Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - March0 • S r AGENDA '- . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 14, 1991 12:30 Site Visits ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2 :00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1.✓' Approval of minutes from the December 10, 1990 meeting. 1 2. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a two car garage at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/ Lot 10, Block 2, Lionsridge Fourth Filing. Applicant: Carrol Orrison 3 3. A request for an exterior alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building, in order to construct commercial ski storage, at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/ Lot 1, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer 2 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow the expansion of an existing television station, located on the first floor of the Sunbird Lodge at 675 Lionshead Place/ Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network TABLED 5. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, also known as the Dauphanais - Moseley SDD, located to the south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge Loop/ Dauphanais - Moseley Subdivision, Filing One. Applicant: Pat Dauphanais A. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 14, 1991 PRESENT Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams ABSENT Chuck Crist STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 2:00 P.M. by Diana Donovan, chairperson. Item #4 was discussed first, in the interest of time. 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow the Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network Jill Kammerer explained the request, stating the applicant wanted to expand an existing television studio located within the Sunbird Lodge in Lionshead (in the CCII zone district). Television • stations are an allowable first floor use within this zone district, provided a conditional use approval has been obtained. In order to meet the conditional use criteria in CCII, television stations must have a production room /studio space which is visible from the street or pedestrian mall, and the television station must be exclusively "cablecast ", which would require no additional antennas. The existing station was approved in July of 1990. An addition to the approved floor plan would require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Jill reviewed the consideration of factors and findings and stated the staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The window covering on the window which permits viewing of the north studio area from the Lionshead pedestrian Mall will remain open when filming /broadcasting activities do not require a controlled lighting situation. 2. The $1,443.90 parking fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail prior to Town issuance of any building permits. Bill Perkins, applicant, was present to answer questions. Kathy wondered why the staff recommended the window covering remain open when possible, and was told the purpose of requiring viewing of the 0 f ■ production room /studio space was to generate pedestrian interest /activity at the mall. Diana did not feel that a television studio was the best use for the space, but felt that since this use was a temporary one because the building would soon be redeveloped, she could support it. Bill Perkins replied that if they could get a good design on the second floor, he would move there and would only have to obtain a business license. Kathy moved to approve the request per the staff memo with the two conditions stated above and made findings A, B, and C. Kristan wanted to make certain that the TV company did not occupy the new space until the required parking fee had been paid and a building permit had been obtained. Bill Perkins stated there was already equipment stored there and individuals working out of the space. Bill assured the staff and board nothing would be changed until the parking fee was paid. Dalton seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor. 1. Approval of minutes of December _1.O_ meeting. Dalton moved and Kathy seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. A request for a front yard setback variance to allow a detached garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lionsridge Filing No. 4, 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison Andy Knudtsen explained the request for a 19 foot setback variance. The setback requirement is 20 feet and the applicant was requesting a setback of 1 foot. On a site plan, Andy showed where the detached garage would be constructed and where the driveway would be. (This was the fourth time the applicant had been before the PEC.) Changes made to the previous applications included a reduced depth of fill from 7 feet to 1.5 feet, reduced length of fill from 80 feet to 26 feet, reduced slope of drive from 11% to 7.7 %, and slope of fill around driveway no longer exceeded 2:1. The changes had been made possible by shifting the driveway to the north and tightening the turning radius of each of the two curves of the driveway. Andy did caution the applicant that the Town Engineer had expressed concern that because of the tightness of the curves, the driveway may not accommodate large vehicles. Andy wanted the applicant to understand that the driveway may only function for small cars. Andy reviewed the Criteria and Findings, beginning with the Consideration of Factors. He stated that the staff recommended approval of the request noting that findings A, B, and C2 were met. There were four conditions of approval which must be met before a .. building permit could be obtained: • 1. The amount of landscaping must be increased, specifically in the area between the cul -de -sac and the driveway, with 6 aspen and 5 junipers. 2. Written approval must be obtained from the homeowner's association for the use of their right -of -way for the driveway. 3. Guardrails approved by a registered, professional engineer must be installed along the driveway. 4. An updated rockfall study for the driveway and garage must be obtained. The applicant, Carrol Orrison, said that he felt confident that the driveway would work. Dalton had questions about the rockfall study, and Jim about the acceptance of the conditions. Mike Perkins, architect, stated that the turning radius could have been improved with the addition of more asphalt. He felt it was a Catch -22. Mr. Orrison stated he was not concerned about the turning radius, because he could place small cars in the garage. • Connie moved to approve the request per the staff memo with the four conditions. Ludi seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0. 3. A request for an exterior alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building in order to construct commercial ski storage and a stairway _at 231 East Gore, Creek Drive, Lot 1 Block 5B Vail Village lst Filin . Applicant: Pe pi Gramshammer Andy showed a site plan and explained the staircase on the east would be the only part of the new construction that would be visible. This ski storage would be a room at the basement level below the exterior dining deck, accessed by a new staircase located at the southeast corner of the building. Andy described the removal of landscaping and the addition of more landscaping. Andy reviewed the purpose section of Commercial Core 1, the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village, and related goals and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The staff recommendation was for approval with two conditions: 1. The applicant must pay $7,350 for a parking fee as prescribed in Section 18.52.160 (B) 7 of the Town Municipal code. 2. The applicant will plant the two planter beds with annuals or • perennials so that the beds are completely covered between the • bushes and trees. Sid Schultz; architect for the project, stated that Pepi would rather not plant evergreens, but would be willing to put in more aspen, which would leave more transparency in the winter. He would also prefer flowers rather than large plants. Ludi stated that he would just as soon see aspen and leave more openness next to the building. Dalton wondered if the stairs should be heated because they would not be in sun. Pepi replied the stairs would be under a roof and since they are on the east side, would not receive much snow. Kathy felt a spruce would be nice to plant, because of the bright green against the yellow wall. Pepi felt the evergreen trees would grow up and be too close to the building. He suggested a bush instead. Kathy replied she would give Pepi the name of a type of tree that grows quite slowly. Diana felt something should be planted in the planters so it would be visible in the winter time above the snow. She also encouraged Pepi to put everything back in place so that the deck would not look new. Sid replied that they would probably ball up the existing landscaping (except the aspens) and put it back in place when the construction was done. -Diana also suggested continuing the planter around the corner. . Dalton moved to approve the request for the exterior alteration per the staff memo, including the two conditions in the memo, with the modification that athe spruce be replaced with a very slow growing coniferous tree. Jim Shearer seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor. 5. LULJ LJCELA 11d11CL_Lt5 11U5e1e emu. Applicant: Pat Dauphanais, Shelly asked to table this item to January 28, 1991. Kathy moved and Jim seconded to table to 1/28. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. In other business, Jim Shearer had volunteered to be the PEC representative on the DRB for the months of January, February and March. f Kristan stated Larry Eskwith, the Town attorney, had asked to meet with the DRB at a later date to discuss various issues. She also added the Town had two books on being a planning commissioner which the members were encouraged to read. Dalton suggested the Town buy a copy of each book for the board members. • Three members terms were to expire February 1st; Kathy Warren, Dalton Williams, and Chuck Crist. They were encouraged to reapply. The meeting adjourned at 2:55 P.M. 11 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a front yard setback variance to allow a detached garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4/ 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED With this proposal, the applicant is requesting a 19 foot variance to the front setback standard in order to construct a detached garage. The zoning code requires a 20 foot setback and the applicant will be providing one foot. The garage that will be built has the same configuration that has been presented to the PEC at earlier hearings. The structure will be buried into the hillside with two parking spaces inside, two spaces on the roof, and a driveway that circles around the structure to access the lower interior spaces. This application is different than the previous requests in that the applicant has moved the garage up next to the house. (Please see attached site plan.) The driveway, in conjunction with the garage, has also been shifted to the north. The edge of asphalt that parallels the brow of the hill is now eight feet further to the north (uphill) than the earlier proposals. Other changes to the driveway from the previous design are shown below: Previous Current Design Design 1. Depth of Fill 7.0' 1.5' 2. Length of Fill 80.0' 26.0' 3. Slope of Drive 11.0% 7.70 4. Slope of Fill exceeded around driveway 2:1 2:1 The changes to the driveway have been made possible by shifting the garage up next to the house, relocating the existing staircase, and shifting the driveway to the north. In addition, the turning radius of the two curves on the driveway have been tightened. Both curves have a fifteen foot turning radius. Because the slope of the driveway does not exceed 80, Town Engineer approval is not needed. However, the Town Engineer expressed concern that the driveway will not accommodate large vehicles because of the • 1 15' turning radius. As long as the applicant understands . the constraints of the driveway, and because it will function for small cars, the Town Engineer is not opposed to it being built. II. BACKGROUND This request is the fourth time that the applicant has brought a proposal to the PEC. At the first presentation of the request, on November 12, 1990, staff recommended denial, finding that there were several problems with the design. The PEC expressed concerns and requested that the applicant look at alternatives. The primary concern of the Commission was the visibility of the driveway to the valley below and the amount of fill necessary to build the driveway. In addition, staff concerns included the slope of the driveway, the slope of the fill around the driveway, and the amount of asphalt proposed. The applicant requested the item be tabled without PEC discussion on November 26, 1990 and December 10, 1990. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Single Family Residential • Lot Area: 17,075.5 sq. ft. Proposed: Site Coverage: Allowed: 3415.1 sq. ft. 15 Existing 1786.1 sq. ft. 79 Proposed: 2362.6 sq. ft. Height (garage only): (south) - Required: 15 Allowed: 30.0 ft. 79 Proposed: 9.5 ft. Setbacks (garage only): * Front - Required: 20 ft. Proposed: 1 ft. Rear - Required: 15 ft. Proposed: 79 ft. Side (south) - Required: 15 ft. Proposed: 79 ft. Side (north) - Required: 15 ft. Proposed: 19 ft. *Area of setback variance request. • 2 (20 percent) (10.5 percent) (13.8 percent) IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The issue concerning the relationship of the proposal to the valley below was a key point in the previous PEC discussions. Staff was concerned that the cut and fill required to build the driveway would scar the hillside. The table showing the changes from the earlier proposals shows that the depth of fill, length of fill, slope of driveway, and slope of the fill around the driveway all have been reduced in their degree of severity. As a result, the visual impacts from this proposal on the surrounding uses and structures have been reduced. . Staff believes that there are still some negative aspects to this proposal. There is still a significant amount of asphalt proposed for the driveway. Staff believes that less asphalt would be better. Another concern of the staff involves the use of the "right -of- way ". The road that serves the lots in this subdivision has not been dedicated to the Town. It is controlled and maintained by the homeowner's association of Lionsridge Filing No. 4. Because this request involves using more of the right -of -way than most driveways normally would, staff recommends that a condition of approval to this request be that the homeowner's association approve these drawings. A third issue is the need for additional landscaping between the driveway and the right -of -way. Staff recommends that more landscaping be planted in this area and has listed this as another condition of approval. Of the three problems staff has identified, two can be resolved with the proposed conditions of approval. Staff believes that the one remaining (the amount of asphalt) does not stand out as a major problem, given all the other issues on this site. Staff believes the views of this garage from the 0 valley floor will be acceptable. Though the garage may be visible, (as is the house) it is due to the high visibility of the lot, not because of the variance request or the nature of the construction. The decrease in the amount of fill from previous proposals is the most significant improvement. Because there will be very little fill, the impact of the project to structures in the vicinity is minimal. 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 ob'ectives of this title without grant of special privilege In previous reviews of the garage, staff has maintained that a request for relief from the strict interpretation of the code be granted for the proposal which has the least amount of impact and smallest need for relief. In this case, staff can support the request because it has been redesigned so that the degree of relief is less than other proposals and because there is no grant • of special privilege. The location of the existing house and the steepness of the lot are two constraints which justify some variance in order to construct a garage. Regarding the degree of relief, there is no longer a request for a variation to the Town's standards for driveway slope, and there is no longer a request for a variation from the Design Review Guidelines on slope of fill. Because the applicant has mitigated these impacts and brought them up to the standards of the Town, staff believes the remaining setback variance is a reasonable request. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and utilities and public safety. Regarding the impacts of this request on the issues listed above, the garage has been moved outside the utility easement and the applicant has tried to mitigate the safety of the driveway by proposing guardrails. The staff continues to be concerned about the tight curves on this driveway; however, we believe that the design can accommodate compact cars and that larger vehicles can use the roof parking spaces. 4 . Another safety issue is the need for a rockfall study. Nick Lampiris did a rockfall study dated September 12, 1989, for the construction of the new house. The study must be updated to include this proposal. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the garage construction, the applicant must provide a rockfall study for this specific proposal. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request, because it meets the criteria and findings for a variance and because it • meets all of the Town of Vail's standards and guidelines except for the front yard setback. Staff believes that the 5 setback variance on this site is reasonable, given the fact that the site has a steep slope and because the existing building location limits the number of potential garage locations. Specifically, Finding A is met with this request since there will not be a grant of special privilege for this proposal based on the two hardships listed above. Finding B is met as this request does not negatively affect public safety. Finding C2 is met as the site does have extraordinary circumstances. The Commission should recall that staff recommendations on two of the three previous variance requests were for denial. In those recommendations staff discussed the criteria in addition to the findings. Staff believes that this request meets both the findings and the criteria, whereas earlier requests did not meet the criteria. Specifically, the second criteria dealing with the degree of relief needed from the Town regulation was not met. Because the applicant has made enough improvements from the earlier proposals he now meets this criteria. Therefore staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant: 1. Increase the amount of landscaping on the plan, specifically in the area between the cul -de -sac and the driveway, with six aspen and 5 junipers; . 2. Provide written approval from the homeowner's association for the use of their "right -of -way" for this driveway; 3. Install guardrails on the driveway which are approved by a registered, professional engineer; 4. Provide an updated rockfall study for the driveway and garage. c: \mo \orris -4 51 tia..FT" �QT CO��E�a,C E O-f .SUI LPIH&tSt '9486.5Q. i 5Tl4 sa,FT.L2'i,A P- / 1ry0 ` Q-r uHr.Erz E IF R eaulK6v f / �. 9wNOP 1h11, �• Is �><Sy ?INI� 51NC,� �pr11�Y 1zE`'v5H HBrL1 ti 5' I / 21•x, / ( `, . n.� �(COHG•TOP� �L3 SUP- F.`G6.F4h 6r-T1K�o41F;,r -t'� P`' • • , tis +ti / / a, j � / / REVrGCiEra. %u:• olsYisa��ry ��, , 'AIPTSokip Ei =S66g, u�zE 7,E.jtr9ave -FxoF C,AFF.HE u 4T a / h , o� vA•TIvA 1N.G?~f�ATtvE �•. 1°�` „lO><lo T2EATC -17 "TiMA�EP�i PI.F.6CV .. , J. el •sd•717. '. /... NOTE. FILL5wC'E AV9A ALONh1 ro :a 1 / :;;;� , / vRLiE w�nEg �4sa,FT. tts, ' - �KIZThICq 'IOPGGts'APNIG IfiFf71LHATIdH . . - AND HCU16 I.vGA-TIOH'-rr.K•Et•i Fr C" _ PRPr'AFL SY 1;A[,1.E UhLLEK 5U{ZVEYINC,, Za4•, s N - 4 T- 00 r: d� ill, 0 I fill . NON 6' r } fAl Q a li 1 ti oar .9 �► -r � Q� S� a VON-- Lu Q ll] V � x � w i f 1 lI E • n 1 � N 1 r r� r r d� ill, 0 I fill . NON 6' r } fAl Q a li 1 ti oar .9 �► -r � Q� S� a r1 U LJ 5191! —I6�J CpLo;z o� 'CNoSE l��M� oil �xiSTII�C�r + -�pl�� 5cA flOOf� COLDS 'T� !''Ift'TGf—i �1791H� (W'i•ES OPTivµ.a.�� p.m ILA 0— • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building in order to construct commercial ski storage and a stairway at 231 East Gore Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant proposes to construct a room at the basement level of the Gasthof Gramshammer lodge for commercial ski storage. This room would be immediately below the exterior dining deck that is currently located on the south side of the building. This basement area would be accessed by a new staircase located at the southeast corner of the building. The ski storage room would have 23 ski lockers in it and would be 736 sq. ft. in size. There will not be an • attendant for the space and there will be no retail sales of ski accessories. The existing deck above this space will be temporarily removed and the new ski storage area will be excavated and constructed during the summer of 1991. The excavation will require that the applicant use approximately six feet of Town right -of -way. The applicant will replace any asphalt that is removed as part of the construction process after the project is completed. No signage is being proposed with this application; however, in the future, the applicant plans to apply for a three foot square foot wall sign near the staircase. There will be a five and one half foot setback from the south property line to the deck /basement wall. There will be a .5 foot setback from the eastern property line to the deck /basement wall. The applicant proposes to reconstruct the planter that is currently on the corner of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street to screen the new staircase. The landscaping that will be removed includes two aspens and one mugho pine. The reconstructed planter and the existing planter north of the staircase will be replanted with 6 mugho pines, 3 aspens, one 5 -10 foot tall spruce, and 3 cinquefoil bushes. Between these bushes and trees, the applicant will plant annual or perennial flowers that will cover all of the rest of the planter areas. The landing at 1 the top of the stairs will be made out of stone pavers. As the space is 736 sq. ft., the parking requirement is 2.45 spaces based on the personal service requirement of one space per 300 sq.ft. The parking fee is $7,350.00. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010_ Purpose "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to insure 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 insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public green ways, and to insure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village.,, • A detailed analysis of the way the proposal complies with the architectural standards of Vail Village and purpose section of the CCI zone district is provided below. The commercial ski storage use is stipulated as an allowed use, under Section 18.24.020(B)2, in basement or garden level. III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL There are three different documents which all CCI exterior alterations must be evaluated against. The first is the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the second is the Vail Village Design Considerations and the third is the Vail Village Master Plan. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub -areas relevant to this proposal. V. 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 • 2 characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to • assure that new development will be consistent with the established character. The considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: The proposal will not have any negative impact on the pedestrian nature of Vail Village. B. Vehicular Penetration: This type of use should not create a greater demand for truck access. C. Streetsca a Framework: There are two components listed in the design considerations that work together to establish the framework for the Village streets. The first is open space, landscaping, berms, and similar elements. The second is commercial infill via storefront expansions. This proposal addresses the first of the two components. The additional landscaping in the rebuilt planter as well as the new landscaping in the existing planter north of the proposed staircase will be a focal • point along a major pedestrian route. As such, it fulfills one of the goals of the design considerations. D. Street Enclosure: The proposal will not affect the street enclosure in this area as there is no expansion above grade. The planter that screens the staircase is too small to affect a pedestrian's feeling of enclosure at this location in the Village. E. Street -Edge: Again, the relatively small size of this exterior alteration will not significantly effect the appearance of the street edge. What little affect it will have however, is positive. The staircase and planter will create a jog and add to the visual interest along Bridge Street. Low planter walls, tree plantings, and changes in ground surface texture are all called for in the Design Considerations. This proposal has all three of these design elements and is therefore in compliance with the standards. • • LJ F. Building Height: Building height will be unaffected. G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted view corridors. H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect the current service and delivery patterns. I. Sun /shade: The proposal will not cast any shadows longer than what the existing structure does. J. Architecture./Landscape Considerations: The Design Considerations call for a mix of deciduous and evergreen species for year - -round continuity and interest. The Design Considerations also call for asphalt or brick for walking surfaces. The staircase itself will be made out of concrete. However, the landing at the top of the staircase which interfaces with Bridge Street will be made out of stone paving. The planter walls will be constructed out of stones that will match the existing stonework. Staff believes that the application complies with the landscape standards specified in the Design Considerations. VI. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN There are two objectives, 2.4 and 3.1, which relate to the expansion. 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. 2.4 OBJECTIVE: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. GOAL #3: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 OBJECTIVE: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 4 Staff believes that this new commercial activity is compatible with surrounding land uses and adds variety to this area of the Village. Staff also believes that the Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive pedestrian ways will be enhanced by the additional landscaping. Two of the five illustrative plans of the Vail Village Master Plan relate to the project. The Land Use Plan calls for mixed use, with which this request complies. The Circulation Plan calls for Bridge Street to be a pedestrian street. The proposal will support pedestrian activity on Bridge Street. The Open Space Illustrative Plan and the Building Height Illustrative Plan are not applicable. There are no sub -area plans which pertain to this corner in the Village. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposal because we believe it meets the policies of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Design Considerations and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. There is a small amount of additional mass and bulk which will be added to the • building; however, staff believes the improved landscaping in the planters around the staircase will mitigate the impact of the staircase itself and will improve the overall character of Bridge Street. The Town's plans and guidelines for the Village call for additional landscaping as focal points for the pedestrian ways through the Village, and staff believes this fulfills those objectives well. • Staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant: 1. Pay the $7,350.00 parking fee as prescribed in Section 18.52.160(B)7, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; 2. Plant the two planter beds with annuals or perennials so that the beds are completely covered between the bushes and trees. 5 BRIDGE STREET 1 T :r . BRIDGE STREET DN 9 0 fe GROUND LEVEL PLAN 1/8'. = 1'- 0° / 1 u .I • �.. � 1 r V 'Ir -5 .mil•' : f O ,' Y '1 ❑ ❑ a l =' =�w o-d.v r• aq^ {� •,M ' r•1 w 1 E•I:. El t, LLJ L TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 14, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of an existing "Television Station" within the Commercial Core II zone district. Project location: Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Sunbird Lodge, 675 Lionshead Place Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant has proposed to expand an existing television studio located within the Sunbird Lodge in the Commercial Core II (CCII) zone district. Television stations are an allowable first floor use within this zone district, provided conditional use permit approval has been obtained. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1990 which was approved by the Town Council on July 17, 1990, added television stations as an allowable use on the first floor in the CCII zone district. Under this ordinance, television stations are required to have a production room /studio space which is visible from the street or pedestrian mall, and the television station must be exclusively "cablecast ", which would require no additional antennas. On July 23, 1990 the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a conditional use permit for the Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network to allow the operation of a television studio within the Sunbird Lodge. Approval of the current request would allow the expansion of this existing facility. The applicant has indicated that the two areas which necessitated the expansion request are maintenance and production /editing. At the time the existing conditional use permit was approved, the applicant had assumed these two areas would be a part of the initial studio areas. The applicant has indicated that due to the popularity of the station, production is double what was originally anticipated thereby creating a need for additional space. The maintenance function relates to the repair and upkeep of airplay decks and television equipment. The existing television station consists of the following (see attached floor plan): A. 221 square feet of outdoor studio area, which is used only in the summertime. This studio space is located • immediately north of the TV station's main entry (Sunbird Lodge property), and fronts onto the Lionshead • pedestrian mall. B. 587 square feet of floor area is utilized for the TV station's north studio, visitor reception area, production and master control room. C. 689 square feet of floor area is utilized for the TV station's south studio, green room (make -up), conference area and staff offices. This area which is part of the Sunbird Lodge's old lobby area, is on the south side of the building, facing the ski slopes. The expansion proposal consists of the following additional areas (see attached floor plan): 184 Sq. Ft. of Office Space 295 Sq. Ft. for Production /Editing 243 Sq. Ft. for Maintenance 722 Sq. Ft. Total Expansion 11497 Sq. Ft. of Existing Television Studio 722 Scr. Ft. Area of Expansion Television Studio 2,219 Sq. Ft. Total Area of Proposed Television Studio The studio area is visible through the large window fronting onto the Lionshead Mall. The station operates via a cablecast system and therefore there are no antennas. when operating at full capacity during the ski season, there are 18 employees, 3 of which are part time workers. The purpose of this television station is to inform the Vail Valley visitor of current weather, events, ski mountain information, and available activities. One example of the television station's programming is a show entitled "Good Morning Vail ". This show is telecast live from 6.30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week during the ski season and July 4 through Labor Day. The types of information provided during this show includes weather conditions, ski conditions, trails groomed overnight, race information, skier warm -up aerobics, events scheduled for the day /week, guest interviews-- --from lift lines and mall areas, information on bus routes, parking, restaurants, real estate, and general ski information. 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: • 2 0 r� A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and im act of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Purpose section of the Commercial Core II zone district, Section 18.26.010 states: "The Commercial Core II district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards." Due to the July 17, 1990 amendment to the Town's zoning code, allowing "Television Stations" as a Conditional Use, it is the planning staff's opinion that this the Sunbird Lodge, purpose section of district as stated establishment that mixture of uses. proposed television station in would meet the intent of the the Commercial Core II zone above, since it is a commercial is located in a building with a 2. The effect of the use on light and air, recreation_ facilities, and other Public facilities needs. The expansion of the existing cablecast television studio in the Sunbird Lodge, will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and Parking areas. Again, the staff can find no significant effect or impact upon any of the above named considerations. is 3 This television studio expansion would require an additional parking fee. Because the Commercial Core II zone district does not allow for the parking demand to be met on site, the applicant is required to pay into the Town's parking fund. This proposed use has an associated parking fee of $3,040 per space. The total increase in the parking fee required as a result of the proposed expansion is $1,443.90. 4. surrounding uses. The proposed use will involve no changes to the exterior of the existing Sunbird Lodge building, and it is the staff's opinion that the proposed use will have no effect upon the character of the area. III. FINDINGS re, A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department staff finds that this expansion request meets the Conditional Use permit criteria, as stated above. Staff believes the expansion of the existing TV studio is consistent with Ordinance #23, Series of 1990 which sets the parameters for television studios as conditional uses in the Commercial Core II zone district. Staff recommends approval of the expansion of the television studio subject to the following conditions: is 4 1. The window covering on the window which permits . viewing of the north studio area from Lionshead Mall remain open when filming /broadcasting does not require a controlled lighting situation. 2. The $1,443.90 parking fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail prior to Town issuance of any building permits. • Note: Under the Conditional Use Permit requirements, should there be any change in the approved floor plan, programming, or any other conditions of the permit, the applicant will be required to amend the Conditional Use Permit. 5 �JJ J J J L O W 2 0 J SJ � Q 1 o � � o 7 '10- • o- n 1Q fji NPA o 0 ,4 • • • • • lk • ♦ rt • T A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION r4 January 28, 19 91 AGENDA 1:30 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. Approval of minutes of January 14, 1991. 3 2. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, also known as the Dauphanais - Moseley SDD, located to the south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge Loop /Dauphanais - Moseley Subdivision, Filing One. Applicant: Pat Dauphanais 1 3. Work Session - A request for setback, landscape, and site coverage variances and an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier 2 4. Work Session - Stephen's Park. Review of proposed Stephen's Park Master Plan. Site is located on the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinnick Road. Applicant: Town of Vail ITEMS TABLED TO FEBRUARY 11, 1991: 5. A request for a major subdivision, to approve the final plat. Said parcel is commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. 17-j 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 28, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Ludwig Kurz Staff Kristan Pritz Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello The meeting was called to order at 3:30PM by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. 1. Approval of minutes_ from the January 14. 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved and Connie Knight seconded the approval of the minutes as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, with Chuck Crist abstaining. 2. A reauest for a ma-ior amendment to Special Development District No. 22, also known as the Dauphanais- Moseley SDD, located to the south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge Loop/ Dauphanais- Moseley Subdivision, Filing One. Applicant: Pat Dauphanais Shelly Mello explained the request and outlined the points which staff were recommending and not recommending. The Applicant and the staff requested several amendments to the SDD which will bring the SDD into conformance with the Town's new site coverage and GRFA regulations, and also "fine tune" the architectural guidelines. These consisted of: 1. Changes to lot sizes, 2. Setbacks - allow the front roof overhangs to encroach 4' into the front setback on Lots 4 -14 and 15 -24. In turn, the Applicant will increase the rear setback on Lots 4 -14 by 41. In addition, staff and Applicant requested a clarification of what type of deck meets the term "at grade deck." 3. Site coverage - Applicant requests site coverage to meet the new definition. Site coverage will not exceed 25 percent of the total lot area. 4. Architectural Guidelines a. Roof - Applicant requests deletion of the requirement for a clipped gable roof, but retain 8/12 to 12/12 roof pitch. b. Secondary fascia and metal railings above the sq. first floor - applicant would like to delete the 2. specific reference to muted red, blue and green, with and specify that the railings and secondary fascia corresponding increase in rear setback on above the first floor to be a muted color, with 3. review of such color to be performed by the Design read Review Board. C. Walls - Applicant requests that vertical wood feet siding be allowed in addition to the approved horizontal wood siding. d. Outdoor lighting - Applicant requests direct, exterior lighting to be physically attached to the building, and to be reviewed by the Design Review 4. Board on a lot -to -lot basis. e. Garages - applicant requests that the garage on Lot 24 be allowed to face Moraine Drive. 5. Conditions of Approval a. Employee Housing - there are four requested amendments to the requirements for caretaker units. These consist of: 1) each would receive 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to compensate for the loss of credits due to the change to GRFA effective January 1, 1991, 2) be able to use up to 300 sq. ft. of GRFA from the primary unit to add a second bedroom to the caretaker unit, 3) allow caretaker units to be constructed on all 24 lots, and 4) increase the allowable GRFA from 500 to 600 sq. . ft. b. Add Lot 5 to Phase I of the Phasing Plan. Staff believes that the setback changes on Lots 4 -14 would be positive with regard to site coverage, as long as the rear setback on these lots is increased accordingly. With regard to the caretaker unit enlargement, staff feels that there would be a negative impact on the overall project if the units are allowed up to 700 sq. ft. Instead, staff believes that smaller units on all lots would be a benefit to the Town in their stated goal of providing more permanently restricted, available employee housing units. Staff recommends specifically: 1. Lot size changes be made, adding 425 sq. ft. 2. 4' front roof encroachments on Lots 5 -14, with corresponding increase in rear setback on those lots. 3. Clarify grade on decks and patios to read "unenclosed, unroofed decks or patios within five feet of finished grade may encroach up to 5 feet into the rear setback on Lots 1 -14." 4. Site coverage be defined as per site coverage definition effective January 1, 1991. 5. Changes to Conditions of Approval: • a. 1) Allow transfer of 300 sq. ft. of GRFA from primary to secondary unit to provide for second bedroom. 2) Allow up to 24 caretaker units. 3) Grant 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unit to compensate for deletion of credit system. b. Add Lot 5 to Phase I of phasing plan. Staff recommends denial of the following amendment requests: 1. 4 foot roof encroachment on Lots 15 -24 2. Increase allowable square footage of caretaker unit to 600 sq. ft. Recommendation of denial of these requests is based on items 1, 2 and 6 of the SDD criteria. The discussion was broken down into separate issues facing the Commission. The first issue was adding space to the caretaker unit. Kathy Langenwalter explained her concern that she believed the Commission has approved employee housing, not caretaker units. Applicant agreed that the secondary units are employee housing units. Discussion then centered on size of the units on the lots, and concern that the buildings were too large. Staff clarified that credits were never counted into the GRFA when the plans were approved previously. Dalton Williams stated that he believed the PEC and Town Council were not aware that they were approving GRFA plus credits. The PEC was very concerned that the GRFA numbers did not also include credits. Commissioners were concerned about the massive appearance of the existing unit. Diana Donovan asked for clarification on the employee units of whether the SDD ordinance called for 500 sq. ft. maximum feet, or 500 feet of GRFA. Her understanding was that it was 500 sq. ft. Applicant expressed to the Commission that 500 sq. ft. was only a 25'x 20' building, and his request was to add 100 sq. ft. to make it a more liveable unit, and 100 sq. ft. for mechanical. Staff then asked the Commission to address the concerns regarding garage space. Shelly asked whether the space should be included in GRFA, or if excluded, what maximum should be placed on the size of the unit. Shelly Mello suggested that a cap be placed on the garage of 900 sq. feet for 3 spaces. Jim Shearer stated that he was concerned that a second bedroom on the employee unit would create problems with parking, including the issue of curbside parking. • 3 Diana Donovan clarified the Commission consensus as allowing for credits on the primary unit of 425 sq. ft., capping the employee unit at 500 sq. ft., and allowing for 900 sq. ft. (3 spaces) of garage space if there were a primary and employee unit built on a lot, or 600 sq. ft. (2 spaces) if one unit is built. Discussion then shifted to the issue of setbacks. Applicant explained his position on moving the homes on Lots 4 -14 away from the ridge and allowing for a 4' roof overhang to encroach into the front setback. Diana Donovan asked Applicant to clarify that he would not change the footprint of the building itself to encroach on the front setback. He indicated that it would be a roof overhang encroachment only, and would consist of 4' maximum. Commission consensus was that Lots 1 -14 could have a 4" roof encroachment into the front encroachment. The rear setback would then move up 4' to the north on Lots 1 -14. No encroachment would be allowed on Lots 15 -24. Commission then turned their attention to the issue of roof type. It was decided that a "clipped gable, gable or hipped roof are mandatory, with a 8 -12' to 12 -12' pitch requirement. Dormers are architectural features, and as such, will be reviewed by the Design Review Board." Finally, the discussion regarding the employee housing units was completed. Consensus of the Commission was that a second bedroom would be allowed on the employee unit. 200 sq. ft. from the primary unit may be transferred into the secondary unit, but that it would not specifically be for the provision of a second bedroom. Dalton Williams moved and Chuck Crist seconded the motion that: 1. SDD 22 be allowed 900 sq. ft. of garage space if two units are built, or 600 sq. ft. of garage space if 1 unit is built; 2. The employee housing unit be a maximum of 500 sq. ft., except that 200 sq. ft. from the primary unit is transferrable to the secondary unit; 3. The primary unit will receive 425 sq. ft. of GRFA credit; 4. There may be a 4' roof overhang on Lots 1--14 if the rear setback is increased by 41, and that a deck within 5' of finished grade will be allowed to encroach 5' into the rear setback of Lots 1 -14; 5. Direct, outdoor lighting will be subject to DRB review; 6. A clipped gable, gable or hipped roof is mandatory. Other roof forms for dormers will be subject to Design Review Board approval; 7. The garage on Lot 24 may face Moraine Drive 8. Lot 5 will be added to Phase 1 of the SDD; and 0 4 9. The requirement on secondary fascia will be changed from . allowing muted red, blue and green only to muted colors to be approved by the Design Review Board. The vote was 6 -1 in favor, with Kathy Langenwalter opposed due to the size concerns she expressed above. An additional motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded by ? ?? that a maximum of 15 employee housing units be allowed in this SDD. The vote was 5-2, with Chuck Crist and Jim Shearer in opposition, stating that they believed 24 would be acceptable. The Commission proceeded into a 5 minute recess, reconvening at 5:45PM. 3. Work Session - A request for setback, landscape, and site coverage variances and an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier Jill Kammerer explained the staff had the following concerns regarding the development proposal: 1. The hipped roof at the entry to the Banner Sports commercial space 2. Landscaping issues 3. Pitch of roof • 4. Cedar shake roofing material 5. Roof overhang 6. Transparency of facade 7. Setback variance 8. Connection of the addition's roof to the existing structure. Staff indicated the Lionshead Design Considerations recommended against using gable roof forms in Lionshead. The development proposal calls for a gable roof at the entrance to the Banner Sports retail space. Staff believes a peaked (shed) roof over the entrance to Banner Sports would better relate to the architecture of the existing structure and would be in keeping with the Lionshead Design Considerations. Staff further recommended the proposed roof pitch match the roof pitch of Montauk's restaurant, the proposed roof overhang be a minimum of 311, and the applicant connect the addition to the existing building at the floor level of the second story balconies. The applicant indicated all proposed roof overhangs will be 611. The Commission first discussed setbacks. There was concern on the part of Kathy Langenwalter, Ludwig Kurz, Diana Donovan and Connie Knight regarding the 10' encroachment into the required 10' setback. Under the proposal, the addition would encroach into the setback up to the property line. In particular, Ludwig 0 5 Kurz and Diana Donovan were concerned with the addition • encroachment at the southwest corner of the site, and the impact this encroachment would have on views from the mall to the stage /fountain area. Dalton Williams indicated that he had a problem with a setback encroachment without the provision of additional landscaping and, further, that he would like the addition to maintain a setback from the property line, but was not sure what that should be. Jim Shearer and Chuck Crist did not have a problem with the proposed setback encroachment. However, Jim would like to see some articulation /undulation along the west facade. Jim was concerned with the impact the addition would have on the Peddle Power /Vail ski Tech commercial space. He was concerned the shop would be "buried." In response to a question raised by Ludwig, the applicant indicated the area under the high roof was not usable. This being the case, Ludwig indicated he thought there was too much roof and if the space was not being used, the applicant should bring the roof down. Dalton also expressed a desire to see the roof height come down. Roof pitch was also discussed. It was expressed that the building scale needed to come down to a more pedestrian scale. This could be accomplished in part by modifying the roof pitch to decrease the height of the roof. Kathy further stated she felt cedar shingles were totally inappropriate, and that a metal roofing material should be investigated. Jim Shearer was in agreement with this. 49 A suggestion was made by Dalton Williams to include display windows along the west facade of the structure to increase building transparency and pedestrian level interest. Kathy supported this suggestion. General concern by the Commission was expressed regarding the entries to the Lifthouse Lodge Condominiums and the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space. Jim, Diana, Kathy, Dalton and Ludwig felt these entries should be addressed at the same time the Banner Sports facade is redesigned. It was suggested alternatives be explored, which may require a site coverage in addition to setback variances to solve the problem of the Banner Sports addition obscuring visibility to these other two entrances and to the stage area. Traffic flow through the area was addressed by the applicant, with the suggestion that the planter be moved and the project re- designed to allow for better access, and additional landscaping overall. The applicant agreed to work with the Lionshead Merchants Association and Vail Associates to develop a new landscaping plan. Staff also agreed to look at landscaping plans which might include Town property. The general consensus of the Commission was the plan needed more greenery. Concerns were raised regarding the architecture of the addition. Kathy Langenwalter did not like the "rustic" architecture of the plan, and would like to see more contemporary architectural is 6 treatments. She felt the applicant should explore something • high, more sculptural at the Banner Sports entrance. Jim agreed with Kathy's comments regarding the architecture of the entrance. Diana Donovan also expressed her opinion that the architecture was not appropriate for the area. She did not feel the architecture had to be Tyrolean to be warm. Connie Knight disagreed with Kathy. Connie stated bavarian (rustic) architecture might be just what Lionshead needed. Jim Shearer also liked the look of the addition as proposed, but encouraged the applicant to try to better tie in the addition to the existing building. Jim felt the existing structure was stark and would not like to see the addition emulate this starkness. Jim clarified his statement regarding undulating the facade. He thought a better word choice might be graduated. In other words, the western facade should be tapered so that the northwest corner of the structure encroaches into the plaza area more than the southwest corner of the structure. Jim felt he may support a site coverage variance if the Peddle Power and Lifthouse Condominium entrances were addressed. Applicant expressed concern over designing around the snow dump area. Staff indicated the Public Works department had requested an 18 -wheel truck, which is used for mall snow removal, continue to be accommodated. Applicant agreed to work around this provision. In addition, applicant agreed to provide photographs of the Gondola Plaza area to the Commission for review. Diane wanted to see increased transparency of the western facade, the roof pitch match the pitch of Montauk's (unless the architect did something with the entrance, as Kathy had suggested), the roof connection point be at the floor level of the second story deck, and some additional landscaping. She further indicated she felt the existing planter should not be torn out and that the setback variance, landscape variance and landscaping were all a trade off. The variances would not be an issue with her if the problems inherent with the building were solved. 4. Work Session - Stephens Park. Review of proposed Stephens Park Master Plan. Site is located on the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinnick Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Diana proposed, and the Commission agreed, to review the plan without a staff presentation. Connie Knight asked when the project would start, if money had been allocated, and if the project would take money from the Village Transportation Center landscaping fund. Todd Oppenheimer said that construction would start as soon as snow melted, that the park money had been allocated in the 1990 and 1991 budgets, and that it was completely separate from the Transportation Center funds. Jim Shearer expressed concern over Frontage Road traffic and parking. Todd indicated that there would be no parking along the Frontage Road, and that "No Parking" signs would be set up and enforced. As parking was a general area of concern for the Commission, staff said they would look into additional parking possibilities. Staff said that it may be possible to add a few spaces to the lot, but that the landscaping around the lots, especially in front of the restrooms, should not be removed. Dalton Williams expressed a desire to loop the western path as close to the Kinnickinick bridge as possible. The commission discussed the pros and cons and recommended that the path split one fork to the bridge and the other to the intersection. Applicant indicated that the bike path would be eventually extended through the park. Commission asked that Todd draw a line representing the most likely route for this path on the plan. Staff thought it would be a better idea to describe the options with text on the side of the plan. Chuck Crist asked that the paths be measured for those people wanting to know the exact distance around the loop. Connie Knight indicated she would like to see a station, par exercise course to be laid out within the park. Todd said he would examine the costs associated with that possibility. Staff detailed the plans for ornamentation in the park. Wooden sculptural animals will be placed in the park, to be built in- house by Town carpenters. The Commission expressed concern over the safety of the larger animals, and Applicant agreed to ensure that these animals would be safe to climb on. Andy Knudtsen presented the site specific hazard report which had been done on the property. The park site is in avalanche, debris flow, rock fall and flood plain hazard areas, but the hazard report found the danger to be acceptable for this use. There would be a possibility of a moderate debris flow reaching the childrens' play area, but not an extreme danger. The site specific hazard map is a modification to the Town hazard maps due to the fact that it is a more detailed study. The Commission expressed concern over the avalanche danger, which Applicant indicated would be mitigated by posting signs in the area. The Commission concluded its discussion by requesting that all information on hazards be provided in the packet when the project comes back to the PEC for final approval. Kristan Pritz requested the Commission return their attention to item 2, the Dauphanais- Mosely SDD, in order to further clarify a point which had not been specifically addressed in the previous • 8 discussion. She explained that staff's recommendation also . included changing the ordinance from requiring a rock base underneath the deck overhangs to allowing that surface to be stucco, with landscaping and berm required. The consensus of the Commission was that the above provision was acceptable and the ordinance would be changed. Kathy Langenwalter moved and Jim Shearer seconded a motion to table item 5, commonly known as Spraddle Creek, until February 11, 1991. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM. • 0 9 Bost Office BoX12 1 waif,, Cofomd 81658 (303) 476 -0500 Feburary 6, 1991 Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, 75 South Fontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Diana, Cathy, Connie, Jim, Chuck, and Ludi, I enjoyed working with each of you on the Vail Planning & Environmental Commission this past year. It was a good year and thanks to each of you I learned a lot about the planning processes and our community. While I am disappointed that I will not be working with you in the future, I know the amount of time and effor each of you puts fourth in working for our community. I just wish everyone knew the amount of concern and care you have for Vail. Keep up the good work! sk Best Wishes, vom el� ze) � � Dalton Williams • TO: Planning and Environmental. Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: ar ,�{iWl�G�i1 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, Dauphanais - Mosely Subdivision, Filing No. 1, located to the south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge Loop. Applicant: Pat Dauphanais and Dauphanais Mosely Construction I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting to amend Special Development District No. 22. It was initially approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in August of 1988 and was adopted by Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1988 by the Vail Town Council. In April of 1990, Special Development District No. 22 was amended further to include a maximum of 15 caretaker units with a maximum GRFA of 500 sq. ft. each, an open space tract, setbacks ranging from 1 foot to 175 feet, limited curb cuts on Lionsridge Loop, and a new public road, Moraine Drive. Total size of the existing Special Development District is 10.69 acres. The original zoning allowed 19 primary /secondary lots for a total of 38 dwelling units, with a total allowed GRFA of 84,905 square feet. The approved SDD reduced the number of dwelling units to 24 and decreased the GRFA by 9,203 square feet. The total approved GRFA is now 75,702 square feet, including caretaker units. Both the major subdivision and the final plat have received approval from the PEC. After working with the approved plan, the applicant is requesting to amend the plan in order to "fine tune" the document. The request includes changes which address the GRFA and site coverage ordinances effective January 1, 1991 and changes to the architectural guidelines of the project. Below are the requested changes to the SDD per the applicant and staff. The staff requested amendments are proposed in order to make the SDD compatible with recent code changes. 1 The existing SDD details the general design of the project. The applicant's and staff's requested amendments will "fine tune" the architectural guidelines and bring the project into conformance with the recently approved GRFA and Site Coverage regulations. The request to increase the rear setback for Lots 4 -13 will decrease the visual impact along the south ridge of the property because the development will be pulled back an additional four feet. Moraine Drive will be impacted by allowing the roof eaves to encroach 4 feet into the 10 foot front setback however, the positive impacts of pulling the building off the ridge outweigh the additional impacts on Moraine Drive. The staff finds that the request to allow four foot roof encroachments without adjusting the rear setback on Lots 15 -19 will have negative impacts on both Lionsridge Loop and the open space to the south. Currently all site development, except the allowed side setback encroachments, must be within the setbacks. By allowing the roof encroachments without the setback adjustments, the houses will be allowed to increase in size because the roof overhangs will no longer be within the setbacks, and the building will therefore be allowed to 0 expand up to the setback. The adjustments to the architectural guidelines will allow more flexibility in terms of detail elements. The guidelines will still encourage consistent roof material, roof forms and substantial landscaping which will all benefit both this project and adjacent property owners. The applicant also requests to amend the maximum GRFA for the caretaker unit from 500 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. and increase the allowable caretaker units from 15 to 24. The net allowable GRFA of the caretaker units with this proposal, including the staff recommendations to add 100 sq. ft. to compensate for the loss of the credit system, would be 700 sq. ft. We support the request to increase the number of allowable caretakers because it will increase the number of units of dispersed caretaker units available to the community. The staff recognizes that even by increasing both the number of units and the GRFA for the caretaker units to a total available of 700 sq. ft., the project would still be under the allowable GRFA of the underlying zoning. However, we feel that both an increase in density and an • 7 more restrictive. The staff would like wording on decks be consistent with the on decks within 5 feet of grade rather "at grade deck encroachments." 3. SITE COVERAGE to have the SDD code's wording than referencing The applicant wishes to use the new site coverage definition. Site coverage shall not exceed 25 percent of the total site area. "Site coverage" shall mean the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, Porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns. This is in accordance with the recently approved definition of site coverage. 0 4. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES a. ROOF The applicant would like to delete the requirement for a clipped or gable roof, but leave the requirement for a minimum 8/10 and a maximum 12/12 roof pitch in place. b. SECONDARY FASCIA AND METAL RAILINGS ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR The applicant would like to delete the specific reference to muted red, blue and green and leave in place that the secondary fascia and metal railings above the first floor be of a muted color. The review of the specific colors would be the responsibility of the Design Review Board. C. WALLS The applicant would request that vertical wood siding be allowed in addition to the approved horizontal wood siding. • 4 *Roof encroachments are currently allowed to encroach 2 feet into side setbacks. ** Applicant request that a roof encroachment of 4 feet be allowed for Lots 4 -13 and 15 -19, and the rear setback for Lots 4 - -13 be increased by 4 feet. Decks The staff and the applicant are requesting the following clarification on what type of deck meets the term "at grade deck." We would like to define "grade" as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed decks and patios at grade may encroach up to five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1 -14." The requirement would be revised to read "unenclosed unroofed decks or patios within five feet of finished grade may encroach up to five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1 -14. This description is based on Section 18.58.050 of the Town's zoning code which allows decks within five feet of grade to encroach 7.5 feet or one half the required setback whichever is more restrictive and Section 18.58.060 which allows decks more than five feet above 0 3 grade to encroach five or 1/2 the setback whichever is 2. SETBACKS . Roof Overhangs Roof overhangs are allowed to encroach two feet into the side setbacks under the existing approval. In addition, the applicant requests that roof overhangs be allowed to encroach four feet into the front setback for Lots 4--13 and 15 -19. The applicant in turn is willing to further increase the rear setback for Lots 4--13 by four feet (see chart). Approved Side Rear Proposed Lot Front Setback Setback* Setback Rear 1 20 10 97 - 2,3 10 10 varies from - 35 - 175 4 -13 10 ** 10 varies from 35 - 175 39 -179 14 10 10 45 - 15 14 ** 10 1 - 16 14 ** 10 1 - 17 15 ** 10 5 - 18 15 ** 10 10 - 19 15 ** 10 10 - 20 -23 35 10 10 adjacent to . Lionsridge Lane 24 15 10 10 *Roof encroachments are currently allowed to encroach 2 feet into side setbacks. ** Applicant request that a roof encroachment of 4 feet be allowed for Lots 4 -13 and 15 -19, and the rear setback for Lots 4 - -13 be increased by 4 feet. Decks The staff and the applicant are requesting the following clarification on what type of deck meets the term "at grade deck." We would like to define "grade" as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed decks and patios at grade may encroach up to five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1 -14." The requirement would be revised to read "unenclosed unroofed decks or patios within five feet of finished grade may encroach up to five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1 -14. This description is based on Section 18.58.050 of the Town's zoning code which allows decks within five feet of grade to encroach 7.5 feet or one half the required setback whichever is more restrictive and Section 18.58.060 which allows decks more than five feet above 0 3 grade to encroach five or 1/2 the setback whichever is d. OUTDOOR LIGHTING Currently, exterior lighting is allowed at the entry of each unit. The applicant would like to add additional exterior lighting that would be physically attached to the building. Specific lighting fixtures would be reviewed by the Design Review Board on a lot by lot basis. e. GARAGES The SDD does not allow any garage doors to face directly onto any street. Due to the configuration of Lot 24, which has roadway on three sides, the ability to orient the garage so that it would not face a street would create a number of site planning problems. The applicant would request that the garage on Lot 24 be allowed to face Moraine Dr. (See attached site plan.) 5. Conditions of Approval a. Employee Housing There are four requested amendments to the requirements for the caretaker units. Changes are necessary to the total available GRFA of the Caretakers Units as a result of the new regulations. It is requested by the . staff and the applicant that each caretaker unit receive 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to compensate for the loss of credits. For example: Lot 24 As of Jan 1, 1 Proposed Total able GRFA as Jan 1, 1991 Approved GRFA Caretaker 2,293 500 991 + 425 +100 Avail-- 2,718 600 of Second, the applicant would like to be able to use up to 300 sq. ft. of the primary units allowed GRFA in order to add a second bedroom in the caretaker unit. For example: Allowed Caretaker Total GRFA Allowed GRFA GRFA with Caretaker Lot 1 21718 up to 500 sq. ft. = 3,218 Proposal 2,418 up to 800 sq. ft. = 3,218 if 2 bedrooms are provided 5 1. AMENDMENT TO LOT SIZES AND CORRESPONDING GRFA PER LOT: Slight changes occurred to some lot sizes between the approval of the SDD and the recording of Final Plat. These changes did not affect the allowable GRFA. The allowable site coverage will be affected because it is a percentage of the lot area. In addition, the chart below indicates the changes to the available GRFA due to the Town's new regulations for GRFA, which adds 425 sq. ft. to each allowable unit to compensate for the deletion of the credit system. Total Available The changes to the lot sizes will not have any impact on the overall site planning of the property. The changes are necessary because the reconfiguration of property lines were necessary for easement dedication. 0 2 Approved Approved GRFA as of Lot Lot Size Proposed GRFA Jan 1, 1991 1 11,805 - 2,293 2,718 2 16,248 - 3,171 3,596 3 11,500 -- 3,171 3,596 4 111805 11,761 2,293 21,718 5 12,197 - 2,293 2,718 6 111500 -- 3,171 3,596 7 11,543 - 3,171 3,596 8 11,021 - 3,171 3,596 9 11,456 - 3,171 3,596 10 11,979 - 3,171 3,596 11 10,803 - 3,171 3,596 12 12,981 - 3,171 3,596 13 15,159 3,171 3,596 14 11,151 _ 3,171 3,596 15 8,494 8,538 2,293 2,718 16 8,494 - 2,293 2,718 17 8,494 - 2,293 2,718 18 101062 - 31F171 31596 19 9,148 - 2,293 2,718 20 9,801 - 3,171 3,596 21 10,237 - 3,171 3,596 22 9,409 - 2,293 2,718 23 10,324 9,148 3,171 3,596 24 9,496 10,629 2,293 2,718 681202 78,402 Total approved caretaker unit GRFA for 15 units 7,500 75,702 The changes to the lot sizes will not have any impact on the overall site planning of the property. The changes are necessary because the reconfiguration of property lines were necessary for easement dedication. 0 2 • Under this scenario, 1 additional parking space would be required. This need can be provided for under the current unit plans. The total GRFA on the lot will remain the same. The third request is to allow caretaker units to be constructed on any lot. Currently, a minimum of six and a maximum of 15 caretaker units may be provided. This results in a total of 24 caretaker units. The final request deals with increasing the allowable GRFA for each unit from 500 to 600 square feet of GRFA. The following details the changes to the overall GRFA under each scenario. 100 sq. ft. would be added to the requested 600 sq. ft. to compensate for the credits. This results in a total caretaker GRFA of 700 sq. ft.* * GRFA indicated does not include the additional 425 sq. ft. for the primary unit or 100 sq. ft. for the caretaker unit, which is being proposed to compensate for the deletion of the credit system. Original GRFA allowed by zoning: 84,905 sq. ft. Existing SDD = 24 primary units + 15 caretaker units (at 500 sq. ft.): 75,702 Proposed SDD = 24 primary units + 24 caretaker units (at 500 sq. ft.) 80,202 Applicants request: 24 primary units + 24 caretakers units (at 600 sq. ft.) 82,602 b. The applicant requests that Lot 5 be considered as part of Phase I. Currently the development of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 24 are part of Phase 1. II. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 1. Desian 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. C increase of overall GRFA (beyond the 100 sq. ft. • compensation for the credits) are not acceptable because of the subsequent increases in mass and bulk. We find that the increase in the number of units will have a greater benefit to the community. r-] 2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. With the request to increase the number of allowable caretaker's from 15 to 24 units, assuming the developer builds all of the caretaker units, the overall allowable density of the project will increase from 39 to 48 units, and the project will then be 10 units over the originally allowed 38 unit amount. Employee units are proposed to be located over the garages in all units. The developer is providing dispersed, permanently restricted employee housing units which have been deemed by the Town's Affordable Housing Study as very attractive. The staff believes that even with the increased density, the project will still be a very compatible, efficient and workable project in relationship to the surrounding uses in the area. 3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. All parking requirements will meet the Town of Vail standards outlined in Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail zoning code. Each employee dwelling unit will be required to have one enclosed parking space. In the case where 300 sq. ft. of GRFA is transferred from the primary unit to the caretaker for the provision of a second bedroom, one enclosed and one unenclosed parking space will be provided. 4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The proposal is in compliance with the "Affordable Housing Study." 8 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is 'Proposed. The site is not located within any geologic hazard area. 6. Site plan, buildincf-desictn and location and o en space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural_ features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The increase in the rear setback on Lots 4 -13 will further mitigate the impact of development along the ridge line by moving the houses back. The request to allow the roof encroachments on Lionsridge Loop will have a negative impact on the overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. No changes have been proposed to Moraine Drive which will be a public road. 0 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions._ • No changes have been proposed to the landscape plan. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The staff has no problem with adding Lot 5 to Phase I of the project. The developer has completed all of the site improvements associated with Phase I, except the entry landscaping, which will be completed this summer. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the following amendments for approval, as the request complies with the Special Development District Criteria: 1. Lot Sizes: Changes to lot sizes; 9 2. Setbacks: Allow a 4 foot roof overhang encroachment into the front setback of Lots 4 -13, provided that the rear setback is increased by 4 feet; Clarify "grade" as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed and patios at grade" to read "unenclosed, unroofed decks or patios within five feet of finished grade may encroach up to 5 feet into the rear setback on Lots 1- 14.11; 3. Site Coverage: Site coverage shall be defined as per the recent definition effective January 1, 1991. 4. Architectural Guidelines: a. Delete requirement for clipped or gabled roof; b. Delete reference to red, blue or green accent colors for secondary fascia and metal railings; Muted colors will be required; C. Add vertical siding to the allowed wall material; d. Allow exterior lighting in addition to the entry lighting; e. Allow the garage on Lot 24 to face Moraine Dr. 5. Changes to Conditions of Approval: a. 1) Allow the transfer of 300 sq. ft. of GRFA • from primary unit to caretaker in order to provide a second bedroom; 2) Allow up to 24 caretaker units; 3) Grant 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unit to compensate for the deletion of the credit system. Primary units will receive 425 sq. ft. Square footage will be transferable. However, the caretaker will not be allowed to exceed 600 sq. ft. unless a second bedroom is provided. If a second bedroom is added, the caretaker unit shall not exceed 800 sq. ft. U b. Add Lot 5 to Phase I of the phasing plan. The staff feels that the requests recommended for approval will have positive impacts on the project or its surrounding area. The recommended amendments will bring the project into conformance with the January 1, 1991 GRFA and site coverage amendments, which we feel is very positive. The staff recommends denial of the following amendment requests: 1. Setbacks: Allow roof overhang for Lots 15 -19 to encroach up to 4 feet into the front setback; 10 n LJ U 2. Conditions of Approval: To allow the caretaker unit to increase to would not include the 100 sq. ft. to compensate for the deletion of maximum GRFA of 700 sq. ft. would approval of this request. the maximum GRFA for 600 sq. ft. This of GRFA being granted the credit system. A result from the The staff recommends denial of the request because we find the they do not comply with the following SDD criteria: 1. 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; 2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity; and 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 11 • M. �o 6 v 1� qi4 Wm O ro �y Z C, r ti &k-1 -- - -Gn_! �' f ti - 1 'b •V O c� C V' a O TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 28, 1991 RE: A request for a worksession for site coverage, and setback variances and an exterior alteration in Commercial Core 11 (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier I. Description of Re uest The applicant proposes to construct a 1,192 sq. ft., one - story addition to the Lifthouse Lodge. The addition will extend 3' -9" to 23' -611 out from the existing facade. This one -story addition wraps around the north and west facades of the Banner Sports commercial space. The Banner Sports entrance has been relocated to the very northwest corner of the building under a gabled roof. No expansion is proposed in front of the Peddle Power /Vail Ski Tech and the entrance to the Lifthouse Condominiums. The structure currently . encroaches 1' -6" into the required 11--3" into the required setback on variances are required in order to encroach 10' into the required 10' facade resulting in a zero setback facade, the expansion encroaches 9 foot setback, which results in a o! setback on the south and the west. Setback allow the addition to setback on the west situation. On the south feet into the required 10 ne foot setback. No landscaping will be removed under this proposal and no landscaping is proposed to be installed. Approximately 1,192 sq. ft. of hardscape (pavers) will be removed under this proposal. None the less the site landscaping will exceed the required landscaping. Landscaping standards require a certain percentage of hardscape to softscape landscaping on a site. The site does not meet planted landscape requirements. Through the removal of hardscape in conjunction with the redevelopment, the project will come closer to conforming to landscape standards. 0 1 Under the existing proposal, a site coverage variance is not . required. However, because of the impact the redevelopment will have on the Peddle Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and on the Lifthouse Condominiums entrance, staff has encouraged the applicant to address these areas in conjunction with the Banner Sports redevelopment proposal. In order to carry out this request, it is likely a site coverage variance will be required. II. Zoning Considerations The following summaries the relationship of the redevelopment proposal to CCII zone district development standards: 1. Zone District: Commercial Core II 2. Lot Area: 20,330 sq. ft./ .4668 acres 3. Site Coverage: Allowed 14,231 sq. ft. (.70 of site area) Existing 13,000 sq. ft. Proposed 14,192 sq. ft. Remaining 39 sq. ft. 4. Setbacks: East and North setbacks will remain unchanged under this proposal. South: Required 10 feet Proposed 1 foot* West: Required 10 feet Proposed 0 feet* * Variance required 5. Parking - The provision of additional spaces is required. The applicant cannot provide these spaces on- -site and therefore must pay into the Lionshead Parking Fund. 6. Height - The one -story addition to the south and west facades will not impact the maximum height of the existing structure. 7. Landscaping (.20 of site area) Required: 4,066 sq. ft. Existing: 6,560 Gross 460 Softscape (Planting) 6,100 Hardscape (Paving /Decks) 0 2 0 III. Cam liance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead There are no sub --area concepts which directly relate to this proposal. IV. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead A. Height„ and Massing: ..._. ,.......__•_ The proposal calls fo addition to the south Condominium Building, commercial space. The encourage the creation pedestrian emphasis ar expansions. r construction of a one -story and west facades of the Lifthouse adjacent to the Banner Sports Lionshead Design considerations of well- defined ground floor eas, one -story and building B. Roofs: Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are encouraged. The submitted development proposal calls for construction of a gable roof over the Banner Sports commercial space entrance. The balance of the roof is a shed roof. The Design Considerations expressly recommend against using . gable roof forms in Lionshead because gable roofs are a more traditional roof form and are out of context in Lionshead. Staff has recommended the applicant consider a peaked roof over the commercial space entrance. Cedar shakes are not a recommended roofing material in Lionshead. However, the roof of the Montauk Restaurant east of and immediately adjacent to the Banner Sports is cedar shakes. Staff believes the use of cedar shakes on the proposed addition is appropriate and will act as a unifying design element. Staff recommends the roof pitch on the addition match the Montauk Restaurant roof pitch. Under the Lionshead Design Considerations, roof overhangs are limited to three inches to 36 inches. There are instances where the proposed roof overhang is less than 3 inches. Staff recommends the roof overhang be increased to at least 3 inches at these locations. The connection of roofs to existing buildings is an important design element. Respecting strong architectural lines is critical to successfully integrating an addition with an existing structure. 0 3 Staff has concerns regarding the proposed addition roof /existing building connection points and has requested the applicant connect the addition to the existing building at the floor level of the second story decks. In addition to making this connection at a more visually pleasing point, this connection point will eliminate the cantilevered appearance of these decks. C. Facades - _Walls /Structures: The materials to be used in construction (wood, glass and stucco) are encouraged under the Lionshead Design Considerations. The stucco texture and color will match the stucco on the existing structure and the window and door trim color will match the color of the window trim on the existing structure. Unpainted wood surfaces will be stained to match the color of the wood pillars on the interior of the Banner Sports commercial space. This color is quite light. The Design Considerations recommend wood be stained to a medium range or to match the main building. D. Facades - Transparency: Ground floor display window sills are located 18 inches above the walk level in keeping with the L. H. Design . Considerations. The transparency of the windows on the northern facade and of those windows adjacent to the commercial space entrance is in keeping with the L.H. Design Considerations. However, the transparency of the west facade does not meet facade transparency guidelines. This situation creates an uninteresting and uninviting experience for the pedestrian thereby falling short of one of the major goals of the Urban Design plan for Lionshead - to "develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale ". Staff has requested the applicant remove the stucco panels along this facade and replace them with windows of the same size as the northern facade display windows. Window groupings and window pane sizes are in conformance with the L. H. Guidelines. Windows to be installed will match the color (clear) of the existing windows. 