Plaza should be examined, with the possibility of the rock walls being removed from the fountain in order to restore it to its original condition. Page 98, the section on the wails, Kathy said wall caps should not be discouraged, and the use of large boulders placed at the end of walls should not be encouraged, and the document should speak of variety. She did not like the statement that the walls should not be geometric, but free-form, stating that was too broad. On page 112, the focal points should start with the Children's Fountain, and Slifer Plaza should be added. Kathy commented that, on page 113, the existing paragraphs should be combined. On page 114, there was a spacing problem and typo. Kathy mentioned looking into the possibility of Seibert Circle becoming a performance space. Diana believed the master plan should include an information kiosk which explains in "English" the regulations for bikes, leash laws, etc. She also mentioned the concern regarding signs, believing there should be less signage. A discussion took place regarding signage. She mentioned closing Chalet Road immediately across firom Golden Peak where the ski instructors park, suggesting making a pocket park of the space. Diana expressed a need for safety railing along portions of the stream walk. Kathy disagreed, stating that if a railing were necessary, a stream walk should not be constructed in that location. However, the overall consensus was in favor of a natural railing which followed the steeper banks of the stream walk. • , • A discussion took place concerning the vehicular speed along Vail Valley Drive. It was suggested that signage or a speed bump might decrease the speed. However, it was believed that narrowing the road or introducing a cross walk in the area would also slow down vehicles. Discussion took place regarding the Town reclaiming the land in front of the Sonnenalp Austria Haus and having sidewalks on both sides of East Meadow Drive. It was agreed the Master Plan should reflect those recommendations. At the conclusion of the site visits, the public hearing was convened at 2:25PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. Discussion of U.S. Forest Service oil and pas leases within the White River National Forest. Applicant: Bill WoodlRich Phelps Planner: Mike Monica Mike Monica introduced Rich Phelps from the U.S. Forest Service. Rich indicated this worksession had been requested because the Commission was identified as a key contact in the planning process. Chuck Crist asked if the leasing process could be stopped. Mike said it was a public hearing process, and changes could be made. Rich agreed, stating the process could be influenced, but not necessarily stopped. Rich explained that an ail and gas leasing analysis was required for public lands. If an application to drill was received on a part of the lands identified for leasing, asite-specific analysis would be performed. The overall analysis had two purposes. The first was to identify available lands for exploration and drilling, and under what circumstances those lands would be available. The second step was to determine what lands would be authorized for exploration and development. At this time, Rich believed approximately 5 wells could be anticipated in the Vail/Avon area. He said these would be "wildcat" type wells.. With current economic conditions, Rich did not believe there was a high likelihood of development at this time. Kathy Langenwalter asked how the sites were determined. Rich answered the Forest Service identified general areas, an applicant could lease a particular tract for surtace exploration, and if oil was detected, asite-specific application for a well could be made. - Gena Whitten wondered if the available tracts would overlap the lands Vail Associates leased for ski operations. Rich said the recommendation was there be no surtace overlap of leases, and if an applicant wished to drill under those lands, it would have to be done from an adjacent parcel. Mike questioned the length of time the wells would remain. Rich answered it would depend on the area, but the facilities for drilling and pumping could be almost invisible. He joked that the "dinosaurs" could be made in the shape of skiers. • s Jim Shearer asked if the Forest Service was in #avor of these drilling activities. Rich said it was a definite income producer, but the local district was not necessarily a proponent of drilling. Jim explained it was his experience that, during servicing of the rigs, oil could begin #o flow in significant amoun#s. There was potential for the operation to "blow" as wep. He was seriously concerned about the potential impacts such leases could have, both visually and environmentally, to the Valley. He cau#ioned the Forest Service and the Commission to be very careful with such leases. Rich informed the Commissioners there were some federal limitations restricting drilling operations, especially with regard to population centers, wetlands, etc. He said there were 8 existing leases in Eagle County, north of Avon. Kathy asked how long a lease ran. Rich was oat sure. He said it was a negotiable item. Ka#hy also questioned if exploration were not successful, was the lessee required to return the area to a natural state. Rich indicated one of the lease requirements was a performance bond for that eventuality. Jim Shearer asked if drilling could occur on private mining claims in the county. Rich said the mining claims were specific as to mineral, with oil and gas precluded. Gena asked if a specific regulation could be implemented to ensure any drilling operations would be a certain distance from the ski area. Rich said the district had looked into that option, but had decided not to include it. However, certain distances could be recommended, with the political implications helping to ensure little ar no drilling in the area. Chuck Crist asked what definition of ski area was used to determine the area where no overlapping surface leases could occur. Joe Macy, Manager of Mountain Operations for Vail Associates, said it was the existing ski area, with the potential, approved expansion, as indicated in the Forest Service special use permit. Chuck was cvncerned more with potential roads associated with drilling operations than with the wells #hemselves. Diana Donovan requested that "over ridge" boundaries from Vail be established to ensure no drilling would take place in the valley. Rich agreed that visual sensitivity in areas such as Spraddle Creek and Piney Lake were concerns of the Forest Service as well. Jim asked if wildlife breeding and calving areas were also taken into consideration when lease areas were determined. Rich said they were identified, and the Forest Service was still developing a list of the issues and concerns with ceases in the area. Kathy asked if there was noise associated with the well operations. Rich said most of it would be generated during maintenance, but it would be pretty limited. Jim disagreed, stating if there was no electricity on the site, there would be a distinct popping noise. Kathy also inquired if lighting would be used. Rich said it would only be used while drilling. 7 Jim believed lighting up the forest like an oil rig was a significant concern. Ludwig Kurz asked if the Forest Service list of concerns was public. Rich indicated it was only a draft at the current time, but it would be public when completed. Joe Macy indicated his support of a ridge-to-ridge ban on drilling, since the valley had a recreationally-based economy, and the sight of oil wells was a detraction. The Gomrnission discussed possible by-products of drilling activities, Kathy asked if the leaseholder could or would fence the area around a well. Rich answered it was handled on a case-by-case request. However, if the site was hazardous, the Forest Service would require fencing. Jim asked where the monies from the leasing activities would go. Rich said 25% was returned to the area, with the remainder going into the general treasury. 2. A reauest for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Center Buildina, to allow an exterior balconv to be enclosed. Unit 312, 520 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5. Block 1. Vail Lionshead First Fiiina. Applicant: Celia Teuscher Planner: Andv Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions listed in their memo. Diana Donovan asked if all the balcony enclosures were to be done in the same manner. Andy indicated they were. Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Center Building, to allow an exterior balcony to be enclosed, Unit 312, 520 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing per the staff memo with the conditions as listed in the memo, with a par#icular emphasis that the aspen cluster recommended be planted. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6-0. 3. A reauest to amend Chapter 18.30 - Heavv Service. Section 18.30.030 -Conditional Uses of the Town of Vail Zonina Code. in order to allow seasonal sale of plant material as a conditional use. Applicant: Richard Dillina/West Vail Texaco Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the requested zoning code amendment, indicating staff believed a recommendation to Town Council to approve the amendment was appropriate. She explained this zoning code amendment was proposed by Richard Dining of West Vail Texaco. 1f this zoning code amendment is approved by ordinance, Mr. Dining will be before the PEC on November 25th for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the sale of Christmas trees and wreaths at the West Vaii Texaco from November 26 to December 25. • e Jim Shearer asked for the definition of plant material. Kristan said it was normal plant items, including fertilizer and associated items. Jim thought chemicals should be excluded from sale, as he did not believe the drainage on the site was adequate. Kathy Langenwalter wondered if the bedding plant business which operates on the West Vail Texaco property during the Spring would require a conditional use permit. Kristan explained the bedding plant outlet was a legal, non-conforming use, as the use was in place when the area was annexed by the Town. However, if the bedding plant outlet sales discontinued for more #han one year, the businesses legal, non-conforming use status would terminate. Kathy hypothesized that the term "seasonal" could result in full-year operations on the site, as there could be spring "season", summer "season", fall "season" and winter "season". Jill indicated the period of time during which a business operated could be regulated through the conditional use permit process. Kristan added that a time limitation could be placed an the conditional use permit. Kathy encouraged such limitation, commenting the "seasonal" sales in Eagle-Vail were not attractive, Kathy further wanted to insure any fencing in conjunction with such a conditional use permit was proper. Kristan reminded the Commission an applicant would have to come before the PEC to obtain a conditional use permit approval and DRB approval before a use was allowed. Ned Gwathmey, who owns property adjacent to the West Vail Texaco (Wendy's), complained about the gasoline stations current practice of storing junk vehicles on the western edge of the property. He advocated amending the code to allow seasonal plant sales on the West Vail Texaco site, saying Christmas trees were better than junk cars. Chuck Crist asked if apples could be sold in the fall. He also wondered if the area could be required to be cleaned up as part of the conditional use permit. Diana Donovan suggested a time limit for the conditional use, advocating 45-60 days, with a condition any structure on the site be removed after that time period. Kristan said it would be possible to limit the conditional use permit to a specific time period, but that the applicant would be able to apply for another permit. She also suggested a time limitation be included in the definition of "seasona! plant material," and further the de#inition include specific types of plant materials (i.e., Christmas trees, seasonal plants} which could be sold. Jim asked that bulk chemical sales in quantities greater than 25 pounds be prohibited as well, and the Design Review Board could look at the entire property during their review. The consensus of the Commission was to limit the seasonal sale of plant material to a period of not greater than 60 days. Any conditional use permit will be granted to the owner of the property on which the business will be located. Therefore the property owner will be responsible for the seasonal business placed on his property. Kathy Langenwalter mowed to recommend approval of the request to amend Chapter 18.30 - Heavy Service, Section 18.30.030 -Conditional Uses of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, in order to allow seasonal sale of plant material as a conditional use with the stipulation that a definition of "seasonal plant sales" be added to the Code, including the provision a business 9 can operate a maximum of 60 consecutive days per year and that there be no more than 2 conditional use permits allowed per property per year. Further, the sale of bulk fertilizer or chemical materials in quantities exceeding 25 pounds shall not be allowed. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6-0. After the vote, a discussion took place regarding limiting what may be sold in con}unction with a seasonal sale of plant material conditional use permit. The Commission asked staff to specify Christmas plant material and growing plants. 4. A reauest for a minor subdivision and major amendment to Millrace IV- Special Development District No. 4. Cascade Village, to approve a development plan, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort. Vail. and more specifically described as follows: A part of the 5W i/a NE 1/a, Section 12. Township 5 S, Range 81 W of the 6th principal meridian, Countv of Eagle. State of Colorado. described as follows: Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 42°50'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S 85°43`14" E 89.84 ft: thence S 57°25'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S 32°59'30" E 14i .47 ft: thence S 65°31'36" W 95.04 ft: thence S 69°01'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23°24'09" W 319A9 ft to the point of beainninc~ Applicant: East-West Partners Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello presented the issues and staff concerns. Staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions listed in their memo, dated October 28, 1991. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicants, believed that the original landscaping and pedestrian connection proposed for the area between the Westin and Millrace was never completed. He referred to the letter from Kevin McTavish, stating it seemed to encourage a concerted landscaping effort. He said he would work with the Millrace Homeowners to determine an appropriate plan. Responding to a question, Kristan Pritz was not sure what water feature was referenced. Shelly indicated the water feature may have been part of the scenarios which were not constructed. Diana Donovan indicated the need to tie up the loose ends regarding landscaping in this area. Shelly agreed, but said this was an issue between different property owners, and the Commission should not require the developer of the Cosgrifif parcel as part of this application to perform improvements. She also related that Kevin's main concern had been with guest parking and landscaping on the Cosgriff parcel. Ned introduced Jerry Mulliken, representing Commercial Federal Bank and Mark Smith, a co- applicant, of East-West Partners. He indicated the applicants agreed with the points outlined in staff's memo. However, he requested that for item 5, regarding landscaping along the • 10 Frontage Road, other options be considered. He did not want the applicants to promise something which may not be able to be delivered. Kristan responded that if the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOHj did not approve the additional landscaping, then 10 evergreens (6-10 feet] would be installed south of the Westhaven Apartment foundations. Shelly added that if the CDOH approved only a part of the landscaping on the Frontage Road, then 10 trees would also be required to be installed at Westhaven. Ned agreed to coordinate the specific number and location of the trees with the Town. Shelly volunteered staff's efforts to help coordinate the approval process with CDOH. Jim Shearer asked what Kevin McTavish was wanting performed. Ned believed, based on conversations he had with Kevin, that the main concern was that there be a treatment on the corner between the Cosgriff parcel and Millrace. Shelly proposed that, when the application came before the Design Review Board, a joint landscaping plan would be required at that point. Mark Smith had difficulty with that provision, stating that the bank could not be responsible for a property owned by another party, and that condition was not practical. Kristan said staff would try to get together with Kevin before the ordinance was finalized. Jim questioned if it would be a problem to abtain the necessary easement from the Westin. Jerry Mulliken indicated it probably would not, but he did not know a# that time. Ludwig Kurz asked if there were any setback encroachments associated with the project. Shelly answered the only encroachment was for roof overhangs, as they were less than 60 feet from the Westin. Ludwig also wondered if the grade would be raised far the units. Ned said it would be raised approximately 2 feet. Shelley elaborated that the roof ridge would be changed if necessary. Shelly asked if the Commissioners wanted the ordinance to call out the specific GRFA for the project, and if stairs and mechanical should be counted or given the set credit. Kathy asked that the current GRFA definitions be used, with no credits given except for the 300 sq, ft. for each enclosed garage space. After a discussion of the landscaping, Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a minor subdivision to Millrace IV -Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, and more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW'/a NE ~/a, Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W ofi the 6th principal meridian, County of t=ogle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 42°50'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S 85°43'14" E 89.84 ft: thence S 57°25'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S 32°59'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S 65°31'36" W 95.04 ft: thence S 69°01'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23°24'09" W 319.09 ft to the paint of beginning. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was approved by a vote of 6-0. it Kathy Langenwalter moved to recommend approval of the request for a major amendment to Millrace IV- Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to approve a development plan, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, more specifically described above, per staff's memo, and with the following changes to the conditions of approval: 1. If the CDOH did not approve additional landscaping along the South Frontage Road, that a maximum of i 0 would be planted on the Westhaven Apartment parcel; 2. The south and west property lines be better buffered, a water feature be investigated, and the north and west be looked at and reviewed by the Design Review Board for additional landscaping; 3. Staff revise the GRFA figures to reflect use of the current definition of GRFA, with credits for garages only. ,lira Shearer seconded the motion. It unanimously passed, 6-0. 5. A reauest for a wall heiaht variance for the Chester Residence. Lot 19. Block i . Vail Village 1st Filing/395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz This item was tabled to November 11, 1991 per the request of the applicant. 6. A reauest to extend for one year the October 22. 1990 PEC site coverage variance to allow construction of a 60 sauare foot airlock at the Szechwan Lion Restaurant. 304 Bridge StreetlLot H, Block 5A. Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: John S. HolSzechwan Lion Planner: Jill Kammerer Jim Shearer moved to extend for one year the October 22, 1990 PEC site coverage variance to allow construction of a 60 square foot airlock at the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, 304 Bridge StreetlLot H, Block 5A, Vail ViAage First Filing, per staff's memo. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0-1, with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining as she represented the applicant. In the interest of time, item 11 was next considered. 11. Review of a minor modification to the previously approved wall heiaht variance for the Samuels Residence. located on Lot 11-8. Block 7, Vail Village First Filingl224 f=orest Road. Applicant: Bernard SamueislKathv Langenwalter Planner: Mike Mollica Kathy Langenwalter explained the changes, and indicated the change was due to a minor topographical discrepancy. She stated there would be no more than a 18-inch modification. The Commission unanimously upheld staff's approval of the modification. 12 13. Approval of mina#es from September 23. 1991 meetina. Jim Shearer moved to approve the minutes as presented. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was approved 3-0-3, with the abstentions due to the members being absen# for the meeting in question. 14. Approval of minutes from October 14. 1991 meetina. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the minutes as printed. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6-t). 9. Review of proposed Eaale County fireplace c~olicies. Planner: Kristan Pritz The letter was presented by staff, and unanimously approved with changes noted by staff, that the policy apply to parcels ofi 5 acres or less. 10. Review of Homestake ll letter to Eaale County. Planner: Kristan Pritx Kristan Pritz informed the Commissioners of the status of the Homestake I! process. After a brief recess, the Commission reconvened to consider the fallowing. 7. Review of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan far formal recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Plan addresses the aeneral area from E. Lionshead Cir. to Ford Park. and includes W. Meadow Dr.. E. Meadow Dr., Willow Bridae Rd.. Gore Creek Dr.. Vail Vailev Dr., Bridae St., and Hanson Ranch Rd. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Moilica Kathy Langenwalter moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the Streetscape Master Plan. The Master Plan addresses the genera! area from E. Lionshead Cir. to Ford Park, and includes W. Meadow Dr., E. Meadow Dr., Wiiiow Bridge Rd., Gore Creek Dr., Vail Valley Dr., Bridge St., and Hanson Ranch Rd. The motion was conditioned upon all of the comments made during the site visit and public hearing be included. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 13 ', ~°""' '"~ ~~~'~ SAP 2 6 X991 ~U~S ~r+txr a.cnc 1 ~ L FOREST GIL WHITE RIVER NATIQNA AND GAS LEASING ANALYSIS • NOTE FROM FOREST SUPERVISOR TOM HOOTS As part of the continuing Forest planning process, the White River National Forest and the Dillon Ranger District of the Arapaho National Forest are beginning a process to review the suitability, potential, and availability of National Forest System lands for lease far the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. This analysis and determination of availability is provided for by the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act. Lands which are legally withdrawn, such as wilderness areas, will not be included in this review. Leasing far oil and gas is a valid use of public lands as authorized in the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act and other related law. We recognize that it is difficuEt in decisions such as this to find the proper balance between the esthetic and natural values of the White River National Forest and the potential disturbance created by oil and gas production. We hope you will loin with us in finding that balance. Enclosed is mare detailed information on why we are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. We invite you to participate in our study and to send us any issues you fee! we should address in our analysis process. WHY ARE WE REVIEWING OIL AND GAS LEASING? We are reviewing oil and gas leasing by prepar- ing aleasing analysis and Environmental Impact Statement to comply with the 1987 Federal On- shore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act. The Leas- ing Reform Act made significant Changes in the way #easing decisions are reached, The Act ex- panded the role of the Secretary of Agriculture in the leasing decision process, The Forest Service was authorized to identify National Forest System [ands for which leases could be sold, Prior to the Act, the Bureau of Land Management was re- sponsiblefor authorizing the sale of leases for a!I available federal land. The Environmental Impact Statement will rescind the Forest oii and gas leasing suspension. Oil and gas leasing was suspended on the Forest in 1988 after a regional review concluded that the White River Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) inadequately addressed the environmental effects from oil and gas leasing. The Forest Service leasing decision is based on an environmental analysis in accord with the re- quirements of the National Environmental Policy Act that includes stipulations needed to protect the environment. Over a two year period the Forest Service devel- oped implementing regulations which describe the requirements of the leasing analysis. The {easing analysis is a'Forest-wide" rather than a 'site-specific" or "project" level activity, ~q '•t- ' a~~ ,i Ate. .,~II 'S~ • Y U WHAT DECISIONS WILL BE MADE? The [easing decision itself is constructed in twa parts. First, the Forest Supervisor will identity which lands will be administratively available for leasing and stipu- lations that must be applied to protect surface re- sources. This decision enables the public to know which National Forest System lands may be available now or in the future for leasing, and under what cir- cumstances. In the second part the Forest Service makes deci- sions to authorize leases on individuaE, specified ar- eas of land where environmental effects from oil and gas activities have been found acceptable. Both decisions will be made in the Record of Decision that will accompany the final Environmental Impact Statement. The Environmental Impact Statement will result in an amendment to the Forest Flan. White River National Forest This map indicates areas where potential development is projected. Areas of Potential pevelopment I'/ / /~ - ardoad 8uta,~as purl pun~.ayfi .