0 4 The commercial space entrance way is recessed 4 foot . and is highly transparent in keeping with the L. H. Guidelines. E. Decks and Patios: No decks and patios are proposed. F. Accent Elements: All accents will match existing building accents. G. Landscaping: No new landscaping is proposed. Staff has requested the applicant construct 4 to 5 foot wide rock faced planters on town owned land adjacent to the proposed addition. These planters would match planters located adjacent to Montauk's Restaurant and in the Gondola Plaza. The Fire and Public Works Departments have expressed concern regarding the ability of snow removal and fire equipment to access the Gondola Plaza. These departments believe the space between the western facade of the new addition and the existing planter west of the addition may be inadequate to accommodate their equipment. Monday morning, January 28, prior to the PEC meeting, members of the Fire, Public Works and Community Development departments will be meeting on the site with a pumper truck in hopes of resolving site access issues prior to the PEC meeting. At the time of the writing of this memo, the Fire and Public Works Departments believe the construction of the addition as proposed may require the removal of a portion of the existing planter. The Community Development staff's suggestion that a planter be constructed in this area may further constrict site access. However, there is a possibility that through the relocation of a light fixture located on the west side of the existing plaza /flag planter, Fire and Public Work Department vehicles may be able to access the northern end of the Gondola Plaza from the far side of the planter. This would allow the construction of the proposed addition and additional planters to occur. H. Service and Delivery: This addition will not have any impact on existing loading and delivery service. 0 5 V. Items for Discussion: . - Roof: Gabled versus peaked Pitch overhang Connection of roof to existing building -- Facade: Transparency of western facade Landscaping: Construction of additional rock faced planters on ToV land Moving existing western planter to the east so that it would be immediately adjacent to western facade of addition; Removal of existing light fixture to allow for emergency access; -- Setback: 10 and 5 foot encroachments into the required 10 foot setback; Site Coverage: As it relates to the submitted proposal; Site Coverage: Expansion of proposal as it relates to the entrance to Lifthouse Condominiums and the Pedal Power / Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces; 0 - Architectural Details: Stone veneer on entire base of addition • 6 !•l� ;�! ��� \!•�). | � . � | \� | & 2 !( § 2�\ §s &�b § #§ � |! |�| | ■� ! || \� a| |� Al _ ! \� � i�ƒ � § � I I ■� Qa =.� » a q ■� § !•l� ;�! ��� \!•�). | � . � | \� | & 2 !( § 2�\ §s &�b § #§ � |! |�| | ■� ! || \� a| |� Al _ ! \� � i�ƒ � § � I I r 3a� zs < !�� ,'� ��d�"r {,��F.�� +•RSA+'$' : . a fi; � � lama -J.�` �''�, uof . yr Rr fs�•xti�•Y{� 6 ., a. . Nil. a ,.t ...,... , f' +^c !�. R- Gf ...�' !ti'•�i f f � -r -f� -�j, •y��+E•'�cq��1��}r.� - �; C �•C7 s � t.. �r t;4.`a ^4aK }ire' -i i 4pc�t _ Ft: � �. i,�, } 1r �` ��4r F� le � . fft •` -- r lea, V4 U r -C4 "15'K /r W ^.a ' i aw hy, 11 Y�,�. /�_�.� �''pp''��4j'rv�.(�� • �. 4f.2�lAti4SA1�'8*l�: 3 H �- � 3 Tr � y► � � � 4 Y A tlµ Pl�x f } R c "4�R.� .�Yt'Ky _ rs••/ �kY4 -- f � Y. '�2r� ''j��� �:. -SS'' - b. -•te,�r � � �Y! � ,. ♦ y jjjjt`!i� yy gvEi((jEa! y- :aft+5'"�h` it ;'sue. "b�•e} �.. -..- f!Y F M : � �Z �i ��.. Hf`S -� x :SAS �� `•,.{Z � * 7 a ;AW t0t. M tn.. -- V!A. Ap �FE Ill W. n-A Q� kN . All 1, 1,j 1:: Nan ZYF I N IL MAWA it , Y. likll , 14. " 2 AKA ' Nv t �e X16 �Ij ,x . . . . . . . . . . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Work Session for Stephens Park to review proposed park Master Plan. Site is located on the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinnick Road. Applicant: Town of Vail BACKGROUND The Town of Vail hired EDAW of Fort Collins to design a master plan for Stephens Park. On January 9, 1991, Town staff and the consultant met with neighborhood residents to find out what they wanted to be included in the park design. After the design was drawn up, the staff and the consultant took it back to the neighborhood and presented it to them. Though the second meeting had a smaller attendance, those present said they liked the IDdesign. On January 16, Town staff took the plan to the Design Review Board, which had two concerns: 1. That more trails be added to the plan to create a looped system, and 2. That all lighting be shielded, so that light sources would not be visible from the interstate. PEC REVIEW The purpose of this work session is to familiarize the PEC with the plan and understand any concerns the Commission may have. Staff will bring it back to PEC on February 11, 1991 for a formal recommendation to Town Council for their adoption of the master plan. J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . February 11, 1991 k,)!C,ii:` AGENDA 1:00 Site Visits 2:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS 1. ,/' Approval of minutes of January 28, 1991. 1 2. A request for a height variance to allow the installation of a Satellite Dish on the-.roof of the Vail Village Inn Plaza. Located at 100 Vail Road /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems do is 3. A request for a review and recommendation to Town Council regarding adoption of the Stephens Park Master Plan; site located at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road. Applicant: Town of Vail 4. A request to amend the Town of Vail's Avalanche,,Rockfall and Debris Flow Hazard Maps in the general vicinity of Stephens Park, located at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road, pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail 5. A request for a major subdivision, to approve the final plat. Said parcel is commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail /T -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. 2 6. A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional View Corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends to the east down Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front of Frivolous Sals. Applicant: Town of Vail • • ITEMS TABLED TO FEBRUARY 25, 1991: - 8. A request for setback and site coverage variances and an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier 9. A request for a front setback variance, 5188 Gore Circle /Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Filing. Applicant: Nowell May ITEMS OFF THE AGENDA: 10. A request for a density variance in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston Application imcomplete. Therefore, development proposal must be readvertised and scheduled for a later date. * ** There will be a joint Town Council /PEC work session on February 12, 1991, at 1:OOPM, in the Council Chambers, regarding the Fireplace Amendment for Existing Wood Burning Devices • • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 11, 1991 Present Diana Donovan Connie Knight Jim Shearer Kathy Langenwalter Ludwig Kurz Absent Chuck Crist Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker The meeting was called to order at 2:10PM by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. 1. Approval of minutes from the January 28,_ 1991 meeting. Approval was moved to the bottom of the agenda. 2. A reauest for a height variance to allow for the installation of a Satellite Dish on the roof of the Vail Village Inn Plaza. Located at 100 Vail Road /Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st _Filing. Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems Shelly Mello presented the request. The applicant was asking to place one satellite dish between the two south facing dormers of the Vail Village Inn Plaza Building. The top of the dish would exceed the ridge line of the dormers. The amount that the dish would exceed the ridge line would vary, depending upon the changing angle of the dish. If placed between the two dormers, the dish would be visible from Meadow Drive, but not from the Frontage Road. There were other location possibilities, including a ground level placement. The variance being requested was from Section 18.58.320 (D,3), which states: The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish antenna, when measured from the top of the satellite dish antenna down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not exceed fifteen feet. Staff recommended denial of the request, based on the following reasons: 1. The impacts on the surrounding area are not minimized by the proposed location. other possibilities exist for the location of the dish, including locations at both grade and above grade, which would be less visible than the submitted application. 1 It 2. A relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the regulation would be a grant of special privilege. Although other variances from this regulation have been granted, including the Marriott's roof - mounted satellite dish request, in those cases, a roof mount substantially minimized the impact to the surrounding area. In this case, the impacts of a roof placement on surrounding properties would not be substantially minimized. Staff believes that the proposed location is not the best location, and recommends further investigation of a ground placement. Jim Hariot of Satellite Receiving Systems elaborated on why they were requesting this variance. He stated that when they investigated the various options for placement of the dish, it was felt that the roof placement would have less visual impact than a ground location. Mr. Hariot believed that if the dish were placed on the roof, it would be a case of "out of sight, out of mind." The applicant explained that the owner is also the owner of the Philadelphia Flyers, and he also wished to be able to view Jewish church services on Saturday, since there were very limited facilities in the Valley. Diana Donovan indicated that she thought the roof placement was definitely noticeable. Kathy Langenwalter asked about the rooms which faced that direction, and stated that she believed they . would be directly impacted by the roof mount. Connie Knight asked exactly how much of a variance was being requested, and Shelly said that the ordinance allows for a maximum height of 15 feet above grade, and the height of the proposed dish location would be approximately 64 feet, resulting in a 49 foot height variance request. Jim Shearer requested clarification of what the process would be if the applicant were to place the satellite dish at the plaza level; whether DRB approval would be necessary. Jim also asked if the dish was made of a black mesh material. Shelly Mello responded that it would be necessary to obtain DRB approval. She also indicated that a ground placement would require screening. Applicant indicated that the dish is made of a gray, perforated steel which was a preferable material for reception, but also equally transparent as a mesh. At this point, Irene Westby of the Talisman Condo Association was recognized. She stated that the Association was very concerned about the roof dormer placement for the dish. The Talisman Condos have both north and south facing units, and the owners on the north side, especially those on the top floor, would be directly impacted by a roof installation. 0 2 Connie Knight asked Irene what impact, if ahy, there would be if 18 the dish were placed on the ground. Irene responded that if the dish were enclosed, it would be acceptable. She stated in conclusion that the Talisman Condo Association found the roof proposal unsatisfactory. Diana Donovan asked the applicant if, since the general consensus of the Commission seemed opposed to a roof placement, he would like to withdraw his proposal, or table it for further research. Kristan Pritz clarified that the Commission could ask that the proposal be withdrawn, table it, or take a vote on it as it stood. Applicant asked what would be the procedure for approval if the application were tabled. Shelly Mello informed him that if no variances were being requested, DRB approval would be all he would need for a ground placement. If the DRB denied his request, he could bring the application back to the Commission for further review. Jim Hariot then formally requested that his application be tabled for further review of alternative placements for the dish. Jim Shearer moved that the proposal be tabled, and Connie Knight seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of tabling the application. 3. A re guest to approve the final-plat for a major subdivision on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle_.Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east_ of the • Main Vail/1-70 interchange and east of the S raddle Creek Livery. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. The Commission took this request out of order from the formal agenda in order to accommodate the individuals wishing to speak on this proposal. Kristan Pritz explained the application as follows: 1. The conditions given in the previous approval by staff, PBC and Town Council were reviewed. There were variances given for road grades and retaining wall height. Along with this, there were 24 conditions of approval for the final plat approval. The Planning Commission also requested at preliminary plat approval that the applicant work on reducing the road grade and refining the architectural guidelines. Below are the comments associated with each condition of approval. Regarding the reduction of proposed road grades and retaining wall height, the original conditions for final approval requested that the applicant further reduce the road grades and retaining wall height. Applicant has changed the design of the retaining walls to a "keystone" wall, similar to those used in Potato Patch. The color of these walls will be tan, which has been conceptually agreed 0 3 to by the DRB. To reduce the amount of fill required and wall height, the fill walls will be reduced from 10 feet of planting area to 6 feet. The retaining walls will not exceed the 8' -8" originally approved, and there will be no more than three terraces of these walls. There would still be sufficient planting area to accommodate landscaping requirements. The rationale behind the changes was explained by stating that there have been alterations to the road design at the livery road switchback. Some other walls have been lengthened, resulting in some change from two tiers to one. The Town Engineer reviewed the "keystone" wall proposal and had several comments. The first was that although the analysis of soil nailing and tie rod system was not complete, the use of a "keystone" wall is appropriate in this case. A tie rod system would create more wall area, where the "keystone" wall is more flexible and can be adjusted more easily to circumstances. Furthermore, the terracing is more appropriate than single, tall walls. Staff requested that applicant break up the longest walls, those of more than 400 l.f., with planting notches, as well as attempt to remove some of the walls by performing extensive grading on the land behind the wall. There would be more initial disturbance, but would result in long term . benefits. Staff believes that some of the walls may be reduced. There was a net increase in wail length of 1,138 l.f. from preliminary plan approval. Staff wanted to see the following walls reduced or eliminated: some of the K and I walls, C1 and C2 at the existing livery site, the O wall below Lots 15 and 10, M1 and M2, and Y1 and Z1 could be removed for better access to driveways for Lots 1 and 2. In addition, the wall around the gatehouse may be able to be reduced. Kathy Langenwalter asked what would be the maximum grading for the slopes, and Kristan responded by saying that it could be a maximum of 2:1 or 1.5:1 if vegetation and topography impacts could be minimized by using 1.5:1 slopes around the walls. 2. Applicant will submit construction guidelines. Staff is looking for direction from the Commission on whether the members would like to see those plans one more time, or would a final DRB approval be sufficient? 3. The grading easement requested for future extension of the North Frontage Road has been provided. 0 4 4. The agreement for moving the livery from its present . location has been completed. The applicant will relocate the livery to Forest Service Land and revegetate the existing site. 5. Conditions for lots having slopes over 30% will be applied to this subdivision. Applicant has agreed to this and will indicate the stipulation on the final plat and in the covenants. 6. Limitation of site coverage has been agreed to by applicant and staff. There was concern that the zoning for Hillside Residential would allow for too much site coverage. The Hillside Residential zoning would have allowed for the entire GRFA to be on one floor, including, perhaps, a 3 or 4 car garage. There is a need for flexibility because of sensitive lots, and this has been taken into consideration when determining the site coverage for each lot. The builders have approved the use of building envelopes. In addition, the new site coverage ordinance has become more restrictive since the preliminary approval was given. Staff and applicant have agreed to limit site coverage to GRFA minus 850 sq. ft., except for Lots 8, 10, and 15 which will use site coverage per the Hillside Residential zone district. Lot 14 will be limited to 10,000 sq. ft. 7. Since the preliminary approval, the fireplace ordinance has changed. There appears to be one complete DRB application submitted, so one house will be receiving a wood burning fireplace. The caretaker unit for this lot, Lot 14, will be restricted to a gas appliance. With the exception of Lot 14, the subdivision will be required to comply with the revised ordinance 42, indicating that there will only be gas logs or gas appliances. 8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be replaced with a wooden fence and landscaping. Staff believes this is an acceptable solution. 9. The six large spruce trees at the subdivision entry will be moved and maintained for at least 2 years. If, for any reason, any of these trees dies, applicant agrees to replace them with similar type and sized trees. 10. The Fire Department standards and concerns have been addressed by the applicant to the Town's satisfaction. 11. Applicant has agreed to the provision of recording the appropriate easements per Forest Service requirements. 0 5 12. A six foot paved shoulder on either side of the Frontage • Road to be used as a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. The exact length of the path will be determined by the plan approved by the Colorado Division of Highways. is 13. The construction for each lot will occur within the platted building envelopes. The staff has recommended some cut backs in these envelopes, and the applicant made the requested changes to the boundaries of the envelopes. Lot 14's building envelope is site specific to the house design. The Lot 14 envelope was also adjusted to ensure that the house did not move down the hillside. Driveways, sidewalks, garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A -D, F -J, K &L, retaining walls, surface parking and grading may be outside the building envelopes, as long as DRB approval is received and impacts on topography and vegetation are minimal. Connie Knight questioned if, because garages could be built outside the envelopes, that would also mean that caretaker units constructed above garages would also be able to be outside the envelope. Caretaker units would not be allowed to be built on top of garages outside of the envelope. Caretaker units may be built above garages within the envelope. Connie further inquired if the Design Review Board had examined the plans for Lot 14. Kristan Pritz indicated that they had conceptually reviewed that plan at this time. 14. Applicant agrees that all construction will comply with the Environmental Impact Report requirements. 15. The least polluting sanding material will be used to sand the private road. The Town Environmental Health Department will determine the definition of "least polluting sanding material." The applicant agrees to this condition. 16. The open space tracts within the subdivision will be rezoned to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space after the final plat is approved. The final plat will include the exact legal description of each of the three tracts. After recording the final plat, applicant will present the plat to the Commission for rezoning. There will be no building permits issued until the rezoning is accomplished. 17. The road through the subdivision from the entry gate to the top of the subdivision will be maintained by the owner. Two years after the landscaping is established, the maintenance of the landscaping along the public road from the Frontage Road to the gate will be turned over to the Town for maintenance. The two year provision was a request by the Town Council. The applicant requests that this be changed 2 to 1 to 1 1/2 years aftar the landscaping is estahlished. is Staff supports the Council recommendation. 18. Pedestrian and public access easements will be dedicated along Spraddle Creek and along road from North Frontage Road up Gillett Road to the entry gate. Preliminary plat indicated that the easement along the creek would be 20 ft. Staff requests that this be increased to 60 ft. 19. There will be three caretaker units having a minimum square footage of 700 sq. ft. and a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. provided in the subdivision. The three caretaker units are to be provided within the first seven lots developed, and will be permanently restricted to employee housing units. Staff feels that the timing of the building of these three units is critical, and should be provided during the development of the first seven lots. Applicant requests the flexibility to simply require that there be three units out of the 14 developed. 20. There were amendments requested to the architectural guidelines. These were as follows: a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely steep slopes. b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of the residences, but large lawn areas are not encouraged. . C. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8% unless approved by the Town Engineer. d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No chain link fencing is allowed within the subdivision, even for dog runs. Dog runs should have another type of open fencing. Staff and applicant request that these guidelines be amended to reflect PEC and DRB recommendations. These amendments include the stipulation that slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on individual lots. In addition, applicant requests that drip irrigation be allowed by the retaining walls. Staff finds these alterations acceptable. 21. All construction within the subdivision will comply with Town of Vail hazard ordinances. Applicant has indicated on the plat the hazard areas within the subdivision. The hazard areas on specific lots have been subtracted from GRFA calculations. Ed Church, a hazard consultant, has concluded that individual lot hazard studies will not be necessary due to the implementation of building envelopes. Staff supports this finding. 0 7 22. No on -site livery will be allowed within the subdivision. . Applicant agrees with this provision. 23. Aspens, vines and large shrubs shall be used on all retaining walls. Applicant agrees to meet this condition. 24. All hazard areas will be excluded from contributing to site area on Lots 4, 5 and 14 for GRFA or site coverage. The applicant has met this condition. III. Elements of the project which are not addressed in the Council /PEC conditions of approval: A. All lots meet minimum lot size requirements. B. The GRFA for each lot (excluding Lot 14) has been determined by using standard Hillside Residential Zoning, excluding those areas designated as hazard and floodplain areas. Lot 14's GRFA is the same as agreed to at preliminary plan, 14,330 sq. ft. A request by staff is that Lot 1 not receive additional GRFA with the change of location of the subdivision road. The staff's intent is to ensure that additional GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1 now that the road extends onto Forest Service land. The applicant has complied with this condition. . C. Road grades have not changed substantially from preliminary plan. The approved maximum was 8.89 %, and no portion of the road exceeds this grade. The overall average grade is 7.8 %. The livery road grade has been reduced from 16.9% to 15.4% at its steepest point. The staff will agree to this grade as long as Forest Service approval is obtained, but requests that, if possible, the grade be reduced further. The livery road turnaround has been relocated to the area in front of the subdivision gate. Staff believes this is a significant improvement over the previous location. The relocation does result in an additional two retaining walls. D. Landscape and irrigation. Applicant has incorporated the Commission's recommendation of planting in "grove - type" arrangements around the disturbed areas and open space tracts. There will be significant planting in front of the fill walls to offset visual impacts. Since preliminary plan, applicant has provided an acceptable plan for drip irrigation along the retaining walls. Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which will require changes before Council review. • 8 These changes are using a minimum size of 211 caliper aspen, indicating the existing and proposed tree line on the landscape plan, install a water tap instead of hydrant, and the plan needs to be revised to show the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. The Town Vail landscape architect may require additional planting in this area as well. Grading and landscape plans for K, I, C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are also necessary. E. Frontage Road design is acceptable at this time, with the retaining walls along the road removed. However, additional grading may be necessary on the Forest Service land. a of F. Drainage. The sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been removed. G. Livery Design and Trail Access. There are 17 proposed parking spaces, 12 of which are dedicated for users of the livery, and 5 which will be available to hikers. H. Construction Phasing. Applicant would like to submit this at a later date to the Community Development and Public Works departments for approval. Applicant is trying to move the livery to the new location by Memorial Day, necessitating a change in their phasing plan. At this time, staging areas are proposed to be located at the old livery site and in the two cut de sacs of the proposed subdivision. Z. Forest Service Considerations. At this point, applicant has not received final approval to locate the east switchback on Forest Service property from the Forest Service. This approval will be required before final plat. J. Driveway locations for individual lots have been generally indicated on a plan submitted by applicant. Applicant wishes to allow the architects to design the specific locations within the general parameters indicated. The Town Engineer has reviewed these general locations, and believes they can provide safe access to the sites. He did comment, however, that perhaps Lots 2 and 3 need to have their access revised. IV. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the Spraddle Creek major subdivision final plat, though there are reservations regarding two provisions. The first provision where staff and applicant disagree concerns the timing of the construction of the caretaker units. The second area of • 9 • • • disagreement concerns the length of time maintenance will be provided on landscaped areas and retaining walls to be turned over to the Town. At this juncture, applicant presented their concerns and issues. Kent Rose, the engineer of this project, indicated that he did not realize until just before the meeting that the retaining walls had increased by 1,138 l.f. He explained that the increases were due to more protection of Spraddle Creek, the realignment of the Forest Service switchback, the turnaround alteration, and other plan refinements. Mr. Rose postulated that 45 l.f. (2 wall) of the retaining wall along Rose Lane may be eliminated by additional grading. Mr. Rose also commented on the planting notches, especially along the K wall. He explained that if there were no grading alterations above these planting notches, the actual height of the wall behind the notches would be approximately ten feet, rather than 8' -811. The reason for this increase is that if they pushed back four feet for the notch, the wall would be increased as a function of that notch. Kent expressed concern regarding the requirement for grading and landscaping. He would prefer wording of "do whatever possible to reduce height and length of walls," but further indicated that this was a minor difference. Mr. Rose requested that the developers be given leeway to alter the grading and walls based upon what conditions were actually found on site. The applicant related that they were working with the requirements placed by staff concerning breaking up the walls, but could not, at this time, give categorical approval to all the conditions. Again, he reiterated that they would like flexibility for site determinations. Applicant is working with the 2:1 slope requirements, but said that there are two areas which exceed that slope at this time. However, they will make every effort to reduce the walls through grading. There was a discussion concerning the length of the bike path which applicant would be required to construct. The original 525 feet is no longer applicable with the new length of the road. Mr. Rose believed that 350 feet is more accurate. Kristan Pritz expressed her agreement that as long as the path was constructed as per the plan for the Frontage Road, it would be acceptable. Kent further explained that applicant is in the process of examining a change of lot line between Lots 2 and 3 for improved access. Kathy Langenwalter queried if this change would be needed since there was no longer designated specific access for each lot. Jay Peterson stated that the specific access 10 designation was eliminated to allow for more flexibility, but • that every lot does have an area for access. Kent stated that there had been changes in the access on several lots. Lot 12's access area had been moved, Lot 9 was changed to better accommodate the building envelope, Lot 8 may be moved to eliminate a hole in the retaining wall, and there has been a change in the lot line on Lot 3. Kathy asked if Greg Hall, Town Engineer, had approved the new plans. Greg related that the only issue remaining in his mind was Lots 2 and 3. Kent illustrated further the reduction in retaining walls which had occurred due to some replanning. The gatehouse will be situated in a cut area, but no retaining walls were expected to be needed in this location. Instead, the foundation of the gatehouse would be extended down to grade. Jay Peterson indicated that he was concerned with the staff request of a 60' easement along the creek. He believed that the original easement of 20' would be more than adequate for access. He expressed reluctance to increase that easement to 60' due to the way it would look to a purchaser on the plans, and because he felt that there would be full access without a 60' easement. Jay further stated that there was no argument on the part of the applicant regarding the requirement of 3 caretaker units in the subdivision. They would be designating lots for these units, but would like the Commission to allow flexibility to change the 40 designation if a purchaser did not want that unit on his property. He explained that, while they may designate three lots out of the first seven sold be caretaker lots, there was no control over when construction on those lots might take place. If there were a restriction placed on the development of the subdivision that the three units must be built as a part of the first seven lots developed, it could potentially mean that they would have to tell every purchaser that they may be required to build a caretaker unit, based on their development timing. Jay said they could not guarantee when the three units would be built, simply that they would be before completion of the subdivision. Kathy Langenwalter asked Mr. Peterson if they were presently designating Lots 2, 4 and 6. Jay said yes, but they would like the flexibility to move those designations to better suit the purchasers. However, the first lot being built upon, George Gillett's, is also going to have a caretaker unit on it. Jay clarified that the Dauphanais development was different from Spraddle Creek in the fact that Mr. Dauphanais was actually building the units. Spraddle Creek was not set up to be handled in that manner. Kristan Pritz voiced her concern that if there were no firm designation when the caretaker units must be built, they would 11 most likely be on the last lots developed. Jay answered that they would actively market these caretaker units as a positive amenity, and he believed that most of the purchasers would probably want them. However, he did not want to be in the position to mandate which owners would be required to construct a caretaker unit. Mr. Peterson also requested clarification of what the minimum size of the caretaker units would be. He wanted a minimum of 500 sq. ft. instead of 700, as he felt a 700 sq. ft. minimum might discourage additional units. Kristan indicated that either requirement was acceptable, but there needed to be a determination from the Commission what they wanted as a minimum. Connie Knight questioned Mr. Peterson if these would be like Beaver Creek. Jay responded that the units could be built up to a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft., but that a 500 sq. ft. unit was easily placed above a garage. He further clarified that these units will not be "just a bedroom with a hot plate," but a liveable unit. Jay Peterson then proceeded to request that a 1 1/2 year landscaping and retaining wall maintenance period be established, rather than the 2 year requirement placed by the Town Council. Joe Macy indicated a preference of the standard landscaping establishment period of one year. He explained that a standard contract with a landscaping contractor includes a one year establishment period. If there were losses during that first year, the contractor would be required to replace the plants and give an additional year warranty on the plants being replaced. Joe expressed his belief that the Town of Vail landscaping contracts include the one year warranty period, and he requested the same conditions for the spraddle Creek development. Kristan Pritz asked if the Town of Vail landscape architect would approve of the one year requirement. Todd Oppenheimer affirmed that the one year warranty is standard, but the Town could extend that period with contractors in special circumstances. Kristan requested the Commission decide what standard they would like to see. Kathy Langenwalter queried Todd if the plants proposed to be placed would be likely to die within the one year period if they were not going to establish. Todd indicated that most plants actually die in the transportation process, i.e., the root ball of a tree could become cracked. Sometimes it does take more than a year for a tree to become established, or die, and they are more susceptible to disease in that period, but most plants die within a year of transplant. Todd also stated that the worst planting time in Vail is August. Even if there were an 18 month warranty, it would be February when it expired and there was no way to determine if the plants had survived the winter. Alternatively, you could tell in April, May or June if the plant had survived and was thriving. 12 Kathy Langenwalter proposed a requirement of 2 growing seasons for the warranty period. Richard Matthews stipulated that he had . never seen more than a one year guarantee. Even if the planting were done in August, you would be able to tell the next August if the plants had been established. Kathy was concerned that this was a different situation than most, with the retaining walls being a reflective surface. Joe Macy stated that with the drip irrigation system, the plants would be automatically watered every day and thus the effect of the retaining walls would be negated. Kathy asked if this system was going to be pulled out when the area was turned over to the Town. Joe answered that it would be, unless the Town wanted it to remain. Jay Peterson interjected that the planting materials being used were chosen so no irrigation would be needed after the original establishment period. Joe Macy stated that the Hillside area was good for growing without water. The quality of the landscaping would be carefully supervised. Diana Donovan asked what happens when the irrigation system was turned off. Richard Matthews answered that the Town could hook up to the tubing if it desired. He also stated that he felt comfortable with planting any time except December through April. Jim Shearer suggested that a year plus whatever number of months necessary to bring the inspection to August might be appropriate. Jay Peterson stated that he believed you would be able to . determine if the tree had been established by the following spring. Todd Oppenheimer indicated that the warranty could be written that the plant be not only alive at the end of the warranty period, but that it must meet the same specifications as when it was planted. This would require that the entire plant be thriving, not just one branch with leaves on it. If it would not have met the specifications at planting, then it would be determined to be unacceptable at the conclusion of the warranty period. Todd further stated that with the irrigation system and inspections at the time of planting, a one year warranty period should be adequate. Diana Donovan asked Todd if a plant was replaced, was a new warranty issued for that plant? Todd answered that yes, the warranty is one year from planting. Diana requested that language be placed in the contract and Kristan said it would. Joe Macy indicated that the specific language would be worked on. Kristan asked the Commission what standard they wanted. Diana Donovan indicated she would defer to Todd's opinion, but that she had concerns the plant material would die without irrigation. Jay Peterson related that the developers were also concerned about the appearance of the drive. This is the road coming into the subdivision, and if the plants die, they want it replaced, too, in order to protect the image they want to project. Kristan 0 13 again asked for specific direction from the Commission. Jim . Shearer requested clarification from Todd if he wanted one year plus an additional summer. Todd believed he would be able to evaluate the landscaping without a second summer. Applicant stated they wanted the industry standard of one year to be the warranty period. Todd clarified that the date of planting is not when a specific plant goes into the ground, but the date of final acceptance of the entire project by the Town. In practice, there are additional months on the warranty because the planting takes place over a period of time. Usually the trees are planted first, then shrubs and vines. He was comfortable with one year, but requested that the irrigation be maintained for a period of three years. Diana Donovan asked if the Commission could stipulate a one year warranty on the plant materials, but have the developers maintain the irrigation for three years. Jay Peterson said that they would find a two year irrigation period satisfactory, and then the Town could take over the system if it desired. The developers would ensure that there was a simple method of turning over just that portion of the irrigation to the Town, perhaps by the use of two valves. Diana stated she felt comfortable with a one year guarantee on the plant materials, a two year watering period by Vail Associates, with the water for just the lower portion turned over to the Town at that point. This appeared to be the consensus of the Commission. . Joe Macy then turned the Commission's attention to the question of architectural guidelines. He stated he did not feel they would need to come back to the Commission an additional time for approval. Instead, applicant would work with staff on any changes. If there developed a conflict, then the issue could be presented to the Commission for their review. Kristan Pritz relayed that if the Commission felt comfortable with that requirement, it would be acceptable. However, she did want Commission comments on this issue to ensure that there were no discrepancies in opinion. DRB approval would also still be needed on any changes. Joe Macy stated that they would re -write the architectural guidelines to conform with the staff recommendations. Connie Knight expressed concern that the landscape plan was simply a list of building materials, and not a true plan. Joe explained that a complete landscape plan had been submitted and approved. Kristan indicated that this was correct and she felt comfortable with no further Commission review if they found the landscape conditions acceptable as outlined in the staff memo, pages 15 and 16. However, if further review was requested, there would be no need to go through the public notice process as the changes were very minor. 0 14 Connie Knight stated that she wanted to see the architectural . guidelines again, with a more specific landscape plan. Jim Shearer said he was comfortable with them not coming back again. Kathy Langenwalter mentioned that she had some comments, but was okay with no further review by the Commission. 0 • At this point, Ludwig Kurz indicated he had to disqualify himself from the discussion of Spraddle Creek. When this process began, he was independently employed, but now works solely with Vail Associates. Diana Donovan felt that no further review of the landscape and architectural guidelines would be necessary. Joe Macy stated that most of the guidelines were for the buyers of the lots, and that DRB approval would still be necessary before construction. Since the consensus of the Commission was to proceed with approval today, Kathy Langenwalter related her questions and comments regarding the project. Her first comment was that there needed to be more specific delineation between review by the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board and Town of Vail Design Review Board, and when each board would need to be consulted during construction. She also wanted the definition of building envelope expanded upon, especially what could not go outside that envelope. There was a prior written approval by Design Review Board clause in the envelope language, but it was not clear which DRB would apply. Joe Macy clarified that it was the Town of Vail DRB which would need to give approval. Kathy also questioned who would check the drainage requirements on the property. Joe indicated that language would be made clearer to reflect that the lot owner will have to meet the drainage requirements. Kristan expanded on the fact that there would be two levels of review, first by the Spraddle Creek DRB, and then by the Town of Vail DRB. Joe stipulated that buildings would be designed to meet both requirements. Kathy mentioned that she would like to see the grading and slopes change to a maximum of 2:1 grading within the building envelope and outside improvements. Joe Macy indicated that there would have to be grading for the sidewalks, which could be outside the envelope. Kathy suggested that perhaps the language be changed to "other allowed improvements" rather than outside the building envelope. Kathy requested that there be changes in wording from "should" to shall, and illustrated that point on page 4. Another change in wording was in the retaining wall materials verbiage, where she would request a change from stone to stone -faced concrete and add boulder retaining walls. She also requested a clarification on what exactly fencing for privacy walls means. Jay Peterson said he would change that wording to fencing or privacy walls. 15 Kathy expressed her concern that, on page 5, the language reflect the Town of Vail sign ordinance on the structures. Kristan Pritz clarified that residential nameplates are allowed. On the issue of landscape lighting, Kathy asked that the language stating that extensive landscape lighting was strongly discouraged be changed to prohibited. In the alternative, she requested that the sentence be stricken. Further on the topic of landscaping, Kathy asked that the swimming pools be submitted to Town of Vail DRB approval. She also wanted clarification of the provision of pre - application conference with the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board and the lot owner. An addition Kathy suggested was a change on page 2 from plaster or stucco to read "or other synthetic stucco." Another issue she wanted clarified was the fact that "window casings shall be wood, but clad is acceptable." She felt this statement was contradictory. Regarding flashings, she would like an addition to the current language reflecting they must be copper or painted to "match adjacent materials." Kathy asked for a definition of what individual lot or site walls are. Joe Macy said they were, for example, gardens or walkways outside the envelope. When Kathy requested further clarification, Kristan Pritz stated that retaining walls could be outside the envelope, but they were discouraged in order to minimize site disturbance. Kathy wanted to know why, in the landscape plan, only blue spruce were specified. Joe Macy replied that there was no reason, except other trees, such as pinon, do not grow well. However, lodgepole and fir would also be acceptable. Kathy expressed her opinion that she would like to see variety in the subdivision. Diana Donovan turned the topic of conversation to the easements along the creek. A compromise of 40' was suggested by Kathy. Joe Macy responded by stating he felt that even 20' was ridiculous to begin with, due to the fact that no one really walks up there. Connie Knight expressed her opinion that 20' would be acceptable, as long as there were no barricades preventing pedestrian access beyond the 20' easement. Diana asked why staff was requesting a 60' easement. Kristan Pritz said that due to the terrain, sometimes a pedestrian would need to go around fallen logs or other obstructions. Staff was only requesting this change, it was not a major requirement. Joe Macy stated that 20' works, and that there would be no policing of the easement. • 16 Kristan queried if a 30' compromise would be acceptable. Joe related that from a marketing standpoint, 20' was optimum. Diana stated she didn't feel it made much of a difference, but asked if the area would be marked. Jay Peterson responded that there would be no barricade to mark the easement. Dannie Corcoran made the point that for the most part, 20' is adequate. In the areas where it was not, a pedestrian would have to either walk in the river or through the subdivision anyway. At this point, the Commission indicated that a 20' easement would be adequate. Diana Donovan requested information on how the retaining walls fit into the landscaping guarantee. Kristan Pritz stated they were on the same agreement as the landscaping plantings. Joe Macy explained that they would be turned over to the Town for maintenance one year after acceptance. Town Engineer Greg Hall accepted this provision. Kathy Langenwalter directed a question to Kent Rose regarding how drainage paths would be revegetated and how disturbed they would be. Kristan Pritz indicated that the landscaping map showed what effect there would be. Kathy clarified that she wanted to ensure that the "scars" would be the same color as the surrounding area. Todd Oppenheimer stated this would be a difficult project, due to the terrain of the subdivision. Joe Macy granted that it would be possible to re -plant the sagebrush to the disturbed areas, but that he was not sure how well it would work. Todd Oppenheimer asked if the applicant was considering using a seed mix or container sagebrush to revegetate. Joe responded that, at this point, seed mix was the alternative being explored. Connie Knight asked how long it would take for the seed mix to grow. Todd answered that it could take up to three years, at which point Connie expressed her opinion that the area should be re- vegetated. Kathy agreed, but also stipulated that she did not want to see "stripes." Diana requested that the applicant give a better guarantee on the sagebrush than one year, and that they would keep trying until "they get it right." She felt this would help minimize citizen concern over the project. Staff explained that research indicated the Town of Aspen had put a mixture of the dead sage they had removed and a seed mix back over a construction site to better conceal the area while the seed mix was growing. Diana asked if applicant would find acceptable an agreement that if the sagebrush was not re- established in a period of three years, another alternative would be explored and implemented at that time. Joe Macy said that would be fine. Todd Oppenheimer added that he felt the dead sagebrush and seed mix approach was worth a try. • 17 Diana stated that the Commission consensus was that a mixture of . dead sage and seed mix would be attempted on the disturbed areas for a period of two to three years (depending on the plant material), then the Town landscape architect would re- examine the success and alternative options. in addition, Diana asked if trees would be placed in the cut. Joe stated that there could be no trees on the utility easement, but they would scallop the tree line. Turning the attention of the Commission discussion, Diana polled the members on adequate minimum size for the caretaker Kathy and Diana each indicated that 500 minimum, with Diana clarifying the rang, ft., and that this space would come out to another topic for what they felt was an units. Connie, Jim, sq. ft. should be the B would be 500 -1,200 sq. of the GRFA for the lot. Diana Donovan then asked applicant if there were any question that the Forest Service would approve the plan on their land. Joe Macy stated that the environmental impact and a finding of no significant impact had been submitted. The district office is discussing the issue presently, then it will go to the regional office in Denver for final approval. The Forest Service had not indicated any problems to date. However, if a problem surfaces, the entire plan is dependant upon Forest Service approval of the changes. Kathy Langenwalter and Connie Knight both requested to see the construction guidelines. Joe Macy said there was no secret of what these were, as they were a part of the bid document. As such, he agreed to provide them. Kathy further pondered if perhaps reducing height and length of the walls was not the answer if reducing the impacts on the site is a desired result. Kent Rose clarified that the construction specifications will minimize height and length when possible. There will be a project manager and survey crew on site during the construction to ensure that this occurs. Kristan added that the staff would have a site design team, consisting of Greg Hall, Todd Oppenheimer and herself, to review the progress to check that this was, indeed, happening. Kathy reiterated that she just wanted to make sure it was all being taken care of. Joe Macy elaborated that since the retaining walls are very expensive, they would be happy to eliminate them where ever possible. They want to eliminate every wall they can. Kathy Langenwalter then turned her attention to the planting pockets, wondering how much actual planting area there would be, and if it were actually significant. Kent stated there would be approximately 5 feet of plantable area per pocket. Joe Macy continued that this amount was significant, especially when the trees grow above the wall. Kathy then queried applicants about what impact snow and snow removal would have on these pockets. 40 is Kent stated that these pockets were somewhat protected by the • curbing along the road. Kristan Pritz reminded applicants that they needed to make sure they did not go above the 81- 8" maximum height for the walls in the area of the planting pockets. She elaborated that she wanted to clarify the variance previously given so there would not be problems later during construction. Jay indicated that they may attempt to place the pockets in areas where they could grade back above the pocket to minimize the wall. Jim Shearer asked applicants if, in the keystone wall, it would be possible to place these pockets every 400 feet. Joe stated that it would be at least every 400 ft. Kristan indicated that, from a distance, the effect of these pockets would be greater than while driving along the road itself. In addition, the 400 feet was merely a guideline for contractors when bidding on the construction. Jim requested clarification of whether this 400 foot minimum is to be applied to the entire wall length or consecutive linear feet. Kristan answered that it would apply to walls that exceed 400 feet. She further explained that the clearer the expectations of everyone at the outset, the better. Then, if there were turnover in any aspect of the development, there would be no confusion as to what was agreed upon. Jim questioned the importance of a small planting notch in a large wall, and also stated his agreement with Kathy over her . concern of the impact of the snowplows. Joe Macy said that there will be vines to disguise the walls. Jim asked about the effect of straightening some of the roads, and if that was increasing the amount of walls, as compared to the previous undulation. Kent answered that the roads now move better with the contours of the site, and that the effect on the length of walls was negligible. Jim requested clarification on each lot's GRFA, and whether the figure presented would be increased by 850 sq. ft. to compensate for the loss of the credit system, and also if the garage space needed to be added to the GRFA figure. This was confirmed by staff per the specifics in the memo. Garages are not in the GRFA numbers. Connie Knight asked if applicant had brought a sample of the keystone wall to view. The Commission examined it and Connie asked if the color could be changed. Joe Macy affirmed that the color could be changed. Connie stated that she felt planting notches are a positive addition to the plan. Regarding the stipulation that Spraddle Creek use the "least polluting sand" for winter sanding, Connie asked if that could be more specific. Joe Macy stated that he wanted to research that issue further, with Jay Peterson indicating that he wanted • 19 flexibility for new technology in the future. Connie asked if an appropriate standard would be whatever the Town and Highway Department agreed upon? It was determined that applicant would be given flexibility through the "least polluting" language. Connie also asked about the sufficiency of the livery parking provisions, and whether 5 parking spaces would be enough for hikers. Kristan said she believed it would be sufficient, as there was other parking available to hikers above the subdivision in a flat area on USFS land. In reviewing the slope requirements, Connie questioned if there were enough controls to ensure adequate protection. Kent Rose explained that applicants wanted to see what conditions they found in the field, and act accordingly within the guidelines provided. Connie also questioned how large the garages could be. Kristan explained that there would be a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. for a garage if 4 spaces were provided, unless the owner used GRFA for garage space. A question was then asked by Diana Donovan of when George Gillett would be building his home, and how that time table related to the construction of the roads. Joe Macy stated that a phasing plan will be submitted. The roads, walls and deep utilities will be started in April. By August or September, an owner could . begin foundation work. The second spring, the asphalting of the roads and shallow utilities will be completed. Diana questioned if anyone would be able to move in before the landscaping was completed. Kristan answered that the plat would be recorded with the subdivision improvements indicated. There would then be a bond issued to ensure the completion of the improvements. At that point, the developers would be free to sell lots and the Town could issue building permits. For a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to be issued, the water, sewer and electricity would have to be completed. When Diana further questioned what guarantee the Town had that the landscaping and other improvements would be completed, Kristan replied that the completion bond was the guarantee, with the Town retaining 10% until all was completed and accepted. Joe Macy further elaborated that the conditions of the performance bond would apply to all portions of the development. Jay Peterson indicated that if the plan was not completed on time, the Town would be able to draw on the completion bond. Connie raised the question of who determines the dollar amount of that completion bond. Jay answered that it is determined by the applicant, but reviewed by the Town for accuracy. • 20 Once again, the issue of GRFA and square footage was raised, and Diana Donovan wanted further clarification that the GRFA includes • the 850 sq. ft. allowance. Jay pledged that the GRFA for each lot would be placed on the plat and yes, the GRFA numbers included the 850 sq. ft. • Discussion then moved to concerns over the greenbelts provided. Diana asked for a clarification of Tract A, B and C and it was provided by Kristan Pritz. After the clarification, Diana expressed concern about the visual impact of this subdivision from the bottom of the International ski run, and not just from within the subdivision. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the gatehouse would be a caretaker unit. The answer from Jay was that there would be no utilities into the unit, and it was not visualized that the gatehouse would become living accommodations due to the impacts. With the discussion moving once again to employee housing, Diana requested definite confirmation that Mr. Gillett is building a caretaker unit with his home. Joe Macy replied that he was. Diana postulated that she could not see how the Town could require when or on what lots the caretaker units would be built, due to practical and legal difficulties. It would be impractical to have the requirement at the time the building permit is issued, which would be the only way to control when the units would be built. Joe reiterated that applicants did not want plat restrictions regarding the caretakers. Connie issued her opinion that she didn't believe it would be good for the developers to keep shifting the units from lot to lot. Jay interjected that if restrictions were placed, that in marketing, the developers would have to indicate that any buyer might be required to build a caretaker unit. Kristan stated that the issue of timing was one of concern to the Town Council, and asked if applicant could pin down two lots in addition to Mr. Gillett's which they would put the caretaker condition upon. Jay again stated that he wanted flexibility. The developers would select three lots for caretaker units, but did not want to have to go through another major subdivision revision in order to change those lots around. He also asked if there were another mechanism, rather than using a major subdivision review, whereby the designation could be changed by the PEC. After much discussion, no conclusion was reached. Diana attempted to summarize the Commission's feelings by stating that the requirement that 3 of the lots, when developed, have caretaker units, but with no stipulation as to the timing. She did state, however, that the Town Council may not approve the final plat without some type of timing agreement. At this point, the specific conditions of approval were reviewed in order to formulate a proper motion for the Commission. The resulting conditions were: (Please note changes from PEC are in bold type). 21 A. Before the Project is Reviewed by the Town Council for • Dedication, the Following Must Occur: 1. The architectural, construction, landscape guidelines in the covenants shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and Staff before the final plat is allowed to proceed to Council. Further PEC approval shall no longer be required for the documents listed above. The covenants will be submitted to staff before Town Council review. A color board shall also be submitted with the final architectural guidelines. 2. The following changes shall be made by the applicant to the landscape plan as a condition of final plat approval before the project is reviewed by the Town Council: * 2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen * The existing and proposed tree line shall be indicated on the landscape plan * The irrigation point of connection shall be changed to a water tap instead of the fire hydrant connection. * The irrigation guidelines shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail landscape architect. * The landscape plan shall be revised to show the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. Additional planting may be required by the Town of Vail landscape architect in this area. * The Al wall shall be indicated on the landscape plan. (The Fourth and Fifth conditions moved to section E, during construction numbers two and three). 3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30% slope, building envelopes and certificates. 4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works departments for final approval before the project proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation during construction shall be addressed in the phasing plan. 5. The conditions for shall be indicated section of the code 0 22 lots having slopes over 30% on the subdivision plat. This is 18.69.050 A -D, F -I, K and L. This wording shall also be included in the covenants for the subdivision. 6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be added to the plat, and also incorporated in the subdivision covenants. 7. The owner of the subdivision, or homeowners, association, shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner, or homeowners, association, also agrees to be responsible for establishing the landscaping along the public road extending from the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision entry gate for one year, from the date of Town of Vail landscape and wall acceptance. Once the landscaping is accepted and one year from the date of acceptance by the Town of Vail has transpired, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping maintenance. Any plant material not meeting the original planting specifications at the end of the one year warranty period shall be replaced by the owner or homeowners, association. Replacement plants shall be covered by an additional one year warranty. The owner or homeowners' association will continue to water the landscaping for an additional year after expiration of the original one year warranty. The drip irrigation will be zoned to separate public and private use and will remain in place and be turned over to the Town of Vail at the completion of the watering provision. B. Owner agrees to re -plant using a mixture of the removed sagebrush and seed mix for a period of 2 growing seasons per Colorado state university recommendations on all cuts for utilities. If this attempt is not successful in revegetating impacted areas of sage, owner will investigate and instigate other methods of revegetation to the Town of Vail landscape architects requirements after the second growing season. Cuts must be revegetated in such a manner that no noticeable scar exists. 9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz, dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved. 0 23 10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31, . 1991, the following issues in the memo dated February 11, 1991 from Greg Hall shall be met or resolved. 11. Town engineer's approval is required for the final street construction plans, construction specifications and final drainage report. 12. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants the condition that no on -site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision 13. Applicant agrees to construct six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road according to the plan submitted and approved by the Colorado Division of Highways for a public bike path. 14. Three caretaker units, each having a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum square footage of 500 sq. ft., shall be provided within the subdivision. The units will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10) (A -D) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The applicant shall agree that three lots will be designated in the covenants or plat on which caretaker units will be built. if lots other than those lots originally designated provide caretaker units, the covenant restriction will be lifted. Developer may change designated lots as long as there are three lots designated at all times. Further Town of Vail review of the designations will not be required if caretaker requirement is moved to another lot. 15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding material for sanding the private road within the subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail Environmental Health Department. 16. on any walls that are greater than 400 feet in length, planting notches shall be required unless it is determined that it is impossible to locate the notches in a sensitive manner in the walls. Staff and applicant will determine a number of notches to be built prior to Town Council review. During construction, notches may be increased, changed or removed with the approval of the Town of Vail design team, consisting of the Town Engineer, Landscape Artist and Community Development Director. • 24 n LJ B. During Town Council Review, the Following Must occur! 1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this time. C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded the Followin Conditions Shall Be Met: 1. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for approval the final agreement relocating the existing livery to the Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision. This agreement shall also include revegetation of the existing livery site. 2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. Forest Service approval for the switchback on their property to the east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision shall also be received before final plat recording. 3. The subdivision improvement agreement and covenants shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved before the final plat is recorded. D. After Final Plat Recording and Before any Building Permits are Released for Site Improvements or Individual Residences, the Following Conditions Must be Met: 1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone designations shall be greenbelt open space. This condition shall also be listed in the subdivision agreement before the final plat is recorded. 2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met by the applicant. E. During Construction of the Project, the Following Conditions Will be Met: 1. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer and Town landscape architect shall periodically do on -site inspections of the construction. • 25 2. A letter from RBD Engineers describing how grading and landscaping will occur if walls I, K, C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1 are removed, and when wall Z1 is removed. 3. Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by the landscape architect for walls E -1, G -1 and N- 1. This issue shall be resolved after an on site inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape architect. Up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs may be required by the landscape architect. 4. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate grading for portions of the I walls, K walls, C walls, 01, M1, Y1, Rose Lane, and walls below the gatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape architect, and Community Development Director. These walls shall also be listed on the final street construction plans as having potential for removal. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the above requirements be accepted by the Commission. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of the motion. A review of the requirements will take place at the next Commission meeting. • The meeting was recessed at 7:05, and reconvened by Diana Donovan, chairperson, at 7:12PM. It was noted by Diana Donovan that Ludwig Kurz had left the meeting for a personal emergency. 4. A request for a review and recommendation to Town Council regarding adoption of the Stephens Park Master Plan: site is located at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen gave the staff presentation. He opened by addressing what the Commission had asked staff to review at the previous work session. The first area of concern was the issue of parking spaces. By widening the access road to the park, parking has been increased to 18 spaces. Other options were examined, including frontage road parking, but widening the driveway appeared to make more sense. Diana asked about Vail Recreation Department scheduling of practices and games. Todd Oppenheimer replied that at this time, Stephens Park was not included in the agreement between the VRD • 26 and Stephens Park. If and when an agreement is made, only • practices would be allowed. A practice would only constitute approximately 15 people, as opposed to twice that for a game. Diana indicated she did not believe the parking would be adequate for practices. Andy continued his presentation by reviewing staff's examination of the hazards. Art Mears' recommendation of 3' berm height to completely remove any danger in the play area was a good solution. Diana asked if all the concerns of the Commission had been met. Andy responded that the fork in the path had been added, and the workout course had been examined, but found to be too expensive relative to other park facilities requested by the neighborhood. Staff felt that the requests by park neighbors should have a higher priority. With regard to mitigation of the avalanche danger, Art Mears had stated that signage would bring the hazard to an "acceptable level of risk." Kristan further explained that no matter what was done to mitigate, someone could always sue. Town of Vail had to exercise due diligence in the mitigation of any danger. Kathy Langenwalter asked if rock fall danger should be added to the avalanche signage. Andy indicated that it would be no problem to do so. Todd felt that the avalanche danger was more compelling, but he would check with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, . to more clearly define wording for the signs. Kathy accepted this conclusion. Kathy Langenwalter moved approval of Stephens Park Master Plan with the condition that Larry Eskwith review signage wording for appropriate mitigation of risk, whether it met the hazard code, and whether to include rock fall notation. In addition, the approval of this Master Plan is contingent upon the approval of the Hazard Map. Connie Knight seconded the motion. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 5. A reauest to amend the Town of Vail's Avalanche. Rockfall and Debris Flow Hazard Maps in the general vicinity of Stephens Park, located at the southeast corner of South Frontage _Road West and_Kinnickinick Road, pursuant to Section 189.69 of the town of Vail Zoning, Code. Applicant: Town of Vail The Commission waived a staff presentation of this item as they had heard discussion of this issue during the park master plan discussion. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Hazard Map be amended per Art Mears' letters of January, 1991 and February 8, 1991. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The motion carried with a 4 -0 vote. 0 27 &. A reauest to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the . ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen presented the amendment request. The purpose of this request was to add a view corridor number 4, as explained below. In addition, staff requested clarification of the view corridor ordinance language. The proposed view corridor number 4 will read as follows: "View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is 8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view was established by setting a camera five feet one inch above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range. The proposed refinements to the language of the view corridor ordinance read as follows: 1. "Any modifications to the roof or structures which are proposed to be located, or are currently located above the line (in the view corridor) shall be reviewed by the PEC." 2. "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the view corridor shall apply." 3. "Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line, even if it is proposed to be built behind an existing structure that is in a view corridor (the Clock Tower or a chimney for example) shall not be allowed." 4. "Some view corridors include portions of existing structures that currently encroach into the corridor. Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. For example, decks which extend out into a corridor will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Applications requesting changes to buildings adjacent 0 28 to view corridors should be aware that any existing encroachments will be encouraged to be removed from the view corridor as part of any major building modification." Staff recommended the Commission favorably refer these amendments to Town Council for adoption. In addition, staff believed that the creation of view corridor Number 4 will be an important addition as it will preserve the beautiful view of the Gore Range from a pedestrian area of the Village. Diana Donovan opened the discussion by asking what effect these amendments would have on structures which are intentional focal points, such as the Clock Tower. Kristan Pritz indicated that there are structures set out within the parameters of a specific view corridor which are intended to remain a part of that view. The Clock Tower is an example of one such focal point. These amendments are not meant to eliminate those points intended to be preserved in an individual view corridor. Jim shearer queried staff as to the possibilities of having a survey performed to define view corridor Number 4. Kristan related that it would be possible, and that the survey would clearly define the corridor using whatever points were finally adopted. Paul Johnston was recognized and stated his definite objections to the addition of view corridor Number 4. He pointed out to the Commission that, when view corridors were first established, this particular view was determined to be insignificant. Mr. Johnston stated that this is a 30 foot wide view which diminishes with every step you take into the corridor to the east. In addition, 50% of the year, foliage from the trees blocks most of the view, in Mr. Johnston's opinion. Paul asked staff and the Commission why the line did not go around the Red Lion view. Jay Peterson was also recognized for discussion on this amendment, and stated he agreed with Mr. Johnston that the view should go around the Red Lion, and believed that when the Town Council reviewed the Red Lion expansion, that was a specific item of discussion. Kristan Pritz responded that she would examine that point and will act accordingly. Jay expressed his opinion that it would be unfair to adopt a view corridor with the Red Lion chimney identified as an encroachment encouraged to be removed, when that encroachment had already been approved by the Town Council. He did not feel that the Red Lion should be subject to extra restrictions should they decide to remodel again, or if they had to rebuild for any reason. Kristan reiterated that she would look into the Council discussions on this issue. In addition, she explained that the ordinance revision would only encourage the elimination of the encroachment during a remodel, not mandate it. 29 Jay Peterson further expressed his displeasure over the proposed view corridor by stating that when the other view corridors were established, the impacts on the property owners were taken into consideration. He illustrated this by the example of the top of Pepi Gramshammer's roof. Diana responded to Jay's comments by indicating her belief that, although this was a view for only a short distance, the view to the mountains must be preserved. Jay said he was only asking for a minor consideration - that the Commission be fair to property owners. Jay also expressed his displeasure at the method the view corridor was established. He brought to the Commission's attention an alternative photograph where the balcony was not an encroachment. He stated that it was only an encroachment by using the staff's view, and perhaps another view point should be established. Mike Mollica illustrated the importance of this particular view corridor by relating that when staff had gone to photograph the proposal, they constantly observed pedestrians walking down Wall Street, which is an area where the Gore Range is in full view. Andy elaborated that since it is a very short view, it is all the more important to preserve. Jay told the Commission that he was only asking for minor changes in the view corridor. These changes would include establishing the corridor so that the Red Lion's addition would be acceptable. He just wanted the same consideration other property owners got in the establishment of previous view corridors. At this point, a free form discussion took place between the Commission members, Jay Peterson and Paul Johnston regarding potential views and lines to establish the view corridor. When the meeting was called back into formal session, Diana Donovan asked Mr. Peterson why the view corridor should be moved. He answered that in the areas below the tree line, the view would be obstructed by foliage in the summer, and when the majority of the people pass in the winter, it is already dark and the view obstructed in that manner. Kathy asked staff why this issue was being raised at this time. Mike Mollica responded that the issue of this view had been raised during the Red Lion construction. Jay requested that he be given a copy of the photograph so he could draw alternative corridor lines and present it to the Commission. . 30 Diana expressed her opinion that it view - perhaps a compromise would be with a straight line connecting the was critical to maintain the to identify the corridor two balconies. Kathy Langenwalter raised the issue of development rights. She asked Paul Johnston of the Christiania what was the maximum height of his building. Mr. Johnston indicated it could be 7 feet higher than its present height. Kathy further asked how this proposal would impact his development rights. Jim Shearer presented his opinion that there could be a problem with the parking area across from the Christiania, if it were ever to be developed. Connie Knight stated that she preferred a straight line approach for defining the corridor. She suggested drawing a line from the top of Christy's balcony of the Plaza Building. Mike asked the Commission to define the view they wanted to preserve. Connie stated she preferred the photograph taken in 1983 during the original discussion of this issue to the more recent photograph. Kathy Langenwalter stated she would like to see the eventual elimination of the balcony from the view. Diana Donovan said she thought the corridor needed to be simple and as close to the original as possible. In addition,•the potential impacts to the Christiania need to be considered. At this point, Connie Knight moved to amend Ordinance 13, 1983 to . establish a view corridor. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range, extending from the north point of the 1983 photograph straight across to the top of the balcony on the second floor of the Hill Building. She further moved that the ordinance be revised as recommended by staff. There was no second to this motion. The motion died. More discussion ensued regarding what would be the optimum lines for the establishment of the corridor. Kristan Pritz suggested tabling the motion until the February 25 meeting to allow the Commissioners to again visit the site. Paul Johnston suggested moving the view point up to the Hill Building, since that was where the pedestrians predominantly viewed the mountains. Diana Donovan stated that a new picture should be taken without the clouds, that the Commission should see the corridor staked with a tape between the balconies in the picture. Kristan agreed to do this before the next meeting. She also indicated that staff would research the Council minutes about the Red Lion chimney if where they had intended it to be included in the view corridor. 0 31 Jim Shearer moved to table this issue to the February 25, 1991 meeting. Connie Knight seconded. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of the motion. Jim also moved to table items 8 and 9 of the agenda, regarding the request for setback and site coverage variances for the Lifthouse Lodge and the request for a front setback variance by Nowell May. Kathy Langenwalter seconded. The motion passed with a 4 -0 vote. Commission unanimously voted to table approval of the minutes from January 28, 1991 until the February 25, 1991 meeting. Kristan Pritz announced that Kathy Langenwalter and Chuck Crist had been reappointed to serve on the Commission for another two years. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50PM. • 0 32 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1991 RE: A request for a height variance to allow for the installation of one satellite dish antenna on the roof of the Vail Village Inn Plaza, located at 100 Vail Road/ Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting to place one satellite dish between the two south facing dormers of the Vail Village Inn Plaza. The dish measures 7.6 feet in diameter and with supporting structure, will be 8 feet above the roof eave of the dormer. The purpose of this satellite dish is to provide an alternate cable service to the Vail Village Inn Plaza. The dish would be suspended on a structural beam spanning between the 2 dormers. The top of the dish exceeds the ridge line of the dormer by several inches, depending on the angle of the dish. The height of the dish will vary due to the changing angles of the dish. The base of the unit is approximately 55 feet above the plaza at the dish location, with the top of the dish having a height of approximately 64 feet above the plaza. The top of the dish will be approximately 8 feet below the main ridge line. The dish proposed is gray, but can be painted to match the color of the building. A mesh dish is proposed. The requested variance is from Section 18.58.320 (D,3) which states: "The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish antenna, when measured from the top of the satellite dish antenna down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not exceed fifteen feet." II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variances based upon the following factors: 0 1 A. Consideration of Facters: • 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or Rotential uses and structures in the vicinity. The dish exceeds the top of the dormers, due to the changing angles of the unit. The dish will be screened from view on the north by the ridge line of the building. it will not be visible from the Frontage Road. It will not be visible from the pedestrian plaza, but will be seen from Meadow Drive immediately below the dish. If this dish were ground mounted, it would meet the Town's criteria for satellite dish height. The staff looked at placing the dish at ground level. it was felt that there are other possible locations at both grade and above grade which would be less visible. 