~o~ 8ur,~nJ e L59I$ 00 'II5'A Q2i ~OHI,H02i,3 S S L SdI'IZIHd N02i ~H~I,'d 'ILIA 30 t3MOZ X09 L8 00 `sBul~dS poonnuel0 8bB Xot3 'O 'd 'l~ue~0 ~ tlt6 1S3aD~ 'tbNOIItIN d3Ald 311HM WE NEED YOUR ASSiSTANCEI The White River National Forest invites you to partici- pate in this oil and gas leasing Environmental Impact Statement. Send any issues you feel we should address in our analysis process to Oil & Gas Coordinator, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 948, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602. If you wish to remain on our mailing list, please mail the enclosed self-addressed postcard back to us. STEPS IN THE EIS PROCESS: November 15, 1991 -end of comment period. March 1992 -draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS} will be released. April-May 1992 -draft EIS public review and comment period. . September 1992 -final EIS and Record of Decision will be released. For further .nformation contact: Meg l.Indsey, White River National Forest, Supervisor`s Office, 9th and Grand, P.O. Box 948, Glenwood Springs CO 81602, {303) 945-2521 or your local Ranger District Office: Aspen RD, Aspen - (303) 925-3445 Blanco RD, Meeker - (303} 878-4039 Dillon RD, Silvertharne - (303} 468-5400 Eagle RD, Eagle - {303) 328-6388 Holy Cross RD, Minturn - (303} 827-5715 Rifle RD, Rifle - {303) 625-2371 Sopris RD, Carbondale - (303) 963-2266 y -, Y '~ ~ ~ r ~' t ~ ..i .!'i~ ~. [i ~k~?~ YI t X51. .. ,~ ~ ~4 l ~.~ '~;~ j .. 5.1',4 •' ~. ~ '~ .~ _ '.f 3~ 4.~ ',II, tt, ~.~~YSi f.'. { I ~~~. +4` t l `~ ! .',~ S 'mss - Y, f yl~ r \ ~ I ~ It 1~~^.S ~f'~~ .- ~fl~e ~ 1. . YrU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1991-893254 • forest Sei'"~i.ce O~.cials lOOking into ~ local oil and gas leasing regulations By SCOTT N. MILLER District Ranger Bill Wood wanted to give the Vai] Town Council plenty of warning about oil and gas leasing in the area, possibly inciuding Vail. Wood addressed the coun- cil's Tuesday afternoon meet- ing and announced that White River National Forest adminis- trators are working on an envi- ronmental impact statement for possible oii and gas leasing on forest land. Although the environmental , impact statement will not be finished far at least a year, Wood said public input is essential to the process, and the 1•'orest Service is seeking com- ments as early in the process as possible. The first public comment period will run between Oct. 1 and Nov.15. Even after the statement is final, Wood stressed that local oil and gas exploration is "way down the road:' ~. Wood said that a recent fed-~ eral ail and gas exploration act mandates that al] federal lands . must be reviewed for possible - energy exploration. - ~ ~ - Decisions will be made about which lands are available for leasing and what stipulations for environmental protection will be required. Bureau of Land Manage- ment geologists have identified the area immediately around Vail as a "potential" develop- ment area, with "reasonably expected" development in the Piney River and Derby Creek areas. Wood said several wells are expected in the Meeker and Rifle areas. Specific areas of explorationha~e yet to be identified, Specific areas of exploration have yet to be identified, Wood said later. "The entire national forest is being evaluated for available lands .right now," he said. "Then those available lands will be evaluated." At this point in the process, all forest lands (except wilder- Hess areas) are on the table. j The EI$ process will then cull out different areas; what's left will be available for oil and gas f leasing. Wood stressed that although Vail Associates' special use permit was non-exclusive and ; conceivably could be opened to ! exploration, there is little pos- sibility of Vail ending up look- ing like a West Texas oil field. ~ "A lease is like. a water right," he said. "It only gives the op-' portunity to explore. There's a lot of Forest Service oversight', and control. If, arid I stress if, we make Vail Mountain avail- able, we can provide stipul~- bons on how drilling is done." The power of the Forest Service in oii exploration is al- # most absolute, Wood said. The 4 service can require extensive reclamation, dictate drilling methods, ar flat-out deny a • permit, he said. , ' Through Wood's presents- . tion, council members were primarily content to listen. However, council member Jim Gibson asked Wood to . "remember what the .forests are for" while writing the. statement. ~ .. ~~;1 T',eA; c • n LJ L~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Center Building, Unit 312, 520 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Celia Teuscher Planner: Andy Knudtsen ~~5' ,~•~ ~ ~'' ~f,~~,~`,'~~ oi8k:~~~' ~~ ~~' ,'~g~` r. ~~`~`%~~i`r ` a ~ ?r/~ '° ~ .. r n ~ l1 °~ s~ ~ ~4 ,4.' ~~`, ~~...1/ ' fM' ~ F ~`~56. fir: ~~~} ~~~~ QI ~ ~~~ f • '. f~; ~. Q. ! 1 Y/.+.~ it r~Q ~iPW.}/•~~, lrr:'~r ~~~ f4 ' ;~ . ..~ ~~Lr'fs~ 'Y W 4 -! Il •' .!~ {{r,, qr 1i'1-.,~xorr~2r./~~r.~'{°.:sia~=' a~<6,7G.`.'~ ~.X.':u<e!i:~:o;~a~ i~ N':c:~c:;£>,':R.~<f°r~:...~i.°.'e:.;.!;f.~o;?as{n,~9f,:u .fn~ -e`? .~" ~:v.a&!`' ., .uG~S.,rfAi}.r,ec~fNx .as~ }° ,o.'?~~ I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Celia Teuscher, is proposing to enclose an existing exterior deck adjacent to her condominium in the Lionshead Center building. This building has commercial area on the first floor and dwelling units on the second and third floors. On the north side of the structure, facing the Lionshead Mall, are eight dwelling units. Originally, each unit had an exterior deck. At this time, half of them have been enclosed. The applicant is proposing to enclose her deck to match the other four. The deck area is 91 sq. ft. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Commercial Core II RequiredlAllowed Proposed CCII Existinct Addition Height: 48 ft. for a sloping 46 feet 33 feet roof Setbacks North: 10 #eet 11 feet 11 feet East: 10 feet 35 feet 121 feet West: 10 feet 5 feet 157 feet South: 10 feet 13 feet 9$ #eet Site Coverage: 70% No change No change Landscaping: GRFA: 20% 32,155 sq. ft. No change 29,333 sq. ft. No change 91 sq. ft. If this addition is approved, the building will have a total of 29,424 sq. ft. of GRFA. It will have 2,731 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining for future development. 1 Parking: The existing dwelling unit is 1,178.7 sq. ft. As the additional 91 sq. ft. makes the dwelling unit a total of 1,269 sq. ft., there is no change in the parking requirement. III. 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 II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate si#e development standards. Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the Purpose section for this zone district. The use is specifically provided for in the purpose section. As this request is an expansion to an existing dwelling unit, staff has determined that the proposal meets ail the development standards of the zone district, as shown in the section above. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD . The subarea concepts which are in the vicinity of the Lionshead Center Building are: Concept 11: "Commercial expansion (one story) to increase pedestrian emphasis, scale of mall, and to improve shade-zone facades and accessibility." Concept 12: "Opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades, awnings, etc., to improve scale, shelter, appearance of commercial facades." These two subarea concepts are the only ones located in the vicinity of the Lionshead Center Mall. Staff believes they are directed more toward commercial expansions and proposals for the first floor, adjacent to the pedestrian area. Staff believes that since this proposal is to enclose an existing deck with defined walls and a defined roof, that the change to the building will not affect, positively or negatively, subarea concepts 11 and 12. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD A. Height and Massing: The massing of the Lionshead Center Building will not change as a result of this project. The roof form and the wall locations will not be affected, and as a result, the height and massing of the building will remain the same. • 2 • B. Roofs: The roof over the deck will remain the same. C. Facades - WaIIslStructures: Section C-1 of the Urban Design Guidelines, states that: "concrete, concrete block, glass, metals, stucco and wood are the primary materials to be encouraged in Lionshead." As glass will be the only material used to enclose the deck, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the guideline. D. Facades -Transparency: This section pertains more directly to ground floor commercial projects and doss not directly relate to this proposal. E. Decks and Patios: The guidelines strongly encourage open decks and patios for dining. Again, discussion of decks above the pedestrian level for residential use ors not specifically discussed. 1=. Accent Elements: . Not applicable to this proposal. G. landscape Elements: Staff believes that the applicant should provide some landscaping in the area of the deck enclosure to soften the building`s facade. Staff looked at several locations for additional landscaping and believes that the best location is in an area which is presently sodded on the northeast corner of the building. Staff looked into options for using tree grates, but because the trees would not be tied into a larger landscaping island, staff decided against recommending that idea. The northeast corner of the building does have other landscaping around it; however, there is a blank section of the building which could benefit from some screening. Staff is recommending that the applicant plant an aspen cluster with at least three 2-inch caliper trunks in front of this blank section of wall. H. Service and Delivery: Not applicable to this proposal. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration with the condition that, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant plant an aspen cluster, with at least three 2-inch caliper trunks, at the northeast corner of the building. In general, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the improvements made to other decks on this building in the past. Staff believes it is consistent with the Purpose for the Commercial Core ii zone district, with the Urban Design Guide Pian for Lionshead, as well as with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead. c;lpealmemoslteuscher.028 • 4 • M rr V J '~~ V •~ a ~ ~, c j ~'~~ i~, ~ ~ ~ . * y'i ;' r Q~ V] t,1 '-~ '~ '~ 4) e"'1 •~ ~. .~i{ ~ ,.__ w• j• O '- ~, o ~~ N ~ C'~ ~~ n O (D :- ~~: '~ Y ~' ~ Jl, r+ V] r-+ W ~. ~+ I . \ J ~~ T~~/~ V/ ,~~ ~ ~ ' 1 i ~t . ~ i ~ t . , , . ; MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Jill Kammerer, Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.30 -Heavy Service, Section 18.30.030 - Conditional Uses, in order to allow seasonal sales of plant material as a conditional use. Applicant: Richard Dilling/UVest Vail Texaco ~-y'L',rA~•'O`c%h?~I.~'?'. t+ :-F:.~: ~F£w4c aac,.rfi'a;.r:~;ci~6': r/.'oFec„~•~yo..•.•y;'$v r~:•yia/~L9f' - ~v'.~~%' 4~.~ ~ • ~ x' r`6,o'~J r`~°i'~'t .y.: . c2~77F!<1,~,.~~ f~ot¢E~. al~~}. ~,tf-~%~'.o','Atws?,rtv/~'fir.'c*.fW~oo-~ ~~~~}~iy. f& ~rF"~`°'o~ r+~~~C~`~ ~ ;f•'~';,Q~'~~4 A r~o~, ~o~a ~y, .::y. ~.~•3,:•~. ~,~ufo. ^ F$ ~. ~Y~ dfi o~oi'~.v'h'::s:' .~+rF e~Ay4. o.?~ a ,e~3a:o r}~I,'-"'•9~~~ ,Y¢ •dc 7 4 ~oa $ {A J !Y%~~i~`' inn`Y/:.kiet~~fi~b~n~~~,i~v''`S'afi ~}x$9~t~~~i~9r~r~it+:•~ ~i r $7~~~'~ a~,i0;h~~~'~~fk~vrNa~..%~~.~s~.a~~~~T~.~..i.~9r~~e'~"~.~.:e~iA`~~~ ,C..:G::::.:.s:r .._w.w,:...,,....+k:S~:.~3'..& :C:.~d.,c;.....::::::::,-:...:A..,n/.~..o. b.:.Rr.R?F.a-n. ~1i.6~ INTRODUCTION The Town staff is recommending the Heavy Service zone district be amended to allow for the sale of seasonal plant material as a conditional use. II. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST In February, 1987, an application was filed with the Town of Vail for a conditional use permit to allow the sale of bedding plant material at the West Vail Texaco site which is zoned Heavy Service, from Memorial Day weekend until the i=ourth of July weekend. This bedding plant material outlet was #irst permitted within the jurisdiction of Eagle County in 1986. The use met the Eagle County zoning requirements and was issued a building permit by Eagle County. By the summer of 1987, the subject property had been re-annexed into the Town of Vail. A determination was made by the Town that the bedding plant outlet was a legal, nonconforming use in accordance with the zoning ordinance of the Town, and would therefore be allowed to continue without amending the zoning code to allow for plant sales as a conditional use. The Town of Vail Design Review Board reviewed and approved the bedding plant outlet on April 29, 1987. 111. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST A. Compliance with the purpose of the Heavy Service Zone District. Section 18.30.010, the Purpose section of the Heavy Service zone district reads as follows: • "The heavy service district is intended to provide sites for automotive-oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Because of the nature of the uses permitted and their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating automotive and #ruck traffic, all uses in the heavy service district are subject to the conditional use permit procedure. •~ In granting a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission or the Town Council may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences." It is staff's opinion that the applicants' proposed amendment to the zoning code does not conflict with the purpose section of the Heavy Service Zone District as described above. B, Sultabillty of existing zoning. The following conditional uses are permitted in the Heavy Service zone district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit: ski lifts and tows, accessory dwelling unit for service personnel, animal hospitals and kennels, automotive service stations, building material supply s#ores, business offices, commercial laundry and cleaning services, corporation yards, machine chaps, motor vehicle sales and service, repair garages, repair shops, fire sales and services, trucking terminals and truck service stations, vehicle storage yards, warehouses, woodworking and cabinet shops. The sale of seasonal plant materials is in keeping with the allowed Heavy Service zone district uses listed above. In most instances an individual will drive to the seasonal plant material sales business location, make their purchases, load their purchased material into or onto their vehicle and drive their purchased material home. For this reason staff believes it makes sense to locate these businesses where there is good automobile access. Any use in this zone district must be reviewed by the PEC as a part of any conditional use permit approval. • Staff believes the requested amendment would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone district. C. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives? Staff believes it is reasonable to add seasonal plant material sales as a conditional use in this zone district. Staff believes that with project-specific review through the conditional use permit process, seasonal sale of plant materials can be an appropriate and compatible use in the Heavy Service Zone District. D. Does the amendment provide for the growth of an orderly, viable communlty7 Again, staff believes with adequate and site-specific review of a conditional use permit request, the proposed conditional use will provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. Staff believes this amendment will provide for the beneficial use of the property. IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS AMENDMENT This amendment will take effect following review and approval by the Town Council. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ~ Staff believes the seasonal sale of plant material would be an acceptable conditional use in the Heavy Service zone distric#. The sale of seasonal plant material is an automotive-oriented use. The impact of the sale of seasonal plant materials would be no greater than the impact of the uses which are currently allowed in this zone district. If this zoning amendment request is approved, a conditional use permit application will follow to alfow the seasonal safe of plant materials at the West Vail Texaco. The applicant desires to sell Christmas trees and wreaths at this location for approximately one month (November 24th or so to December 24th. Under the conditional permit review process, the PEC may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district (particularly with regard to signage, lighting, removal of plant material, fencing and the sales office} in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences. clpeclmemoslplants.028 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Cnmrnission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Millrace 1V, to approve a development plan, generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of the Westin Resort, Vail, and more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW '/a NE '/a, Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W of the 6th principal meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 42°50' 19" W 6(9.34 ft: thence S 8S°43' 14" E 89.84 ft: thence S 57°25'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S 32°S9'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S 65°31'36" W 95.04 ft: thence S 69°01'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23°24'09" VV 319A9 ft to the point of beginning. Applicant: East-West Partners Planner: Shelly Mello ,.:rPUr ~ yy ; .~•}.?:E.'"n.:~ ~fi': w: ~:rs~~ ~:1::~.!:u~.~>.aP::y,-4v ~rr""^ r::~, , q.~y:k +.y.;' ":',S+~~ ~~<~r ~ woj~~'o-: sr: `7sa3°~Y.~;~r f?"~ ,.,/:, ~,; •: ~b??`p7' N~ Nr '~;°~;o-m fir ...,,~, ~:a~~~sc-°~ #~~°• ~k~ ~. ~.,. .;gJr.~[~~:.~,rr,:y..,{. #% r:4>w,~~'^~ ~ fi,'o`ffz'f #~~~~v~~eP ~s,:~rvri ~ 'rP ~rfi ekr,.~`Pr'~ ~~~ ~' > *!'' ~ . $~ ~ '` P~kt*.:::~ ~~i'~£. , :~ , i,.:~P'L-` ~ f P~~` r PEF 9;°.P,d~~ry%" ~~ nfno.,~;.f~°t ~:.~.£,'.~.•~"•YV ~Pfy~6~ ~~r. t-~ ~ P• ~!a p ... •pp~£i ,:~..J s~° ~°: a~{f;`'~.SrY~'~~ 2~[0~ r~~ r~~~J:`63~T`~~~~~~`?.°rP.r~~~:.., :.;,.s~ -,~~, a~°~~,~f:olnP •H:-t ~`~. ~~P v~. /:... .. ~.x~ r.,+.u.~:'!-}}'4.4f.P41..'fi.'+~. ... i. 54. ~4*.~r ~ -,. ..Q.}4: iG, ,r:: }: r y:~y 44r{~r 4.~ t~~,~ } 'P•~: rir"frArA'/+fi.*~ S++r ~ ..r>.. ~.4 ..a..::.....{:'n-rrK'rC+G•.;e%~Y.3YeAi~'l•:•i:,F~i:F '.::~PFr$~:vr~i.rnP'x::.... ~f`I.~x4.•.,,..:x°:.-lrrfr:1 ............. Gv S:. ~-rn.{'l,ii4ix:.x:... r..Irr~}~.r. rv4+~4 vE1 fl M'i.~:4.W.~L<`eG./. Pr.2'lhrPn~Pn n{kGPr~:-0E: 1. DESCRtrt iON OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area D to allow 6 dwelling units with a maximum of 9,650 sq. ft. of GRFA on the Cosgriff property, also known as Milkace IV. A minor subdivision has also been requested as part of this proposal. The parcel is bound by the Westin Hotel to the east, Millrace, Phases I, II and III to the north and west and Gore Creek to the south. Currently, an event tent and volleyball court are located on the property and would be removed if this request is approved. The parcel is I.OS acres, or 45,738 sq. ft. and was zoned as an SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. Access to this property is gained through an easement across the existing Millrace project. Originally, this parcel was to be developed with the same design concept as Millrace. The i,~.,~,erty has since changed ownership and the current owner does not wish to continue the Millrace development concept. . ; The applicant is not requesting any additianal density over the two development scenarios originally apt,i.,~+ed for this parcel. The overall GRFA will be 1,550 sq, ft. less than what is currently approved for the 8 D.U. scenario and 4,350 square feet under the approved 32 A.U. scenario. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS • The development plan for this parcel allows for either 8 dwelling units with 11,200 sq. ft. of GRFA or 32 accommodation units with 14,000 sq. ft. of GRFA . The current proposal includes 6 dwelling units with the following; TOTAL No. of Units GRFA* Garage Unit Type A 4 @ 1,Sb7 = 6,268 (4) 1-car (.a7 281 = 1,124 Unit Type B 1 @ 1,700 = 1,700 (1) 2-car @ 423 = 423 Unit Type C 1 @ 1,b$2 = 1,682 {1} 2-car @ 423 = 423 TOTAL: 9,650 1,970 * GRFA calculations exclude overlapping stairs and all mechanical areas. Comparison of Approved and Proposed Development Plans Approved Approved Scenario l Scenario 2 Proposed Density (# of Units) 32 AUs 8 DUs 6 DUs Total GRFA 14,000 11,200 sq. ft. 9,650 sq.ft. Credits (GRFA) None Overlapping stairs Same as Scenario 2 and mechanical not counted; 300 sq. ft. garage credit per parking space (in accordance with previous multi-family GRFA regulations) Height 48 ft. 48 ft. 34 feet max. Setbacks None 60 feet from existing Same as Westin/CMC Bidg.; Scenario 2 50-foot creek setback • Site Coverage 35% 35% 14% or 6,fi00 sq. ft. Landscaping 50% 50% 64% (includes azea extending into Gore Creek; does not include any hazdscape) Parking 26.8 within Cascade 16 spaces 12 required Waterford Structure (75% Enclosed) 19 proposed (8 enclosed or 66%, 11 surface) III. BACKGROUND When the development standards far this parcel were approved, no devel„r..~ent plan for the 8 dwelling unit scenario was submitted. At the time, the staff was concerned with the y~.,YOSed density of 8 units with 11,200 sq. ft. of GRFA. It was aYy..,ved with the understanding that a site specific proposal would be submitted at a later time to determine the feasibility of the scenario. The staff feels that the current proposal, which includes a decrease in GRFA and density is very positive. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this r~.,~,osal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standazds 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. The applicant is proposing 6 dwelling units (2 free standing units and 2 duplexes) with 1- and 2-car garages. The materials and color scheme are similaz to that of Millrace and the Westin. The proposal includes a continuation of the paving application used at the Millrace development. The applicant proposes to use the color scheme and railing design of the Westin for the proposal. The staff finds that the architectural design and site planning treatments are compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposed site plan with detached units and varying orientations, along with the height reduction from 48' to 34', will maintain the views of the surrounding properties. ~ , The project placement will not appear as a "wall of building" from the adjacent recreation path because of the orientation of the units. The staff finds that the recreation path is the only area from which the general public may view the project and it is critical that this elevation be broken up as it is proposed. Retaining walls will be necessary along the entire east property line. Boulders with a stepped planting area are proposed and the overall wall height will be a maximum of 12 feet. The wall is broken down into two 6-foot sections separated by a planting terrace. A portion of the boulder retaining will remain. A portion of the retaining will be necessary in order to provide the 3 proposed guest parking spaces. If this parking were not provided, the maximum wall height could be substantially reduced. Staff finds that, with adjustments in the landscaping plan to provide evergreens in front of the wall and on the first terrace of the wall, the boulder design is acceptable. An easement to allow the grading and retaining on the Westin property will be necessary prior to any DRB app,,., aal. • B. Uses, activity artd density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Y~.,YOSed low density housing use is compatible with the surrounding area and is in keeping with the original approved development scenario. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The total parking requirement for this project is 12 spaces. The proposal includes 8 (or 66% of required] enclosed parking spaces and 8 surface spaces dedicated to the 19 dwelling units and 3 spaces dedicated to guest parking, for a total of 19 proposed spaces. There will be 7 parking spaces provided over the required amount. Each individual dwelling unit will meet its parking requirement of 2 with at least 1 enclosed space. The percentage of enclosed parking is less than what was previously required. The staff feels that, with adequate landscaping, this is a better solution because of the increased mass, which would be necessary to enclose the 1 additional parking space needed to meet the 75% enclosed parking requirement. After discussions with adjacent 1,~.,Yerty owners on the lack of available guest parking, the staff recommends that 2-3 guest parking spaces be provided. The applicant is . providing 3 spaces. Addirional retaining to the east of the guest parking will be necessary in order to accommodate these spaces. Two 6-foot boulder retaining wails with planting incorporated are Y~.,~.osed. With the landscaping adjustments as previously discussed, we feel the impact will be limited. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. There are no elements of the Town Comprehensive Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design Plans applicable to this project. When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of long- and short-term housing. The proposal for 6 dwelling units is in keeping with this development plan and, in staff's opinion, is a more aYy..,Yriate density for this property. The staff requests that the PEC consider requiring 1 caretaker unit for the project. However, this is not a staff requirement for approval of the request, as the project is reducing the number of units and GRFA allowed. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The proposal complies with the Town's floodplain and Gore Creek setback requirements. There are no other hazards on the l,~~t,erty. F. Site plan, building design and location and open spate provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed development is located on the north end of the property away fi.,~~~ the creek. There are eight mature evergreens on the site which are proposed to remain. The staff feels that the preservation of these trees is essential and special care must be taken to insure that they are saved. There is limited existing landscaping on the remainder of the property which includes a few stands of aspen and 3-4 small evergreens. The applicant is proposing 45 new aspen, 11 cottonwood, 5 flowering crabapple and 25 spruce (6-12' in height). The staff finds that the ~,~.,t,osed landscape plan along the north and east property lines provide a sufficient buffer for the adjacent properties. However, we ask that a portion of the proposed landscaping located on top of the berm, to the east of the guest . parking, be relocated to the bottom of the berm to better screen the necessary boulder retaining wails. Should any of the proposed evergreens or retaining walls on the east property line encroach on the Westin's property, aYY~.~va1 of their location by the Westin will be necessary. The staff feels that the landscaping plan should be revised for the areas along the west and south t,~.,t,erty lines in order to create a stronger buffer between the adjacent ~,~.,yerties. The DRB will review this plan and will give further direction to the applicant on this issue. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. A 20-foot roadway with a cul-de-sac at the end will provide access to the units. This ~,~,.YOSaI has been approved by both the Town's Fire Department and Public Works Department. Access easements are provided across the Millrace project for this parcel. Slight adjustments to the legal description of this easement will be necessary in order to obtain proper alignment between the existing roadway on the Millrace property and the proposed roadway for this project. The applicant will be required to record these adjustments with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the release of any building permits for the project. • 10 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimise and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions, The applicant is proposing that the 4 mature evergreens in the area of devel~t,~,~ent remain and the other four adjacent to the creek will be undisturbed. In addition, the staff requests that a revised landscape plan be submitted to the DRB which buffers the project from the recreation path and Millrace devel~t.,.~ent. Views from the surrounding properties will be maintained because of the low base elevation and height of the proposed project in relation to the base grades and heights of the surrounding projects. L Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This request will not affect the phasing plan for this SDD. Because the proposal provides parking on-site, the development of this site will no longer depend on the Cascade/Waterfard parking structure as previously approved in Scenario A. In reviewing this proposal, the staff found that there are deficiencies in landscaping within the boundaries of SDD #4. We find that it is appropriate to require additional . "off-site" improvements with the approval of this project. Upon review, we feel that 15 (6-10') evergreens should be installed by the applicant along the South Frontage Road, adjacent to the north of the Cascade Club building. We feel that this landscaping would benefit the public appearance of the SDD. The staff will coordinate with the Colorado Department of Highways on this issue. We also believe that 5 evergreens should be installed to the south of the Westhaven Apartment foundations (the Ruins). V. MINOR SUBDIVISION The staff has requested that the applicant complete a minor subdivision for this project to clarify the status of the parcel. The Cosgriff parcel is called out in the SDD by legal description. There is no record of the parcel being formally platted, although the boundaries are set by virtue of being surrounded by platted parcels. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that this request to decrease numbers of units, GRFA and site coverage is an appropriate plan far the parcel. The architectural and site elements are compatible with the surrounding area. We find that the amount of landscaping is appropriate, but would request the DRB review the specific locations of the plant materials in order to obtain the maximum amount of screening. Some consideration should be given by the PEC to the provision of 11 restricted employee housing on the property in conjunction with the proposal (i.e., a caretaker apartment}. However, because the proposal does not request additional density or development rights, the staff feels that it is not appropriate to require employee housing as part of the Y~.,YOSed project. The following are conditions applicable to the staff s recommendation of aN~.... gal: i. An easement from the Westin which allows encroachments of grading and boulder retaining walls onto their property must be submitted prior to DRB review. 2. Apt,~.,~al of deck encroachments into the sewer easement from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District prior to DRB approval. 3. Final approval of grading be received from the Town Engineer prior to Design Review Board approval. 4. Adjustments be made to the access easement across the Millrace project and these changes be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to the release of any building permits for this project. 5. 15 {6-10') evergreens be installed along the South Frontage Road adjacent to the Cascade Club building, and 5 (6-10') evergreens be installed to the south of the Westhaven apartment foundations adjacent to Westhaven Drive. CDQH approval will be necessary to install trees along the South Frontage Road. if CDDH a~,~~.,val cannot be obtained, then 10 (~-10'} evergreens should be installed adjacent to the Westhaven Apartments. 6. A minor subdivision plat must be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to the release of any building permits. c:~cc~[nemos~cosgriff.028 • 12 v Q N ~ A h m ~ O U c a c CS ~ ~ m a O Q ~ ~' ~ lL C7 ~ ~ ~ Uf C J F` m o m m O ~ H _N G ~ a ~ N 'C m ~ i17 ~ ~ Q U 7 ~ ~ d ro ii U U ¢ a to a ~ ~ ~- ~ d w~ ~ ~ '' ~~ v N N C7 m m z QI G N ,t+ ~G O ~~ ~ a C ~ Vi _n U Qf ~ N °' ~ ~- a N '~ \ 3 ~ ~,. L ro _ ~ ~ 0. m min o~~ m v ;~ ~ d ~ U ~ U C ~ m C N G1 U A c P m n m b z ~ $ O ~ ~; ~s G1. c~ ca n .b i-+i C r_ Cd w l 1 ~ ~ Ro v ~ ~ ~. ~ $ ~ o ~ ~ ~ gj ~ ~ ~tl ~~ a~ .o ~~ m Y ~~ o ~ . G~ U O OS 7 9 ~ nm. .W. '~ y ~ ~, ~q _ o-' ©~ ~ V ,, , ~~ ~ . .,~ G ,::~ \ ~ o . ~ ~ Y~ , 4Ci ~~~ ,w: VN ~~ d ~}° ~ „~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ a ~ ~ ` c U ~ .~ J 1 w ~ ~~~ w ~- _ _ - ~i 1 I ("~ l1` ~ ~ `}~ J ~j ~ 1~`}. ` ,, .O a 3 l./. oEl~1l ~ II ' D ~ 4~ r ~ ~ _~ W ` ~ + 1 ~ W w ~ ' ~ 1 :~. ~ ~ t W4 ` `LL ~_ ~ je :W IWI I~~ iiY~N~IW al ~}I ~~~SI ~ ~'~~W IWILL O > I~ ~ i~ j 1 I ~ I I~ ~~ III ~ rii`` " ~ ~ I I~~ l i t i l N N ( ,Ti! E ~ ~ '~ I EX 5 n a ~ B8 , ~~~ '~, ~ ' ~ SRI ' c b ~~;~k~. I ~ x W 111 d ~ ~ !letU~ ;,j~i,;.,, ~, t B7~~li ~ 1 ~ : {I{I ~ ~ a6~y~ jpFi $3~~~~1 4j$4{``~fi~J ~~W iX ~lI ~i ~I OS~~' ~i'!3 i~~ __--~ , , f .. r. ~ f '% , ; ~. :J ~~ ~ i ;;' /~; -; ~ I •-- ~.___r.. --- . _... l ~ ~` 1 ~~~ ., ~~ ...444 ~ ..~-~F ~i ~. ~x'~~f)) ~~ ~~ . l hJ - ..., • • ` w ~~~,, ~~~' %~ ~h ~ ~3 .s. ~ H ~ ~ *~ ~~ ~a ~- ~;~ ;~ .~ s~ a s ,~I; , ~ _ . _ _ 1 ~ _ _ .~ _. ~ ~c1 t' ~. a N y~tW :y.,r.~ ~°-~~~ '.~~~~?;•. ~•N ^~'~•.~•~ ~•w~rL~~~~~r }~, •~hL{~#1 Yy~~J~ k 1 tV- S:i4 ~~q .jF'~ ~'!y~•. +'r~ {,, ~~•"• i /}(• ~J i~~YV ..~J~~:e'~~ J ~•~e 1t~~~ ~1 ~A ~yt ~ ^~L''•y~ryJ J` -4 ~ 1 1 wf _i ~~ +~ A• 'C4 a~ cr ~CR 1 [ ' -r., h.L^ar'Si .. ',,3 sR ~?', .[ e<?i . 4`,_'~ .. ...Srt'~...M1~ ~.~ .a'iet ..y:,i 5 :aJ ~ vt ... ~ •« ~.~ '.t SM k 5,~ J. ;~flt [ 7 ~ ~ a1 ..,~r.p. .s. :.t<„ .. >.i". .fix :-• v > L.ny~~ 17 +~ r i i .}i4~: 4~s~ ~ 4 J}. ~ f ! I l E s / ~t ~ j,' J~" y~: i} '~ ~{ r 5 r F ~~~k 4 'F ~ r ., i r .f~ r ~~ •~.f~ ..1++ ..s t ?at~~ ;:. .. ~:~~. F4"''r. ~" s" ~'~rJ~. ~t.S JJ. i1 '~~'' r .-'.J YU" •. Yo- ~~r I f - • •+ }7; My~ ~rsF~~ - •R - * , t r~'; ^ ."~ - .c j - - r~ - ~ } s + 1 ~ + q~' r ~+ ~* t~l ~y's. r~ .s k + .:7. ~•, g ', i ! I[~tf ~~'io ; .t. ~~:.. ~. [ 4 ~ : Is{ + ; fl E~ s ~ e s ~ 't.i t; t ya,~`~j' >'i ~ ~ 4 - I r ~r Y eM .f~{ r° JS~J' .. ~` ~ I ~ 3 ~ wY ~ ~~ ~y+~. [i~ir~<I > I rr t .Q,t 't~~(*s~;i,~~A }kq,; 7'<~ ,~.j',ri+µ `~h 5}~ft ', ~rF 4i aT~,"~bi k i, i F~' T(J 7~ 4r, ~~ :: t ~ r'J ~~ r i r J'~ ~'~II 4 ~f'nyw+ F~,r s.' t ~x~F~ r 4t rl, r x S~¢ti "~'. ~q r L' f I ~ [ i /f Ise' p j,5' ~I ' I~„ L r ~ !_ '.~ ~ x~ y ~; x ~ ~4 a~"~s w~'.~g9q`~} ~. t-` 6..e .' i f Iwe, ~ J I~ ~ Ir~r,f"~' i i ~ yt4`t` 7 ~ ';~ .+ - ~~ ~~ ~., s ~ ]ty.rr t .r3 S '~` $'~: . . _ .~ ..,t- ..~'ti V -[~ 4r~ +c _ ~y p~.~~ ; >MSr ~: ;t {sN~. ti( 'f [ .,.•. ~ ~,~ iKKtp1 ire. ` .4~.~ + .fir ''' ,~ a s ~~rj'' i K~ tilt 1 ~; ~ ~ ~.y ' ~`~ ~ i fi ~',=F; '+ . '~h ' i 9 ~ti~~w ~ S.v A ~E s:J~ t~, ~ i' x yr ,tE,~ `3'~4,~ Y ^y~'~ -~NAi rFy J 'i ~ t~~'P: ~ir '.pl ~~ :+ '$~tq~ ^ r + ~ ~, -,i • '~ii~.at`' *~- i Wi' ~n,~4f~~+.g: p' . "~f c~'~. ~s' -'~ i~~ti ~~ , '~'' 'i. ' '- rt f. ^ J s 8 rr $~:€.'~}r?7.. ~~£ s '~ 5 e ~• a x ^`. 7s~~S fa s~ t -R{i'' ' T ~~" i7'* I lr ~,~ ~f-~~yq' 4.; I F" '~k~. _ ~Y ~ .;``{{' '" _ ' -~, a } ~ ~ ~ 4 t.. 'r R' + k~ • y1.~ '7T[. S r! s r ' r,F.r' V ' ~ t t*r t -j. F r!f -"'t {~°'>~ r,+a .. S'; -~ e,,~ it ~~f.(..f=c! 1~ ', ;'t-5''. i' t~ ',V i-. r~.Y... s~f k,~' a i' ~~yar:, t' a " rt \.• fE' 't ~ '`' .~r yy . 1 s '`"i ~J,' n~3».. J r ~ - 5-. a i' "> ~:Ir.s 14. ~ t ~!: r / ,s+s, $,n 41 'Z ~''k~J r! ~, i.. ~ Jk4rJ `.'. ~' !. s S T rr~ Y`i: s,a - ~h,n`LT 3 Jd rq s Y l",,.." sin r1'~~ t r: H>_ f r.,.f C ~ .'. f 'l 4'~.. i a ~'S~ f [a,~ - ~ R 'S -.S5 x.:~' /,~.[F ~v ~ art - cK ~ i •1 ~'. r,, a } V .~S + ' r; po J v ,.~y •y ' r ~~y, -'? ~: f[,R [~y ~.rfAss i'4k ~ is .~s J~.F,?1 .~ ~~h - n #~ yJtiz s -~u. ~.~' a--'rt }ust rJw Lf : r r [ 's ~ ~rt 1x; F,~~V~I~ ~Y. fir. ~ tg 'ui r_~ ~s~ -_!~4 .+;; ~ F~ r tit, /'+1 t w+- •c. •;~ ~ {,... s.t i 'Ne~ ~~'.~ ~~Fr t~ti> ~S 4.>.-:~, '~-~,ti il- [: "9J{ r- _ ~t is ~,'r [{~ / '~ s Y i S r 1 i,f. ~tµ rix'1' ys[ ~ ,iY ~~r,F ~ 4. S:, s ~ ' :Ji ~-7 {' H . ~ ^,r <+;.: '= J.: +. Y5~'J ~ ~F# ~ysc' A,'t T ~. ~` sl. '.1 . y ~ 5ry~1Ti,r' ~, ~t'l~. ,.fi~,+¢~'~'Fa t1`~f,"''• ~; 7 ~} ?*.' ,,~i ~' ric, ~i y C+y t~ ~ r+i's, si,. s' •,~'>.:'~#, ~, ~ s ~~t ~ tt.c. w ~~sASi °j'• ' ~J r~~J'~IS r''t~M'~fi'r~~a-, :1.'.'t4~C~}$:"~ ~r~ idj,Jli" J J'v~; ~'ii[ 4j r t -.{ _ ~'.a s ~f 'ti s. ~.i } °' S h Sir ~F r _ ~ i ~ 5 _ i ... ~ ''[ > fy` r~ : s rJ 5 ~u~ ~r1~;4 [,ii+ ! [,G yf~ ~ .'~ ~~, t+ .: I ~ ~ , ,~+s ~ '~`~'~. ~~f •. ->t'L:Y~_, t e~? errs lyL .fir G~.f~'~.k~ ~i~{~ {~fr~~-+; i F•+i iY~ksi ~ F:rYrr r ~: l,. ,'.rr l,s 'Sf'. ~~ :r ~r - .. ~ M1 S ~ ,.+-!r ~H"te ~ zi4 :+~ ~ ~~J,s 1CwT z ^Y z i. ' t ~ S,. ! o i~ ~ 4A ,E'x ~ 1 ~ I t''~t art-rl ~ ~/ ` i ~ ~ - - -HIV ~ ~ '~ / .i ~ - ~,dd - ~--~~~1 } ' 1 _l~ ~i =, ~ • • 1~ t fir l~~~~~~~t; o. t" ~- ~`~- =--~ -: ~ . ~ Qq `~~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ °' F~ ~ ~~- ~, .. ~~ ~, ~, MILLRACE CONDOMINIOM ASSOCIATION IQ00 S. Frontage Road W., Suite 200 Vail, CO 81657 (303) 476-6953 • October 24, 1991. To: Colorado Mountain Condominium Association Westin Hotel Slifer, Smith and Frampton, Developer--Cosgriff Parcel Town of Vail Fram: Kevin Mactavish Re: Four Corners Area, Vail The soon to be famous four corners area of Vail could use improvement and beautification, particularly in light of the development of the Cosgra.ff parcel (tent and volleyball area between Hotel and Millrace}. The four careers I am referring to is that area where CMC Building, Westin, Millrace, and Cosgriff properties meet, approximately at the end of the GMC Building's loading dock driveway. zn earlier years, this was to have featured a watercourse anc~ pedestrian area, and the driveway was to have ended in a wall which would have visually and operationally cut commercial traffic and activity from view. Now it is an open question. Except that the development of the Cosgriff parcel provides contiguous properties the opportunity or imperative to plan for something with a better impact than unimproved dirt and weeds and gate vaJ.ve boxes. The Millrace Board wishes to cooperate with the other properties and do something about this area and solve such questions as the bridge that goes to nowhere! Please advise of your interest and willingness to participate in this initiative. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1991 SUBJECT; A request for a wall height variance for the Chester Residence, I.ot 19, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing/395 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz gnw:~ ~, ~ :yW,,::P'sy,,:~vr...artr,:rfar.:..:-.. ~Fl•'rk.,•;R%,'ti~f'~-~S*~S' /sr•'{~ aa.~Tiv*f ~'~r,~Krs~$ [S.. ~,:~c7- .~~f9~" •ri~j+j' $'° a+: "~?3',.~''~a'~ n~ ~K ~& v rf~o- ~$~,~ ~z` A ~.~? ~'o` •~rsi~:,'{~~..~f~i.;.r ~~C~ f Y f}/~ +, 1 f ~ =s~[~~ f , ! ~ f fyl~}~}Q ~~~4y~~'~F k~ l~:~r i ~ [f~~=' Vf 1n4]f f ~j. ~i~j :T f f: k'~?Y~~fi~x~~ ~j f f . "'iryyl r ,y0; '~^~. J''. .~~ J ^:E'~' ~ G.::': ~ % '~. rrr~~~fm~rr ~. ~b y [~' ~Y~ ~f~ ~~, ~ .:. O. f i r u ,ffi.,Y9~~'i}.i.rl..£41:a.4$-,~.r.9.~¢.<:r:~%o'-~'cefn.~r C.o •,rff.4: r../+~' '7r ~~:s~r`f:.~r:rr:..:.r,.~?.. ?':.?f .~t?:r~. .. -1~.c~-...w.~,.•,..•.as.,r... f~~r~,~• :.~: ..o- fr~i I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUES it/li On September b, 1989, the Design Review Board approved awall/fence plan for the Chester residence. The approval was given with the following conditions: 1. The height of the fence shall not exceed b feet or 3 feet in the front setback (gate columns ;nay exceed 3 feet, 'but not 6 feet}. 2. The metal support stakes for the aspens on the east side of the property shall be located with Vail Associates' assistance, so skiers are not endangered. The Town Council also reviewed the request at their September 19, 1989 evening meeting. The Design Review Board approval of the wall plan was upheld by the Town Council. Subsequently, the Town became involved in a law suit concerning this project. One of the elements of the settlement of the law suit required that the owner of the property, Mr. E.B. Chester submit a solution to either bring the walls into conformance with the zoning code or submit an application for a variance request. The applicant has submitted a request far a variance and also has proposed changes to the walls to bring them more into compliance with the zoning code. In addition, the staff has amended the zoning code to exclude the statement in the section of the zoning code which relates to the heights of walls and fences with regard to covenants. This change has been given final approval by Council and is no longer in the zoning code. • . The applicant is requesting variances from the following section of the code: Section x.8.58.024 -Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening C. Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens, •~~"°~° ^^• r°:~~sted-by ba'_ =ten shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area and shall not exceed six feet in height on any other portion of a site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls, or landscaping screens may be authorized by the zoning administrator where necessary to screen public utility equipment. No barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained. The variances requested are listed below: Wall Columns: Gate Columns: Parking Area Wall: Wooden Fence Panels: 6 inches to 1'-4" 8 inches to 10 inches 5 feet, 7 inches 3 inches Please see the attached chart which outlines the existing conditions on-site, the applicant's t,~.,yosal, the allowed height per the code, the amount of the variance needed, and the Community Development Department staff's recommendation, as well as the site plan showing the locations of the various columns and walls. The applicant proposes modifications to the wall in order to decrease, if not remove in many cases, the need for a variance. These modifications are accomplished by either cutting down the walls and rebuilding them so that they meet the height requirements, and/or by adding fill and raising the finished grade so that a variance is not necessary. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.Ob0 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, 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. a. Front Yard Generally, the applicant is bringing the walls into conformance with the zoning code in this area. Departures to the height standard are requested for the two gate columns at the south entry to the site, one • • waIl column located at the center of the wall, as well as the wall which is creating a parking area on the southwest corner of the site. Staff's opinion is that the gate columns must be cut down to meet the 6-foot height maximum and the wall column should be cut to 3 feet in height with or without a cap. We believe the entry columns, at their current height of 6'-10", are unnecessarily tall. With respect to the parking wall, it is staff's opinion that this wall is generally not visible from most vantage points of adjacent r.,,Yerties . The additional wall height is not on the exterior of the wall, but is visible on the inside face of the wall. With additional landscaping to screen the two viewing .points of the wall, staff believes that visual impacts from the 8'-7" wall are minimized. We recommend planting 7 new deciduous trees to match the existing trees in this area. Locations are indicated on the attached staff recommended landscape plan. b. Back Yard The following variances are requested: l) A variance of 6-inches is requested for the wall columns 2) A 3-inch variance for the north panel of the wooden portion of the fence 3) An 8-inch variance for the two gate columns. Staff believes that these variances will have very little impact on surrounding neighbors. We believe that the proposed fence modification will result in a better design if the wall caps remain, which creates, in most cases, the need for the 6-inch variance. We do believe that the entry columns for the gate should also meet the b'-6" design. We believe it is necessary to minimize the visual impacts on adjacent properties by adding landscaping in the back yard area. Ten aspen and two spruce should be planted on the .northeast corner of the property. On the north and east sides of the property, we believe the shrub border should be extended along the fence. The landscaping will help to decrease the tall appearance of the wall. In summary, staff believes that the variances requested will have minor visual impacts on adjacent properties as long as the proposed landscaping is included. The variances which staff cannot support are the Cwo gate columns in the front yard (10 inches) and back yard (8 inches). We believe these columns must be brought down to the b-foot height {front yazd column) and b'-6" height (back yazd column), respectively, to decrease the imposing appearance of the columns. This results in a variance of 6 inches for the back yard gate columns. • • 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. a. Front Yard With respect to the parking wall variance, staff believes it would have been difficult to create a parking space in this area without allowing for some wall height variance. This is because of the large change in grade between the driveway (finishedJexisting grade nn the Chester lot) and the adjacent property to the south. In order to create this parking space, a wall was necessary. The wall could have been terraced; however, this terracing would have pushed the parking space out into the driveway even more than is currently existing on-site. In addition, the area of the variance is not easily viewed from adjacent properties. The wall actually appears to be approximately 3-feet in height when viewed directly from the east or south. Staff opinion is that the existing grade created a hardship with respect to the creation of this additional parking space. Staff can find no physical hardship to justify the additional height for the entry columns located on the southwest corner of the site, and therefore cannot support this variance request. b. Back Yard Staff believes it is reasonable to allow a minimal amount of relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code for wall heights, given the fact that the elevation of the recreation path around the property changes elevation. In order to allow for some privacy in the back yard and a raised separation from the adjacent tennis facility and bike path, staff believes that the 6-inch variance for the wall columns and 3-inch variance for the wooden fence panel are reasonable. We can find no physical hardship justifying the two gate columns which require an S-inch variance. However, we could support some flexibility in the design of the gate columns to match the design of the other fence columns. This solution results in a 6-inch variance instead of the 8-inch variance. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no major impacts on the factors listed above. • ~, . B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallawin~ findinss 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 int:,~Y~~~tion or enforcement of the specified regularion 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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In reviewing this proposal, the staff has taken a position that we believe to be reasonable as well as respectful of the variance criteria and adjacent property owners' concerns. We recommend approval of the variances requested with the following condirions: 1. Ail walls and wall caps within the 20-foot front setback shall meet the 3-foot wall height, excluding the entry columns, which shall not exceed 6 feet in height. In addition, the wall height variance for the parking area is recommended far ayyl~~al with the condition that seven deciduous trees to match the existing trees are planted. (Please see the site plan indicating staffs recommended landscaping locations). 2. The gate columns in the back yard shall meet the maximum height of b feet, b inches to match the design of the other wall columns. • S 3. The additional landscaping in the back yard shall include ten aspen of 2-inch caliper, one spruce at 18 feet and one spruce at 20 feet on the northeast corner of the lot. Secondly, the existing shrub border on the east side of the back yard fence shall be extended around the fence to the north and west. (Please see the attached staff landscaping plan). 4. The five blue spruce shall be replanted in the same general location as currently exists on the site (south side adjacent to spa room}. 5. Approval to plant additional trees on the Vail Recreation District land to the north and east must be obtained from the VRD Board. 6. The modifications to the wall and columns, grading and landscaping shall be completed by July 1, 1992. Staff finds that the variances are supportable, as granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege [B(1)]. Because of the pre-existing and finished grade elevations in the azea of the parking space, it is felt that the applicant deserves privileges other property owners have received when requesting approval for wall height variances in order to create a pazking space. With respect to the back yard wall, it is felt that a minor amount of relief is necessary from the wall height limitations because of the change in elevation of the bike path on the north and east sides of the property, and the need to allow for some sepazation between the public recreational facilities to the east. Staff finds there are no negative impacts on public health, safety or welfare nor are the variances materially injurious to Y.,,~,erties or improvements in the vicinity [B(2)]. We find the variances warranted, as there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances on the site related to privacy and the public bike path with changing grades on the north and east sides of the property [B(3)<b><c>]. Relief from the height limitations is also warranted as other applicants within the Town of Vail have received some flexibility for wall height limits to create pazking areas. Staff acknowledges that it is very common to require ~~~~acing of walls when these types of variance requests are reviewed. In this circumstance, we find that, because of the location of the house and the need to maintain the access through the drive area, it is not reasonable to require a terrace in this wall, as long as landscaping is provided per the staff condition of approval. In addition, the wall from the adjacent property appears to be 3 feet in height, and only exceeds the height limit on the interior side of the parking space. We believe the applicant has taken steps to try and mitigate the impact of these walls and columns to an appropriate degree. With the landscaping and other condirions of ap~.~., gal, staff believes the walls will be more compatible with the site and surrounding r~.,Yerties. We feel that a reasonable solution has been found for these requested variances, given the staff's conditions of approval. U b . Please note that, under Section 18.b2A80 of the T,u~ ~ ~.., of Vail Zoning Cade, the approval shall lapse if construction is not ~.~ ~ ~ menced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion. c \pec~rnemos~chester.028 r~ ~J • 7 ~ ~ 33 ~+ `Q ;~ a ~ ~~ . o U ..y • co '~' :© ; n a"i w cn c^ ~ ;~, ~~ y :~ aKi .{' ~ o r, ~ w ~ ~ Op d "' :o `D t ~ o0 [~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ - r, ~„ i^ °° Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W y ~ V ~ H ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ 7 q H ~ 00 • .' ~J I~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~•:~ ran 1 {~ ~" a ~ '~_ _~~~5''. ' ~s;. ' lam' ~ '' ~ - -. ~ y~ ~ ~~k~r. ~ (~ ~~~ ~ ~. 3 ~ ~ ~ . , . .r. 4 1. . a., . ' tU1 ~] 4g1T ~1, ~ ~ .. ,', .~ ~~ :.. o ~: ~ ~'y. ~. ,, .,.,` , , ~ ~~ r ~~ ,~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~' . :~ ~.. . .. .* .. , c r N f r 1f + f¢ ~{:'f 55r r ~ ~. >f ~ t i ~ ~. .Y~ ~` I d~ d- I r#~S '1 I fri~y ;~t j ? r ' ~ SI I '+ f. S lil S 3 iixr irl,,5 i~k'jI YI,- Ir .,~1 .1 . rf i aS f + I(3 r r t I ? ~ I1 Y 5+$ I ~s 3 >I ., If 5 T ;d •& { ~J' 1 ! ! !~ I] ~, Y I -' 4' ~ q ; J A~ ~ ~ ~]1~'`}~ ~ 1 ~"' ~ ~ ''r .,1.; j l~4ir ~-r !r ji '~sA~ a~ tix t' `C '~ 4 e. T3 ~1'+r s'll',~~•16A "~"(f ~rF - Yj '~ .~ ~i to f 1'ti {kl5r ~i5 r r rs~ t ~~, iI 31f~R{',I}Iµ- ~ I< ~,~rr y ~i4 rl •. • '. .. i ' rl ) ~7f'rJ. I r I, f d ly' Y` {r~ti/r '" +A'.