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 proposed dish would be placed approximately 34 -36 feet back from the front of the dormers. Rooftop installations are not always desirable for satellite dishes, however occasionally this approach provides the optimum method for screening of the dish. This option has been approved in the past if impacts on adjacent properties are decreased. The staff finds that in this particular application, the proposed dish would not be substantially screened, and therefore would have unacceptable visual impacts on surrounding properties. In this location, the design would be visible from other properties. Impact would not be limited to the Vail Village Inn. Relief from the height requirements is not warranted because the visual impacts on adjacent properties has not been substantially minimized. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safetv. There is no impact on this criteria. 2 III. FINDINGS . The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance. A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the request. Staff has examined the property and feels that this is not the best location for the satellite dish, and that the visual impacts would not be substantially minimized by placing the dish in the proposed location. We feel that the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege. The Planning and Environmental Commission has granted height variances for satellite dishes in the past, including the Lodge at Vail, the Sonnenalp, Marriott's Mark Resort, and the Gasthof Gramshammer when impacts on adjacent properties are minimal or non- existent. However, staff feels that the impacts on adjacent properties have not been minimized, and therefore we do not support the request. 0 c: \pec \memos \satelite.211 3 Ell AM 11 YT f�f Jn' • • �� k Ro 1 If} I1i ii t I� v 3` f 3 t I i ' r i � I.I�►�JI �, � 1 %I III �( {I j `''Ni�l,[,'1 5i1� I � i 7 ;i ,, lot i�l I �! } I ii I I �441II � {{jj� IElf�l� I i - } 4444 FF`�� I 1 A { - . tEr!'lt'rii5�� i�!I� II I''�Il ?'-rte }•� ! .� � fl I ! 1 +�` I�1:1[II(,Sif� , 11x1 I �� r!I. f'rilj� .{ ! tiltj r -Yf •�I 41r}I I I y �t�l r1i� 71 - �. - I - I ,+7 r I II rl All t I I � � I �I lill'I ' �F CC 20 127. _C.e a'h'r G, °�� lk UGH ca ctso'? i :ryi�ilaw. +� o11TTel'-._ UNIT ID sae : ✓w Iro. 748, rt' uu5 or _ tq y ! lii lLrT /EWC Y� �tiL Jn{ .FA OG'� ! jecor OVER - t t r IT llE .IA - ,t, a .d •� t u. ti r+rvN. OI �^ ^U 7 cum. �I`,� S,jj I nlsC eC - s F sam 0-f7. / d-PI 7o...jn tu cl .mot - io_d 7 I F -- ..,,,, _ I I nxt �tY elf- f . `,� ' wce+e eroF m; 'R'K j ' � j GT.f �`.PO4 � I -' i _ �l+ATGM�•. ._. — � •tare �7 z 1 05 Ila See u1 2 I "C TO: Planning and Environmental Commission iFROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1991 RE: A request to approve the final plat for a major subdivision on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. I. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Preliminary Plan Approval Summary Spraddle Creek is a forty acre parcel located northeast of the Main Vail interchange. Mr. George Gillett, Jr. is the owner of the property. The property is surrounded by White River National Forest land on the north, east, west and south. I -70 right -of --way is located adjacent to Spraddle Creek's southwestern boundary. The applicant is requesting final approval for a major subdivision plat. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in January of 1985 and Hillside Residential Zoning was applied in November of 1987 by Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1987. On September 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC} unanimously approved the subdivision preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and road grade variance by a vote of 5 -0. The preliminary plan was approved with twenty -four conditions. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended that the applicant work on reducing the road grade to the new livery site and also refine the architectural guidelines. The PEC also recommended that the applicant be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping along the public road for a two to three year period after the landscaping has been established, rather than two to three years after planting. On October 2, 1990, the Town Council reviewed the project. A vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously. 0 1 • • II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM PRELIMINARY PLAN Below is a summary of the final conditions of approval for the project. The original conditions are highlighted in bold print. A. The proposed road grades and retaining wall heights are maximums for the subdivision. If it is determined by staff through the final plat review and /or building permit, or construction phase that road grades and retaining wall heights may be further reduced, the applicant will agree to do so. The final plat submittal will provide a thorough analysis of the soil nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to minimize site disturbance. Staff Summary: Since preliminary plan approval, there have been several changes to the retaining wall design. At this time, a "keystone" wall is proposed, and this wall has been reviewed conceptually by the Design Review Board. The color of the walls will be tan, unless otherwise agreed to by the Design Review Board. Cut walls will continue to have a ten foot planting terrace between each retaining wall. Fill wall planting terraces have been reduced to six feet between each retaining wall. This creates a four foot reduction from the planting terrace for fill walls from preliminary plan approval. The reason for this reduction is to further minimize disturbance of the site. The same quantity of plant materials will still be able to be located within the six foot terrace of the fill walls. The height of retaining walls does not exceed the eight feet eight inches approved at preliminary plan. The maximum number of wall terraces proposed is three. These three terraced wall areas have a maximum combined height of 32 feet. (3 x 8' -8" + 2 x 3' [for planting terrace].) This height results in the height of the tiered wall being two feet higher than what was approved at preliminary plan. Below is a comparison of walls between preliminary plan and final plat. Preliminary Plan 0--6 ft. 6 -8 ft. 8 1111-8 1 8 11 Total Length 3,225 l.f. 2,663 l.f. 291 1.f. 6,179 l.f. Final Plat Difference 2,978 l.f. 2,085 l.f. 2,254 1.f. 7,317 l.f. 0 2 (247 l.f.) + 578 l.f. ±1,963 l.f. 1,138 1.f. The applicant has provided additional information on the rationale for using the "keystone" wall system. Soil nailing or a tie rod system is not proposed. The Town Engineer has reviewed the studies submitted by Retention Engineering consultants and agrees that the "keystone" wall is appropriate given the soils. Below is the Town Engineer's analysis of the appropriateness of the keystone wall. Town Engineer's Comments: Although a thorough analysis of soil nailing and a tie rod system was not completed, it appears that the wall system is adequate for the site. Tie rod systems are only appropriate once wall heights exceed 10 feet in height. The use of terraces to mitigate the impact of the walls makes the tie rod system less effective in reducing disturbed areas above the top wall. The amount of disturbance was reduced with use of a 1.5:1 slope above the wall. The "keystone" wall system also has great flexibility in reducing the amount of wall used based on varying site conditions in the field. Blocks come in square foot pieces and can be removed to accommodate minor changes in site topography. Tie rod systems are normally available in 81x 8' panels and are more rigid in dealing with varying site conditions. All triple cut walls, except M walls, could be reduced by more extensive grading. If this occurs, a tie rod is not appropriate. A tie rod system would only be appropriate for the M wall. The use of a tie rod system on the double tiered M wall does not seem appropriate because of the amount of disturbance taking place on Lot 14 and the possible disturbance resulting from the elimination of a portion of the lower M wall the O wall located to the east of this area. The applicant has also agreed to provide planting notches in walls that are greater than 400 feet in length. The concept is that in areas where the length of the wall is extreme, planting notches would be built into the walls to break up the linear appearance of the wall. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has met the first condition of approval concerning road grades and retaining wall heights. The grades and retaining wall heights (8' -811) do not exceed those approved by the PEC at the Preliminary Plan review. There is a net increase in wall length of 1,138 l.f. Some of this increase is because of concerns for creek protection and the walls that provide for the livery stable • 3 • roadway. Staff is concerned about this increase in wall length. The staff has identified to the applicant walls that may be removed with additional grading and landscaping. These walls include portions of the I walls and K walls, and C1, C2, 01, M1, Yl, Z1, and walls below the gatehouse. The applicant does not want to remove these walls from the plans as unforeseen site specific conditions may make it necessary to keep the walls. The staff felt this was an acceptable approach to avoid another review by the PEC and DRB during construction. This approach allows the PEC to review the worst case scenario. Before final review by Council, worksheets showing grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate grading shall be submitted to the Town engineer, landscape architect and Community Development Director for review and approval. 2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual building phase for the wall and road improvements. See Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo. Staff Summary: The applicant will submit construction guidelines, along with landscape, architectural and irrigation guidelines for DRB and PEC approval if the PEC desires to review the documents. 3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade onto this portion of the property if and when the North Frontage Road is extended to the east below the subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to Vail Valley Drive /Blue Cow Chute. Staff Summary: The applicant has provided an adequate grading easement for the Town of Vail. The easement is indicated on the final plat. 4. An agreement finalizing the livery stable relocation and reclamation of the existing livery site will be submitted with the final plat information. Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to relocate the livery to Forest Service land to the east of the Spraddle Creek site and also to revegetate the existing livery site. is 4 0 • • 5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30% will be applied to the subdivision. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A -D, F -I, R and L. Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to this condition, and will indicate this stipulation on the final plat and covenants. 6. site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100% of the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition will be finalized at final plat. Staff Summary: The staff and applicant have agreed to limit site coverage to 100% of the allowable GRFA minus 850 sq. ft. for each lot, excluding Lot 14. The site coverage for Lot 14 shall be 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 8, Lot 10 and Lot 15 shall be limited per the standard Hillside Residential zoning which is applicable on smaller lots.* Please see the chart comparing the proposed site coverage, to site coverage allowed under the standard Hillside Residential zoning. 5 Proposed Site HR Site Lot Coverage Coverage (.15)_ 1 6,483 13,125 2 5,674 7,222 3 7,698 13,293 4 6,166 8,698 5 5,977 8,130 6 7,370 12,308 7 5,459 6,575 8* 4,781 4,781 9 6,419 9,457 10* 4,844 4,844 11 6,838 10,713 12 8,078 14,432 13 N/A N/A 14 10,000 32,329 15* 3,839 3,839 Staff tried to achieve a balance among the following factors when determining an appropriate site coverage percentage: * The need for flexibility in site planning because of the sensitivity of the lots. * The fact that the existing Hillside Residential zoning would provide no control on site coverage, because of the large lot size. Essentially, all square footage (GRFA + Garage 1200 sq. ft.) could be built on one level. 5 * The probability that most lot owners will want to construct 3 or 4 car garages which are not incorporated into GRFA. * The applicant's willingness to provide building envelopes and architectural guidelines. * The fact that the new site coverage ordinance has become more restrictive. * In Primary /Secondary zoning, site coverage does not exceed GRFA until lots exceed 30,000 sq. ft. it appears that with large lots, the site coverage would exceed GRFA. Using PrimaryfSecondary_Zonina Standards (With New GRFA Definition) Lot Size GRFA* Site Coverage (.20 of total site) 15,000 4,600 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 20,000 5,100 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. 30,000 6,100 Sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 40,000 6,600 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. * Figure does not include 1,200 sq. ft. for a garage When this condition of approval was originally discussed at preliminary plan, the GRFA and site coverage ordinances had not been amended. The new GRFA ordinance takes into account all GRFA, excluding garages, which are equivalent to a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. By allowing for 100% of the allowable GRFA minus 850 sq. ft. for site coverage, we believe that good site planning will result. The limit on site coverage, in combination with the building envelopes and architectural guidelines, should insure that houses are sited in a reasonable manner on the sensitive sites, while still allowing flexibility for individual site planning. 7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner for the caretaker unit, gas appliances or gas logs shall be used in all caretaker units. Only one wood burning fireplace will be allowed in the main unit. Staff Summary: The Town Council recently adopted Ordinance No. 42 of 1990 which restricts all new construction to gas logs and gas appliances. This subdivision will be governed by this ordinance. The only lot that will potentially be able to have one wood burning unit is Lot 14. At this time, the owner of the entire Spraddle Creek site may submit design plans for one Hillside Residential development. If the final 9 6 submittal occurs before February 15, 1991, this development will be allowed to have one wood burning is fireplace for the main unit. The caretaker unit for Lot 14 shall be required to meet Ordinance No. 42, as at preliminary plan approval, the caretaker was already restricted to gas. This solution is acceptable to staff. 8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic barrier provided with appropriate landscaping if allowed by the Colorado Division of Highways. Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to remove the chain link fence and replace it with a wooden fence and landscaping. This meets the staff concern. 9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated and must survive for two years after they have been relocated. If they die within the two year period, the trees will be replaced by similar type and sized trees, at the owners expense. Staff Summary: The condition is met. 10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990 shall be complied with by the owner or as otherwise modified. Staff Summary: All fire department concerns have been addressed by the applicant, to the Town's satisfaction. 11. Before any building permits are released for the subdivision and once the subdivision receives final plat approval, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. Staff Summa: The applicant agrees to this condition. 12. six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road for a distance of approximately 520 feet (from the Spraddle Creek intersection west) for a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to construct the 6 ft. bike lanes. 13. All construction on each lot shall occur within the platted building envelopes. The building envelopes . shall be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated September 7, 1990 before final plat. Staff and the applicant will determine what improvements, if any, will be allowed outside the envelope at final plat. Staff Summary: The applicant has revised the building envelopes per planning staff recommendations drawn on the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. The staff also reviewed the building envelopes on site. The final plat reflects the recommendations made at preliminary plan and the site specific analysis. All improvements shall occur within building envelopes except driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls, grading, surface parking, and garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A -D, F -J, K & L of the Town of Vail zoning code. These site improvements, may be proposed outside of the building envelopes as long as Design Review Board approval is received and any impacts on topography and vegetation are minimal and the end result is a building that is well integrated into the site. Retaining walls are discouraged, but if necessary, shall be integrated into the site as much as possible. Garages will be allowed to be located out of the building envelope if they meet the slope standards for lots that have the main building and garage in areas of the site that exceed 30o slope. In respect to Lot 14, the building envelope shall be tied to the site plan dated October 4, 1990, with signatures dated February 7, 1991, prepared by Pierce, Segerburg, Spaeh Architects. The envelope is tied to a specific site plan because of the size of the house, the staff's concern that all major improvements be located within the building envelope, and that the house not move closer to the south if the envelope is expanded to include two south facing patios. Because the preliminary design for Lot 14 is completed, staff had the opportunity to analyze this particular envelope in relation to the proposed residence. Overall, the building envelopes have been located in a manner that is sensitive to areas of slope over 40% and existing tree lines. Staff has also tried to consider building envelope configurations that allow for a reasonable area to locate a house within. We believe the applicant has responded to our concerns and we support the building envelopes as proposed on the final plat. • 8 14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with the requirements found within the Environmental Impact Report for the project. Staff Summary: The applicant agrees with this condition. 15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding material for sanding the private road within the subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail Environmental Health Department. Staff Summary: The applicant agrees with this condition. 16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall be rezoned to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space at the same time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt, open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest Service switchback, the Lot 5/6 switchback, and the secondary road per the staff amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. Staff Summary: The applicant has submitted an application to rezone the open space tracts within the subdivision to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning. Once the plat is recorded, the staff will schedule the rezoning application for the three greenbelt and natural open space tracts. No building permits for site work or individual residences will be released until the rezoning has been approved. This understanding will also be in the subdivision improvement agreement. The reason for approaching the rezoning in this manner is to insure that the legal descriptions absolutely match the tract legal descriptions on the final plat. Below is a summary of the square footage allocated to each of the greenbelt open space tracts. Tract A - 337,222 sq. ft. Tract B - 5,151 sq. ft. Tract C - 47,279 sq. ft. This solution is acceptable to staff. 17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing the landscaping along the public road extending from the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision entry gate for a period of two years once the landscape materials have been established. Once the landscaping is established and two years has transpired, and the Town of Vail Landscape Architect has approved the landscaping, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping maintenance. Staff Summary: The applicant does not agree with this condition relating to landscaping, and would propose to transfer maintenance responsibilities to the Town 1 to 1 1/2 years after the landscaping is planted. Council asked that instead of 112 to 3" years after landscaping is established, a specific time period should be referenced in the condition. Staff used 2 years. Staff supports the original Council condition. 18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate. Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to this condition of approval and will dedicate an easement along Spraddle Creek for public access as well as a public access easement from the North Frontage Road up Gillett Road to the Spraddle Creek entry gate. Staff would ask that the public access easement along the creek be expanded from 20 feet to 60 feet. 19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum square footage of 700 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision. The three caretaker units must be provided within three of the first seven lots that are developed. The units will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10) (A -D) of the Town of Vail Zoning code. At this time, the gatehouse caretaker unit is not approved. Staff Summary: The applicant agrees to provide the three caretaker units however, they would prefer to not have to guarantee that the three caretaker units will be provided within three of the first seven lots that are developed. Staff believes that it is important that the three units occur within three of the first seven lots that are developed and would make this part of the condition of approval. A minimum square footage of 700 sq. ft. is acceptable for the caretaker unit. 20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as follows: a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely steep slopes. 10 0 • b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of residences but large lawn areas are not encouraged. C. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8% unless approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. d. irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No chain link fencing is allowed within the subdivision, even for dog runs. if dog runs are proposed, another type of open fencing should be used. Staff Response: The applicant intends to amend the architectural guidelines to reflect staff, PEC, and DRB recommendations. Slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on individual lots. In respect to D, the applicant has submitted information allowing irrigation by the retaining walls. The recommendations found in the condition of approval have been included in the architectural guidelines. Staff will require that the guidelines be reviewed one more time by the DRB and PEC before final Council approval. The guidelines must be given final approval by the PEC before the final plat is allowed to proceed to Council. 21. All construction within the subdivision shall comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in Section 18.69. Staff summary: The applicant has indicated on the plat the hazard areas within the subdivision. These hazard areas have not contributed to any site area for the purposes of calculating GRFA or site coverage. In addition, a letter dated January 18, 1991 has been submitted by Ed Church, hazard consultant, which states that site specific hazard studies for individual lots will not be necessary because of the building envelope requirements for each lot. This solution is acceptable to staff. 22. No on -site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision. Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to not allow any on site liveries within the Spraddle Creek subdivision. 0 11 23. Aspens, vines, and large shrubs shall be used on all retaining walls. Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to meet this condition. 24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributing site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site coverage. Staff Summary: The applicant has met this condition of approval. Please see the discussion on GRFA in the following section of the memo. III. ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE COUNCIL /PEC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Lot size: All lots meet the buildable area requirements per the Hillside Residential Zone District. The buildable areas have been certified by Mr. Dan Corcoran of Eagle Valley Engineering and Surveying in his letter dated February 6, 1991. B. GRFA: Attached to the memo is a chart comparing lot size, building area, GRFA, and site coverage. The GRFA for each lot (except Lot 14) has been determined by using the standard Hillside Residential Zoning. All hazard areas and floodplain areas have been excluded from site area which is used to calculate GRFA and site coverage. The GRFA numbers on the chart are arrived at by using the following formula: 18.09.080 Density Control "Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site. Not more than twenty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first twenty -one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over twenty -one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet. On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed twelve hundred (1,200) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold 9 12 separately from the main dwelling. This unit may be integrated into the main dwelling or may be integrated within a garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure." Please note that the new GRFA definition and method of calculating GRFA found in Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1990 will be used for this subdivision. Per this new definition, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. "Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss -type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor /ceiling assembly above. 