~~. `, 1 / a~ • . - '~ ~, •1 ,'r ] .7, Q M ~ (• -I. r; '! r t 1 f 1. ti ~.~li 1y$a~r ~~ l t r ~,; 5 r ' 1 '' Syr' I +~ ~{~ ~. ~ t i 1.5 ~ Sr .n 5-, i . s 5"'t fl ~ ( ~5 .(~ } 1 .,_ ~,. U,. ~~~t p ". ~'..,;'~ ; ;`~~ ~. .~~ ~ i ' 'Yn r~ l.. ~, ~~, 'i` f ~, f: ~ I t' ,y ~ 41r,.i'rO~•hA ~.~'~ ~. ~ s ] .~7 ~ + ; ry,! ~ ~i.. ~ ~ 1 ~-~~~ r ~}' ~~ •.F. ~ ~rl ti' ly 1 ~ ;~ ~ .y, 3 4 ~ ~ *. !^'.. _. r ~ ~ r! ' !!~ I Q~ 1~d1QQ11 ,(r';~ ! f ~' r. ~~ > 1!1 s ~ a., n ', ;'+'~. .~~ !~ ~ I,. ~ r ~'I :~' , *~y' IS `fit 1.~~ ~ flti ° ',f,}~' - ~ ~r,*,'~y~ N -} .~ { .. ~ ~ ~. ' ~-'.. r- f''`''''}y{t ' r ~. ~r.al r ' ' ±' ',,r .,7 i f `fi'r r3y'Si ~Thi' ~~: ~I i '' - ~~ . ~ 1 ' S u.: . . r '!a . ; i~ ~.e :: r• r.. r~ i„ 11 ;.r S s I F ~ ~ ; ~ ~ I I 4 r~ ;'.,~~.. ar ~;.'~ ~ yx r' 4 r r ~~ c 1 r -J rr _ Y f i ~ y~ 'r^'~~-,-ris'; f r -.~ ~_ ~ `,,r M_ p L "J i 1 i ~ i~~ +r ' ti.. t :gip ilr 1 ~ '! ~ 1 ~ / I S r ! ~ I ; 3 (3 . 5 . I . •! : ! 4 f } ~y 3~ ~ ]t 1 L~! ~, S 1 '{. f I - 1 ~k I ~ of ! ~ ~ { ;3 rJ, ~' 1 ~ ~,, i r,.~6,j 3 ^ P l 1 . '7 a I'y I ', 3, ~: 1 I '4 ,IJ r r r. ., ~f; 3 ~~ ,I rt r., ! ri ~r~V~ .:~A:;. ~ '.~ ~ r .`L fF,~SJG~[ ~~ { 1151 '~ ,'.`, ' ' y ~}i1~ N ~t ./ N flk 1~ S 4r o ~ I ., I v f Il .~ f 1 ~.~ r! Tr i F 1 1 r3 t:. li{LL Vy]€st.~ i5Y ~_, a lyT 1H4.) ~N ,~ r ~ S {~ k.,1, fir .t d1~~fi (J-~i'~ ~~ li. ~~' f r ~ ~ 3 t . o- .S '! .f ~ i~~~i. + ' 4 ~ ~ . ~ ~I Qp'' .S Y~ s'a ..'. ". ~ -. "S y F -.j -Rrt ~ ' - f r S h ' S , , .. 4. 5 ti n N ~ai"'KTra a r a h ~'~ ... .f:. .I r ~1 rt I l Tts !~ 1. i ~ ~~ •ylk',I iti' I,]f 'Iii` {} 1 ~l '.I rN, o ' r i' i l :N 1 ~ f 1 ~ _~~ ~ r Fy' ,' ~ I J rt ~! .. 1 1 4" . I L7~- Il- 1 d ~I y ~1 4 1 , t' J,. 1 'y~ 1: Sl.~~ r. .! 4 .'l• 1' k r~~ p . L~+. , I n' ~ h' .. . . ` 1r ~ e t~1 y, I 1• 'FKVi 1 '' r ~ 3 ! r .:~ 4 ~ -~~ f } ~ ~. ~ r~ Y] i } ).„' 3i ~ ~1+. ~S S`I. {a r ~ 'S ~ T } i ~rk (S~ i ~ ~~ r i. 4f~Y3J ;::j if {f 'J rYi,rl{.,~ ... ..). UI Y~i ~ ... Ct.~: ~.'al ..tu~r~ .lr .. i'•1 rHw.1.111. f~i„ ~ ...5...,Hi 1.-Y 4...JI: CliJ I.Ltl c.+'. nla...r.ul 1: J. 4 'f .I r .. 1 r ~. ` 5 1 ~ ^~' ~ ~_ 1 ~ .,1 1 . , .may ~ ~ 1 . ~~~ ~ ~~ r 1r 4 ~:~. ~ . `'~ ` '~;:1,~,M 0 jy ~;;,, r t „};` ~ . ~' Al ,~c. ~, ' Q ~ ~ 1 r ~ y' .~J '3^jl. ~ 1Lp'+.r '~~,' 1, .. ~ .F. -..ate 9 , . ~. , . ,,, . ._ r .. ~ ~ 1 '~. ;. s ", . ~~~ ~i.1 r'~• .4 ~, I ~ .k; ' ~ '4'. .~ 1 ' S . .. ., ~ ~ ~ • i-1 Z 1L Q • r1 r Ir• ~~ r, { ;' ~'J.:.?t r S L4 rY " r~i1 ~~z'a rt r r,r ~`1 i ', !:. y~F- 1 J !r }. r`~ {44 ,1 i j { ~~', w,`-J 1 ~ 4 ~! ' }' 4 \} [' r' i ~ 4 l; ~ '- S '1 r ~ r ~'1 I ~ ; Y s ~ F r ~4 + ~, t w ' ~ ra ^-i+'' ;r, . d t r. ' •Yr t}r, r. \ ~ ~ t #~ , r- y 5 -, r ~E t -y' r P. • J~ y,l':P-{ , ii. 2 r,, ' ' rJ `1 !~} r f ,r t +~. r f I~~ ~ r-r I! - rtl4 4 ~ { ~, / 1 t ~ r~ } { }yl l " r t R ~~ 1 ;t ~~ ,r f'~ '; I" ry r "r r~ ~?: t rF' \ ~1 fir} r ,~, ' t~.t' ;tl ~~ ~ 'i; 1 rtlJ4 rJ i x 1 1 ~ '~b tl Y" ~'. "I}' r' d ` J F.~~ f ,;t' ~3 i'Yf ~ ,. , ~ ~ '~~~ :~~ '~•;~ _ ~rr r r 7 q1 iL S1 +t .,r Rr~.l ~- S ~ y~k ~i 4 L rlt ~'Q'f~.^~~4y/ ~ { ~.'1F 4.' •,1 1• ,Il } S i.t• • .r~rj,~ - _-! t'i r 1 ~rl }y F} ~ f 1}r- r'~',s ~ J •ti, r, 1 rA.~. ., `... .'~ k 1`• + ~-Q ~. N ~ -: T rR Jf' J 's .I :}! r ~ y 3-:'}'•t `.;~~,'' !' :r 4~,,~ i'~~- nr r 'i •~ s } 9 hf {, ~,.. '11' >3', ;~ '+ ~ ,:. ~ '~ ~1>"Si i:r 1L ,. 4 ! i 7'. y-. l5 1 },~• jrt s,.. ~ ~{~ ~ ,3'F ; 'r J f 4' L • !- 3. .T '~ 0 ~L 4~'i ~ - r., ~ } r ~ 1 I' f I V ~ t r~ ~ ~ V ~.~, ~+ ~ \ f . J : r t , ~.. ~ rM iagq ~` t L '1 ' ,4 : [ •' f ~ ~' - ti r + ' ~ 9 . '! aJ• }„ a ~j' .`- t . 1 '.iY ~{:' f'1 r °' t , ~' ` ,~ 'F." ~ 1 II, :'11 F 1 ''j'~ ~ ~ c,41r ;h ~r 1 ,} ~ ~'tl. r S ~"' J~"~ r r •~'i • f J ~ y~?ye:, ''f ~ 411 y~,.r~'"r. ' , ~ ~.~' ~,,. r• ~: y ' ~ F•~ ,J ,{', Z ,J~.t 1 j r r.4y I'} ~ ~, t ~4~y 'Z 7 ' ~ FS i ,f, i ~ i Y r+' ! _ F 4 4 L E s r r r' ! e ;~ li F e :~ r e ?,~r. f ~~ ,r 5 4 _ ~, 54, ^s1{ r [,Y 1 F~}I ~f s`N.r rs 1.~,it i ..' t. E} tl •1 ' 'r. ~ 't. ~, 1 J~' t- t ~- ~{ { ~ r ~ i • j~~ 7 s5 'r,,~ J ~ * } ~ ~ f~ -1 g t ~• 1- r s, t. IAI { 4 1 ~ 5{Ji L, E..'': a ~J1- ~ ~{ <~ I ¢ . ' r F r i ,:_, r }. ~ ., fir... p", t ~ "1, 1 s t ~ ~.:,, „~.'f I~ ! r~~ ` ~ ~.'7aFi 1 r r ^i f {rf .~~ •. r ~+t-~•:7 = 11 ,,r t ti ~ r ~ V yM')~ r1{ t I,r. •S ~'~3, s ,: i~ rJl y • ~`~. ~ ;~; 1n 't ~~ .1',. R '~,1'J ~ 14.LS F ~~sr,i:,i,"J ~' .'r.F,, } ~~` ~~~ ~ .. . ', rti r~ ,,.4 } cf ,j .I.~,~ ~;c'xt`'p;:.. ~~,-rr~.h <fr3Y ~.'': ' ,.. ~ mot,, F~ a~ ~ ~ ,, ~~ '• _ ~ '`' ;i,`. •~JJ i b +t'! r tt t I~m r>.J•~r ~.{`.Sf- ~'..~ r r~~ '.~. - I' M _ : ~.~ ~ L y i1 1','f ' rr t Ir n 1, 4 s d fir; #''~`• ~ ~^ k r J~ i .. ~ r: i.~ - ~ J i - r tY } ? +!'' ~ ry~4~~4 j'I •~-. J :i :, ~,~ ' S til . : `,'~ , Y r - r 1 ~ L. y . f 4! ; rt~F~. {Fri ~1. ~ 5,' ~ t`' .• A r~sl•. Y .. ~ i i ~,., . ~;.J.;f:,~; ~ . y . . r :i•. ~'r~ Cli~i:ri~'!~'~•'A%i; j: '.S ~_ .:.1', •.k iii;, •. :'+i1~1t:~uty~'••%i~r:' .~5' •,i' ~'r. I. , • X ~ -~.r .,.~~ti#;r ..~I' ~.r":~.v:. a • R r .i. •"il.~. Yen`!i~.~f1.'•, "rl _ .{:.' Ji .~ ,`. _ ~ ~4, ~J , a;~' ., r 5 t I j ra 1~ -t~} r1 ,`,.r::. •~r'it,' ~~ ~.{ ~~~~~.. `ir„. 't 1•,R~i~~' '''• a ~3'iE{'~k~t.': iL i. ~ !'" :i• a ~ r ' .'L • 41, J •.11 L~ J 1' 4 .~I. 1 r ~ .S ~~. `r~ ~~ `L r it e C 13r ~ 1. .. 4 p ~ ~,. ~1 ,~,~ ~:i'. ali~d ":' ,r i"~ of 'I• ,,ti ~ lr 2 i, it ~ii•i: ~ J i ' ~JtF Jh7,~s J ( {t~ P's"E ~> ~ r'. ,i, ii r ~ { -' y~o~>' ~4` ~ r 4 _J., } ~.r ~ 4- i o I r ~- I`L~' 4 r h r': S a n r rt ~ j' ar t rat ff' i r '+ 3 7 E 4 r h "t +•rt• ~ .~ rf '+ r a t'Y 'r i ri~r~`1 ~ ~ 55 }Y 1'J J rr. ~1"5~~V J'. } k! ~' 4 ~ ,S it LI 'r tc ~~i b~ r- I 1' } L ~' ~ r'~ ... l 1 ! , ~ r - r.l ,, l 'J /' - JL S i ~ ) ~,r µEi i'1 5'{.} ~.~~ ~ L nt 4~`+ ^- ~ - a,sJr {~ ~ i ': ,., S ,7: - r a r t~~r Sr~ •.r~, ~f,;'.r; 4 f j' ~ ~ V.~rl ,f ~'•:.. ~.' ...,~w'K ~4 e, -Y Y s .i 1,'ifc. •.:r, II rS., • .„,r..c.:, [. ..i ~..~i:, r. ^.;L:a~t;':i::. :k.l.i9; .{•r-.._. r~,~y„i.:i',;.l.,t.}. ....al ..~u iJJ.W 7:..11:yi.:A.'l~~ Y J 2aflS']AA:.al4~r',r-Aau:LW~t...:.u.:.a' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to extend for one year the October 22, 1990 PEC site coverage variance to allow construction of a 60 sq. ft. airlock at the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, 304 Bridge Stree#ILot H, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: John S. HolSzechwan Lion Planner: Jill Kammerer i .m~:.j...,Z'l'' •a~•,. ,r:~s:$'"~ ~' ~ '~S~• ' .2;i.-=px }. ~'. ~:`.r•; yv': • ~s• °~'° ~5'~"~g"-o~.w v ~: ~• ~ ,~;:• _,..: ~~'o`aS'x'°„r_y~"`. }..:.~., 3~~x~ .:•}. Si `.%F42r'^'rz ~o ~~} a,. ~~-.6,.}~,S~i ~{a . ry~?"`:? a+ ~~6;qs $?' ,3'.w ~° ~ f °~` ~~n~r,.n~vh•. ~°+~~ ,r ~~~'+ -~' &':~Igg~~: ~9$~'.~S r. ~ $ '4-'`~'>T.°'~~~~5 ~ ~,i rep f p~q~ ;: "~:''. ,~q 2~ ,~ 1~,} fit3~" ~Yr:,' ~:cE:'~ s 'F' ~~ilock ,~, u.~. f 0: ,,fi~'r7iv~i'~' 9,d~ <=f~ s$• g}.'~?'..r,~ ~ ~ o . ~•;rr.~ 2e~ x:+.:•~~-:,fr7~~~T::°v:~:fi.~%;e~'~Y~3::d3!;6:2~ra~lg~: :ia~~ ;3.;/ .:...:r.: ~~:,~3tG:Gabc'=.ac~'s~ »:•sti:;cia° ~=~dc<kr.s. On October 22, 1990, the PEC granted a site coverage variance and exterior alteration approval in order to allow for construction of a 60 sq. ft. airlock at the Szechwan Lian Restaurant. Under the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.62.080, Permit Issuance and Effect, approval of a variance shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of PEC approval of the variance request and diligently pursued to completion. In order to avoid a lapse of said approval, the applicant is requesting the PEC extend the approval of the site coverage variance an additional year, until October 28, 1992. Attached is a copy of the October 22, 1990 memo regarding this request. Staff recommends the PEC grant approva! of the requested one year site coverage variance extension. da~id mark peel, a.i.a. kathy langenwalter, a.i.a. architects Z ~>tiii <7YUti.1 cErivr? i].n, i~Ux ~~ ~~{)2 vaii, cn 81 bits i(]3-47b-45(Ih October 10, 1991 Ms. Jill Kammerer Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $1657 RE: Szechwan Lion Restaurant site coverage variance and exterior alteration. Dear Jill; The Szechwan Lion Restaurant wishes to extend far one year the existing approvals granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board for their airlock entry addition. On October 22, 1990 the PEC granted a site coverage variance and exterior alter- ation approval. for the 60 square foot airlock. DRB approval was given at their October 31, 1990 meeting. Drawings of the approved design are enclosed. Please initiate the proceedings necessary to obtain the requested extensions and let me know if you need additional information. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours truly, y/.s Kathy Lan enwalter, AIA Enclosures PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 22, 1994 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Shelly Me11o Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Kathy Warren Betsy Rosolack Dalton Williams Penny Perry The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan, Chairperson, A worksession for rezoning of the Mountain Bel'. Pedotto, and Oberlohr properties for "affordable housing" development. Diana explained that the board was addressing the appropriateness of the rezonings requested and she invited public comment. Kristan made a few comments explaining that she wanted to allow time for the audience to speak. She emphasized what Diana had said about the priority of the meeting being the consideration of the rezoning requests for each of the properties to Medium Density Multi-family. Kristan explained that the Mountain Bell site was presently zoned Agriculture/Open Space. She explained that Medium Density Multi-family zoning would allow 18 units per acre. The Vail Heights and the Pedotto properties were zoned Primary/Secondary. The applicant was requesting the rezoning of both properties to Medium Density Multi-family. Kristan wanted the public and the board to evaluate the appropriateness of the rezoning requests in relationship to surrounding land uses. She explained that in the Land Use Plan, the Mountain Bell site land use designation was Public Use. The other two sites were designated Medium Density Multi-family land use. Kristan painted out that the back of the staff memo contained a comparative density analysis of adjacent properties for each of the sites. The meeting was then opened to public comment. The first member of the audience to speak was Dave Chapin from Larkspur Lane. Dave felt the issues were vague. He asked Lynn Fritzlen if she had a conflict of interest by being on the Council and ,also being the project architect. Kristan explained that Lynn would not be able to vote as a Council person on the issue. Dave was concerned about the number of cars generated by the proposed Pedotto site development. He estimated the project would generate a demand of about 70 cars and he felt that the neighborhood would not be able to handle the additional traffic. Dave was also concerned about the appearance of parking areas for those cars. • PEC TRinutes 10/22/90 Meeting Item No. 4: A request for a site coveraae variance and an, exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I in, order to allow construction of an airlock entrv at, the Szechwan Lion Restaurant,, 304 Bridae Street., Lot H. Block 5A. Vail Village 1st Filing. Anolicant: John S. Ho/Szechwan Lion Restaurant Kathy Warren removed herself from the board as she was representing the applicant. Ji11 Kammerer described the variance requested explaining that the applicant was proposing to construct an 8'--0" x 7'~-6" airlock with a gross floor area of 60 sq. ft. far the Szechwan Lion Restaurant. Jill reviewed the zoning considerations, criteria and findings related to a variance, compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, Urban Design Considerations, and related policies in the Vail Village Master Plan. The staff recommendation was for approval of the exterior alteration request and the site coverage variance. The staff believed that the construction of the airlock would add visual interest to the recessed area off of Bridge Street and would improve the general appearance of the area. Staff recommended the applicant provide additional softscape landscape in the project area to mitigate the removal of existing hardscape landscape. Kristan Pritz showed a picture of the pocket park adjacent to the restaurant entry and Jill pointed out the airlock would be located in approximately the same location and would project into the packet park approximately the same amount as the existing awning. Kathy Warren, representing the applicant, poin~ed out the improvements that would be in the pocket park as a part of the Red Lion remodeling project. Jill explained that the staff had reviewed letters .from the Tangs and the Browns, owners of the Red Lion Building, in support of the project. The Tang's only concern was that the airlock roof drain to the south. Kathy commented that the drainage concern had been discussed with the contractor and resolved. Kathy continued to comment that the applicant agreed with the staff memo except they did not feel they should be required to plant perennials in the pocket park planters. Chuck Crist asked what color the building would be and Kathy Warren answered "red." She explained that the project had already received DRB conceptual approval as well as approval from the property owners, the Tangs, Browns, and Mr. Rosenquist. 14 • PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Connie Knight asked why the applicant did not feel it was necessary to install landscaping. Kathy answered that the applicant felt the planters would already be sufficiently landscaped due to the Red Lion addition landscaping requirements. Jim Shearer felt he would like to see some type of planting. Diana Donovan felt the front of the building would be more attractive than the hardscape that existed presently. She did not feel the applicant should be required to install additional landscaping because the Red Lion should be doing the planting. Ghuck Crist and Dalton agreed with Diana. Dalton felt that the Red Lion should be responsible for the planters. A motion was made by Ludwig Kurz to approve the site coverage variance per the staff memo except that additional, softscape landscape by the applicant would not be required., The motion was seconded by Chuck Crist., Connie Knight asked why the motion was to exclude the landscaping and Diana responded that they felt the Red Lion was obligated to landscape the area. Connie Knight inquired as to whether or not landscaping the area in question was covered by the Red Lion's expansion and Kristan answered it was, however, the Red Lion would be planting trees and shrubs, but no flowers. VOTE: 6-0 TN FAVOR--KATHY WARREN ABSTAINED. Item No. 5: A reauest far a mayor chance to existing development elan approval for the Valley, Phase VT. Applicant: Edward Zneimer, Andy Knudtsen, in response to the board's request at the previous work session, pointed out the major differences between the Valley Phase VI and Elk Meadows. A section of the staff memo was devoted to this analysis. Andy also gave a brief background of the proposal and a description of the project. The staff recommendation was for approval with conditions since the development plan resulted in less density and a better site plan . than the 1981 approval. 15 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Community Development Department DATE: October 22, 1990 RE: A request for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration in Commercial Core T in order to allow construction of an airlock entry for the Szechwan Lion Restaurant, 304 Bridge Street, Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John S. Ho/Szechwan Lion Restaurant I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is proposing to construct an 8'-0" x 7'-6" airlock with a gross floor area of b0 sq. ft. for the Szechwan Lion Restaurant. The restaurant's entrance is on the east side of Bridge Street immediately north of the Red Lion Restaurant. Currently the entrance door opens from the exterior onto an upper level landing. From the landing, stairs lead down to the restaurant. The applicant has indicated his desire to construct the airlack because in the winter cold air flows down the stairs into the restaurant creating a situation where it is difficult to maintain a comfortable temperature. The applicant believes the construction of this airlock will alleviate this situation as well as define the restaurant's entrance. The proposed airlack entrance will provide shelter from the elements and thereby conserve energy. TT. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Commercial Core I Lot Area: 13,957.9 sq. ft. The following development standards are impacted by the site coverage variance request: Coverage; Permitted site coverage in Commercial Care T is 80~ of the lot area. Site coverage is defined as the "portion of a site covered by buildings, ground level patios and decks." Existing site coverage is 83.2. The following is a summary of existing and proposed conditions: • Site Area: 13,957.90 sq. ft. 1 Allowed Site Coverage (80%}: 11,166.32 sq. ft. Existing Site Coverage (83.2}: 11,619.75 sq. ft. Proposed Site Coverage (83.6%}: 11,679.75 sq. ft. The additional 60 sq. ft. of site coverage will increase the existing site coverage of the Red Lion by 0.4%. A variance is necessary for the .4% increase in site coverage. LandscaAina: Existing Hardscape area: 2,406 sq. ft. (75.5%} Existing Softscape area: 782 sq. ft. (24.5%} Total Existing Landscape Area: 3,188 sq, ft. or 22.8% of site Proposed Hardscape area: 2,346 sq. ft. (75.0} Proposed Softscape area: 782 sq. ft. (25.0%) Total Proposed Landscape Area: 3,128 sq. ft. or 22.4% of site III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 1.8.24.010 Purpase: The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core Y District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the .permitted types of buildings and uses, The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The infill project is in compliance with the purpose of the CCI zone district. The addition will not negatively affect the scale of the building and will improve the overall quality of the space. TV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAi; The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use 2 planning and design considerations. and finally architectural/landscape considerations which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan also addresses specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition to the Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub-areas relevant to this proposal. VT. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE, The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to insure new development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: The proposed addition will have limited impacts on the pedestrian traffic flow because of its location. The addition will add interest to this pedestrian area with increased visibility of the entry to the restaurant. Access will still be maintained for the Red Lion Restaurant emergency exit. The airlock does not affect the improvements proposed for the pocket plaza recently approved for the overall building exterior alteration. B. Vehicia] ar Penetration Vehicular penetration or circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscabe Framework: The airlock will create an inviting place of entry to the basement restaurant and will soften the adjacent plain high walls thereby enhancing the pedestrian scale of the space. • 3 D. Street Enclosure: The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of streets and the height of buildings. The one story airlock addition in this recessed area will have no effect on the street enclosure of Bridge Street. It does not increase the overall height of the building and does not encroach into the pedestrian corridor. The addition will improve the existing condition by creating visual interest in this recessed area. E. Street Edae: There are no standard setback requirements in the Vail Village. Rather, proposals are looked at in relationship to the site and development surrounding the site to insure a strong street edge. The street edge of Bridge Street will not be impacted by this proposal. F. Buildina Heiaht: Building height will be increased by one story at the entry area. • G. Views and Focal Points:, The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted view corridors. The airlock will have no impacts on the line of sight from either the top or bottom of Bridge Street. H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. I, Sun/Shade: There will be no increase in the shadow pattern as a result of this addition because it is within the existing shade pattern of the Red Lion building. J. Architecture/Landscape Considerations: These design considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board. The staff believes the construction of the proposed airlock in this space will improve the appearance of this area by adding visual interest to the space. • 4 The addition will necessitate the removal of 60 sq. ft. of brick pavers which are considered landscaping by definition. - There is no landscape area requirement in CCI. Tn order to remove landscaping in the CCI zone district, sufficient cause must be shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. In this application the amount of hardscape is decreasing. Therefore, we are not requiring the approval of a landscape variance for this application. The removal of the pavers brings the softscape to hardscape percentages into greater conformance with the Town Cade. The staff finds that the application is consistent with the Vail Village Design Considerations. In addition, the application is consistent with the goals and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. We also feel that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts of removing the paved area. VII. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN, The following are goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan supported by this proposal: GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. • 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-- AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.5 Ob-i ective : Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS--SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE, Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance based upon the following factors: • 5 A. Consideration of Factors: ' 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existinr~ or potential uses and structures in the, vicinity. The proposed airlock will not impact access to or obstruct views from any adjacent properties. This small addition will not impact adjacent uses or activities in the area. 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and literal, interpretation and enforcement of a specified ~eaulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives, of this title without errant of special privilege., The site coverage variance is a net increase of 60 sq.' ft. Code requirements prohibit the construction of the airlock within the existing structure. Slight relief from the strict site coverage requirement is warranted to accommodate the airlock. The provision of airlocks is encouraged by the Town of Vail Zoning Code. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air ,_ . distribution of population transportation and traffic, facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This proposal will not affect any of these criteria. IX. FINDINGS-- SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distract. 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. • s C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested exterior alteration and site coverage variance. The review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan Goals show that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. The staff believes that the constructian of this airlock area will add visual interest to this recessed area off of Bridge Street and will improve the general appearance of the area. The proposed expansion will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area and the increase in site coverage is negligible. The site coverage variance is not a grant of special privilege and does not negatively impact adjacent properties or uses. Strict interpretation of the site coverage requirement would create a physical hardship for the applicant as the airlock must be located on the exterior of the building to allow for safe access down the main staircase to the restaurant. Staff rec~,~u~~ends the applicant provide additional softscape landscape in the project area to mitigate the removal of existing hardscape landscape. • i` RUCKSACK CONDOM1NiUMS 572°48~O2~~W St7 °I I'3O ~E 19.00 i.OO' sue, W egf3E /`Ba zyz ~a. 1 N~~g4.16 C Staln 9 O°ck~\"~ ~ / O SET PIN6CAP 3' •d'• i..5~ 23566 9}"~ to °1 Duildinq dt groda -I°~ccPaS~b ~ZE~G!-~WsW Woh1 p.~W.a~.-~ G.C.E. 2nd 5r ~ Orerhonq ~ i, A`' /p ~ .,~, e~ ~ ~~ ~ p 'O. , ~m• r ~ BRILK B CONCRETE ~ p~ `~ 191.07 r PATIO/STAIR/PLANTER ~' ,y6 O~ 0.6~ E0°33'30 f10°23'16" Ca1c.} ~ - 35.21' ~~. (34.64 Calc.) SEY PIN B CAP L.5.23566 ^~~ d ~~ ~~ Z. ~~ r ~~~ ~~. ~~ J EkTRY AREA L.C.E. UNITS ct, c2, e3 +krERSrar~ ~~ 7 Hf6Y1WAY No. Tp B°Itony Overhonq Eveement Ier RucNaetF Condom inlvme Ieeek 269, Poge 4471 1`1 ~j~ \p. ~ ~ 9uY Wlndow i N17°I I'3O'~W I.OO' \` RED LION INN C<)NOOMiNIUMS WOOD, 57EEL,dnd CONCRETE BLDG. i 1 B°Ilal°~ t°~ Dotal de of ' SET PIN S a D' ~ ey :p Buy Wintlow or~rhonq ITYP.1 I6.l~dre ~~0 ~• SET PIN B CAP ti L.5.235O6 ~'~' G.C.E. i„1 ~ )~ ~ 4, S y~ ~. y a 4. R= I2.O0' SET PIN a LAP 06 ~ ~ , ~O 4= 14.60' L.S.235OG 1.2 Rddlal •~\` `,fig ~ 6 p ~ 69°43'00" ~- °i° a~ Platted L = 23.55' ~ a~ 2' ~ ^ 30°07'18" ' ~ ~ SET PIN 8 CAP R = 45.00' l..s. z3sos Calc1 L= 35.72' R ° 12.00' A=45°28'35° CtlICr l ~Ifi.04' p ~ 76°34'55" Recorded nm~ 6nre k ~ ` Rrti EXISTING ENTRANCE r .~; J' ~~ .I \ -~ ~ .. ~ ~ PLAN VIEW %- "~ ~'-o ~# ` ~ - -- ~- ~ • _V ~~ y~ ~` ~~ ,._~ Z ~ 2~ ~d ~~ .~ ~ x d, ~ ~~ ~, E .~. ., ~.. .~ i,;, z ~~ ~.. 1' x 1L ~- o~ . ~, u W d .~ , -~r ~~ 0 ~c _. ~ ,~-_ Z Q -- .~-- ~, J W • • .~ ~. ~f I: s is ~ &'. ' ~ '! ~lrL~~~ ~,~, I ~ Y i u~ ~i, ~i ~I ~I ~I .__~ ~ i ;. ~~ ~~ ~. ~! ~~ ~ ,. -~ k, ~, u~~~ r'll ~l .~ ~- -i ~~ ~~ r ~--- P~ Z O Q ~' Z a • ~, ~~~ i ~ W a~ W ^ t ; { ~~ {~ • _- -~ i ,~ ~ ~. ' ~\ ~~ 5 ~~ 11 ~~ ~'1 l r: ,, r, j~ 51 «~ i c ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ 1 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ i' ~~ ~ %' cQ '~ ~, ,~ .~ ,~ +~ ~~ ~ ~~