4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar feature /space with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature /space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height." GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall then be deducted from total square footage. As an example, Lot 1 has a GRFA listed of 7,333 sq. ft. Assuming that the owner of Lot 1 builds the primary unit plus the caretaker unit, the owner has the option of 13 building up to 1,200 sq. ft. of additional space for a four car garage. The garage space is not included in the total GRFA figure. The only lot that is not allocated GRFA based on the Hillside Residential Zone District is Lot 14. Because of the large size of this lot, staff believes that a reduction in the allowable GRFA per Hillside Residential Zoning was appropriate. Under standard Hillside Residential Zoning, the lot would be allowed to have 14,843 sq. ft. of GRFA. (Please remember a 1,200 sq. ft., four -car garage could be added if two units are built on the site.) At preliminary plan, the applicant agreed to a GRFA restriction of 14,330 sq. ft. This GRFA amount was based on the old formula for calculating GRFA. In addition to the 14,330 sq. ft., the owner would have been allowed to have 550 sq. ft. of credits excluding any type of garage credit. This would result in a total floor area of 14,880 sq. ft. Under the new ordinance, if the total lot size (286,022 sq. ft.), is reduced by 70,496 sq. ft. for hazard areas on the lot, the GRFA that is allowed is equivalent to 14, 843 sq. ft. per Hillside Residential Zoning. In order to balance the concerns of the staff about the size of the development on this lot, we have arrived at an agreed upon GRFA of 14,330 sq. ft. Lots 4 and 5 use total site area minus hazard areas to arrive at their GRFA figure. Lot 1 GRFA does not exceed the GRFA originally allowed when the project incorporated the entire subdivision road on private land. The staff's intent is to ensure that additional GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1 now that the road extends onto Forest Service land. The total lot areas and GRFAs for the entire resubdivision are actually below those figures proposed when the road was entirely on Gillett property as indicated below. These restrictions on GRFA is acceptable to the applicant and to the staff. Please see Dannie Corcoran's letter dated February 6, 1991 for GRFA statistics. C. Road Grades The road grades have not changed substantially since preliminary plan. The road grade does not exceed 8.89% as approved. The average road grade is 7.8 %. At preliminary plan both the Council and Planning and Environmental Commission mentioned their concern about the grade of the gravel livery road to the east of the subdivision. At this time, the grade for the road is 15.4% at its steepest point. 0 14 The turnaround has also been relocated to a location directly in front of the subdivision gate. It is no longer approximately 180 lineal feet east of the gate. Staff believes this is an improvement over the previous location. It does result in two additional retaining walls below the turnaround area. The height of these walls ranges from 1 to 8' -811. The length is 135 1.f. for the upper wall and 66 l.f. for the lower wall. No caretaker unit is proposed. A gatehouse will be constructed at the entry. Staff is still comfortable with the road grades. It is unfortunate that the road grade for the livery cannot be reduced substantially. Staff would recommend that grading be completed to reduce road grade to the best extent possible without significant disturbance to the surrounding vegetation. It would appear that livery operators would widen the road to their operation, so the overall road grade may be able to be improved slightly. Forest Service road grades have different standards from Town roads and assuming the Forest Service approves the road, staff can support the 15.4% grade. D. Landscape and Irrigation At preliminary plan, it was felt that it would be a problem to provide irrigation above the retaining walls along the road. The applicant has submitted a letter from Retention Engineers, John Tryba, dated January 30, 1991, stating that it is acceptable to allow irrigation above the walls. Specific plans for the subdivision entry by the gate and entrance by the North Frontage Road have been submitted. These plans will be reviewed by the Design Review Board and, at this time, have the general approval of the Town of Vail landscape architect. The applicant has submitted a project landscape plan which has incorporated the Planning Commission's suggestion of providing "grove- type" planting arrangements around the disturbed areas and open space tracts. The following changes shall be made to the landscape plan as a condition of final plat approval before Council review: * 211 caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed instead of 1 1/2" caliper. * The existing and proposed tree line shall be indicated on the landscape plan. 9 15 * The irrigation point of connection shall be changed to a water tap instead of the fire hydrant connection. * A letter from RBD engineers describing how grading and landscaping will occur if walls K, I, Cl, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are removed after a site inspection is made by the owners' consultant team, Town engineer, landscape architect, and community development director. * Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by the landscape architect for walls E -1, G -1 and N- 1. This issue shall be resolved after an on -site inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape architect. Additional landscaping may include up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs. * The landscape plan shall be revised to show the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. Additional planting may be required by the Town of Vail landscape architect in this area. E. Frontage Road Design The applicant has received Colorado Department of Highways' approval for the frontage road lane design. All retaining walls have been removed along the North Frontage Road and entry into the subdivision. Forest Service approval will be necessary, as grading may occur on their property at the frontage road entrance. F. Drainage A large sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been removed from the proposal. This is acceptable to the Town of Vail Engineer. Numerous erosion control methods will be utilized during the construction period for the subdivision. An erosion control plan has been submitted and conceptually approved by the Town of Vail landscape architect and engineer. G. Livery Design and Trail Access Adjacent to the relocated livery, the applicant proposes to provide 17 parking spaces. Twelve spaces will be provided for users of the livery. Five spaces will be available to hikers. H. construction Phasing The applicant would like to submit a construction phasing plan at a later date to the Community Development and Public Works departments for approval. The applicant is attempting to relocate the livery to 1* 16 the new east livery site on Forest Service property before Memorial Day. In order to accomplish this, their phasing plan is being revised. Construction staging areas at this time are proposed to be located at the old livery site and at the top of the subdivision at the two cul de sacs. Possible spring debris flow mitigation on the lower portion of Gillett Road shall be addressed in the phasing plan. I. Forest Service Considerations The applicant will be required to receive approval from the United States Forest Service to locate the east switchback on Forest Service property. This will be a condition of final plat approval. The plat will not be recorded until final approval is received from the Forest Service for the switchback. The applicant will also be required to dedicate and realign easements per the Forest Service requirements for their approval. J. Driveway Locations for Individual Lots The applicant has submitted a plan showing the general location for access to each of the lots. Each owner will be required to submit a design for a house that minimizes retaining walls and disturbance to the site. It was felt that it was appropriate to indicate the general location for access, but that specific driveway cuts and grades would not be defined at final plat. The Town Engineer has reviewed the general driveway locations, and believes that they can provide safe access to the sites. One comment is that the portion of Lot 3 that extends in front of Lot 2 on the plat may need to be revised in order to provide better access to Lot 2. IV. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the major subdivision final plat for Spraddle Creek Subdivision. All of the conditions of approval which were stipulated in the preliminary plan approval have been agreed to by the applicant, except for the condition relating to the timing of the provision for the 3 caretaker units and maintenance condition. Staff approval is contingent upon these two conditions being met per our recommendations. It is felt that the project meets the review criteria for a major subdivision which is listed below in Section 17.16.110 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations: 17 "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.$' • Staff believes that the applicant has made a very strong effort to address all of the public boards' concerns as well as staff concerns. The result is a project which meets the above criteria, and will result in a new subdivision for the Town of Vail that is sensitive to the community's goals for development, aesthetics, natural environment, and surrounding land uses, given the steep topography of the site. We recommend final approval of the plat with the following conditions. Staff has listed the points, during the review process, at which conditions must be finalized. A. Before the Pro'ect is Reviewed by the Town Council for Dedication 1. The architectural, construction and landscape guidelines shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and finalized by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The guidelines must be given final approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission before the final plat is allowed to proceed to Council. A color board shall also be submitted with the final architectural guidelines 2. The following changes shall be made by the applicant to the landscape plan as a condition of final plat approval before the project is reviewed by the Town Council: 2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen * The existing and proposed tree line shall be indicated on the landscape plan • is * The irrigation point of connection shall be . changed to a water tap instead of the fire hydrant connection. * A letter from RBD Engineers describing how grading and landscaping will occur if walls I, K, Cl, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are removed. * Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by the landscape architect for walls E -1, G -1 and N -1. This issue shall be resolved after an on site inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape architect. Up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs may be required by the landscape architect. * The irrigation guidelines shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail landscape architect. * The landscape plan shall be revised to show the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot S. Additional planting may be required by the Town of Vail landscape architect in this area. * The Al wall shall be indicated on the landscape plan. 3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30% slope, building envelopes and certificates. • 4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development and Public Works departments for final approval before the project proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation during construction shall be addressed in the phasing plan. 5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30% shall be indicated on the subdivision plat. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A -D, F--I, K and L. This wording shall also be included in the covenants for the subdivision. 6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be added to the plat, and also incorporated in the subdivision covenants. 7. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing the landscaping along the public road extending from 1 19 the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision • entry gate for two years once the landscape materials have been established. once the landscaping is established and two years has transpired, and the Town of Vail Landscape Architect has approved the landscaping, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping maintenance. 8. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate grading for portions of the Y walls, K walls, C walls, 01, M1, Y1, Z1, and walls below the gatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape architect, and Community Development Director. These walls shall also be listed on the final street construction plans as having potential for removal. 9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz, dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved. 10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31, 1991, the following issues in the memo dated February 11, 1991 shall be met or resolved. 11. Town engineer's approval is required for the final • street construction plans, construction specifications and final Drainage Report. B. Council Review 1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this time. C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded the Following Conditions Shall Be Met 1. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for approval the final agreement relocating the existing livery to the Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision. This agreement shall also include revegetation of the existing livery site. 2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. Forest Service approval for the switchback on their property to the east of Spraddle Creek Subdivision shall also be received before final plat recording. i20 3. The subdivision improvement agreement and covenants shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved before the final plat is recorded. 4. The applicant shall agree to provide the three caretaker units within three of the first seven lots that are developed within the subdivision. This agreement shall be incorporated into the covenants and /or subdivision improvement agreement. 5. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants the condition that no on --site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision D. After final plat recording and before any building permits are released for site improvements or individual residences: 1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone designations shall be greenbelt open space. This condition shall also be listed in the subdivision agreement before the final plat is recorded. 2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met by the applicant. E. During construction of the project: 1. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer and Town landscape architect shall periodically do on -site inspections of the construction. On any walls that are greater than 400 feet in length, planting notches shall be required unless it is determined that it is impossible to locate the notches in a sensitive manner in the walls. C: \pec \spraddle \final.211 0 21 r 909 • February 6, 1991 Mr. Joe Macy Vail Associates, Inc. Bo>z 7 Vail., CO 81658 Re: Spraddle Creek Subdivision lot areas and GRFA Dear Joe, Per your request I have prepared the following two tables for the above project. Table #1 is a summary of the square footages in lot areas, hazard areas, GRFA, site coverage, building envelope areas and contiguous buildable square footage for the lot configuration shown on the final plat. TABLE #1 Site Building Contiguous Lot Area Hazard GRFA Coverage Envelope Buildable 1 87499 7333 6483 15295 24848 2 48146 6524 5674 12509 39600 . 3 88619 8548 7698 14824 63648 4 85250 27264 7016 6166 15202 45184 5 61082 6880 6827 5977 18178 29760 6 82050 8220 7370 22398 26480 7 43833 6309 5459 12935 29552 8 31873 5711 4861 12570 25776 9 63044 7269 6419 12137 39216 1.0 32296 5732 4882 12263 32080 11 71419 7688 6838 11247 34880 12 96213 8928 8078 13150 48448 14 286022 70496 14330 10000 22948 47920 15 25596 5397 4547 7279 23120 A 337222 B 5151 C 47279 D 152918 E 6231. F 68762 G 2394 x+1199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle -Vail Post Office Box 1230 Edwards, CO 81632 303 - 949 -1406 r . February 6, 1991 Spraddle Creek Page 2 Table #2 is a comparison of the residential lot areas and GRFA square footages for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision without the roadway extended to the east onto Forest Property and with the roadway extended onto Forest Service property. I have used the following assumptions in this comparison. 1) Lot areas of last configuration of plat without roadway extended TABLE #2 to the east on Forest Service property. (May 25, 1990) 2) Lot areas per final plat with roadway extended to the east on 6, 1991 Forest Service property. (February 6, 1991) 3) I have calculated the GRFA square footages for both lists using Road on the current Town of Vail GRFA calculations for the Hillside Lot Residential zone district. (Including the 425 square foot credit GRFA for each of the allowable units on each lot - 850 square feet GRFA total) 4) The portions of Lots 4,5, and 14 designated as hazard areas have 87499 been subtracted from the total lot area prior to the GRFA 2 calculations. 5) The GRFA shown for Lot 14 in both lists is the 14330 square feet . agreed to per preliminary plat submittal. (Calculations per 85038 current regulations would allow an additional 563 square feet) 6) The GRFA shown for Lot 1 in both Lists is the 7333 square feet 4 calculated per the lot size prior to the revision to the 7494 roadway. (Calculations per current lot size and regulations 7016 would allow an additional 1159 square feet) TABLE #2 Mav 25, 1990 February 6, 1991 Road not on USFS Road on USFS Lot Lot Area GRFA Lot Area GRFA 1 64310 7333 87499 '7333 2 59610 7098 48146 6524 3 85038 8369 88619 8548 4 94804 7494 85250 7016 5 66082 7077 61082 6827 6 51019 6668 82050 8220 7 48961 6565 43833 6309 8 58141 7024 31873 5711 9 75170 7876 63044 7269 10 29150 5575 32296 5732 11 71402 7687 71419 7688 12 9621.3 8928 96213 8928 14 285337 14330 286022 34330 . 15 24510 5343 25596 5397 1109747 107367 1102942 105832 Y • February 6, 1991 Spraddle creek Page 3 From the numbers in Table #2 above you can see there was not any increase in the total lot area or GRFA with the road shifted east onto Forest Service property. The total lot area was reduced 6806 square feet and the GRFA was reduced by 1535 square feet. The purpose of shifting the road to the east was to improve overall road grades and actually results in higher overall construction costs for the project without any monetary gain from additional density or developable GRFA. Please call if you have questions on any of the figures. Sincerely, co Eagle'i�7j.Qy �,eving, Tnc. . c 2= z • r •` Dan-? �d�Nran �.�o� Pre s' t.sv Q °4 ' of col- ��P`��� "111, {LiGllll }t` • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1991 RE: A request for a review and recommendation to Town Council regarding adoption of the Stephens Park Master Plan; site is located at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road. Applicant: Town of Vail I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Stephens Park is made up of three distinct parts. One is on the north side of Gore Creek, the second is on the south side of the creek closer to the Intermountain neighborhood, and the third is on the west side of Kinnickinick Road. The Town plans to develop Stephens Park in two phases. Generally, the north side of the park will be done in Phase I and the south side will be done in Phase II. Items that will be built in Phase I include the multi - purpose field (including the irrigation and the grass), the parking lot, all of the grading in the park, the pedestrian bridge, the . paved walkway around the parking lot and picnic shelter, and all the underground utilities to serve the restrooms and irrigation systems. Phase II will include all of the plantings in the park, the gravel trails and the play structure. The area of the park west of Kinnickinick Road is not planned to be developed at this time. This area may be used for a future fire station. The budget of the park is approximately $300,000, half of which will be spent in Phase I, and the other half in Phase II. A copy of the plan is attached to this memo. The parts of the design that are hand drawn represent the items that have been suggested at DRB, PEC and Town Council work sessions. II. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail has hired EDAW of Ft. Collins to design the Master Plan and produce construction documents. On January 9, 1991 Town staff and the consultant met with neighborhood residents to find out what they wanted to have included in the park design. After the plan was drawn up, the staff and the consultant took it back to the neighborhood and presented it to them. Though the second meeting had a smaller attendance, those present said they liked the design. 10 1 The Design Review Board (DRB) approved the Master Plan on . January 30, 1991. The two conditions of approval the DRB put on the project include: that more trails be added to the plan to create a looped system and that all lighting be shielded so that the light sources will not be visible from the interstate or adjacent residences. These conditions have been included in the plan at this time. III. PEC CONCERNS A. During the work session on this item on January 28, 1991, the PEC requested that staff look into several issues. The first area of concern dealt with the trail system. Since the work session, Town staff has added a fork in the trail near the Kinnickinick Road /Frontage Road intersection. This will enable pedestrians to either walk directly to the intersection or walk on a path in the park for as long as possible until they reach the automobile bridge over Gore Creek. The length of the looped trail around the multi- purpose field has been established at .20 of a mile. The suggestion for a par course, with stations along the trail for various exercises, was considered by staff but is not included in the plan. Staff believes that the cost of this system would be better spent on other park facilities which the neighborhood specifically requested during the first meeting. Staff believes that the neighborhood would rather see volleyball courts, a basketball court or a horseshoe pit included in the budget before money is allocated for a par course. B. Another concern dealt with the bike path. During the discussion with PEC, staff and the commission agreed that the constraints outside of the park regarding the construction of a bike path from Donovan Park through Dowd Junction should determine the alignment through the park. Once problems associated with properties on either side of Stephen's Park are resolved, the bike path can be taken through the park along any of three different alignments. For example, if the Town can work with Streamside and other individual property owners and build a path along the creek, the path can then be continued through Stephens Park along the creek. However, if negotiations with those parties are not successful, the Town may build the path along the Frontage Road. In that case, the path would continue along the Frontage Road by Stephen's Park. A third option would be to bench the path into the hillside along the Frontage Road. This path would be detached from the road itself but would not meander through the park. Notes have been added to the Master Plan outlining these three options so that in the future, any of them can be used. C. At this time staff is continuing to work with Holy Cross Electric regarding undergrounding the existing overhead electric utility lines. If Holy Cross is willing to do the undergrounding, the staff will need to go back to Town Council for an additional fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) for the budget. Undergrounding will require a specialized transformer to take electricity from the underground lines and for the restroom and lighting system in the park. D. The last issue the PEC discussed involved parking. The plan which the PEC has already seen showed a parking lot of 15 spaces. Since the work session, staff has looked into several options to provide more spaces. The one area which works the best, costs the least, and impacts the park design the least is to expand the width of the driveway from the Frontage Road to the parking lot and provide three parallel spaces. By adding three more spaces, the total comes to 18. other areas staff looked into were east of the lot, west of Kinnickinick, and on the Frontage Road. Expanding the lot to the east would have reduced the size of the multi- purpose field and eliminated an existing 14' spruce from a focal planting area. Without this tree, the visual focus for people arriving at the park would be the restrooms. The alternative of expanding the shoulder on the Frontage Road for parallel parking there was not acceptable to the Highway Department. A third area where parking could be provided is the unused area west of Kinnickinick. However, because this area may be used for other purposes in the future, installing a lot only to have it removed later is not a good use of the park budget. Staff has discussed the parking issue with a representative from the Vail Recreation District (VRD) and has an understanding that the field, if included in the contract between the Town and the VRD, would only be used for practice. This means that at most there would be fifteen to twenty players at a time practicing. Large parking demands occur when there are two teams with twice that number of players. By controlling the scheduling of the field staff believes the parking demands can be kept low. Staff researched parking requirements for neighborhood parks and found that national standards recommend providing 5 spaces for the first two acres and 1 0 3 additional space for each additional acre. As the park 40 standards, just under 13 acres, the demand, based on these standards, would be 16 spaces. This standard assumes 13 acres of useable park area. As some of Stephens Park is very steep and not useable, a 16 car lot would exceed the typical demand. Staff believes that expanding the lot to 18 spaces will meet the demand most of the time. Staff acknowledges that there may be a need for more than eighteen spaces at certain times; however, the need for parking and the provision of park area must be balanced, and staff believes that it is generally better to provide more park space instead of more parking. IV. NATURAL HAZARDS The most important concern to the Planning and Environmental Commission was the potential impact of hazards on the park. In a site specific hazard study by Arthur Mears, revised hazard areas show that the play structure is planned to be built in an area that has been designated as moderate debris flow. No other improved part of the park is located in a hazard area. . Staff talked to Art Mears since the PEC work session to understand the characteristics of moderate debris flow hazard better. This area will be impacted by debris flow only when the high hazard corridor is full. Most of the time the debris will travel down the high hazard corridor into Gore Creek. In the event that overflows will come into the moderate area, it will be made up of small rocks and water. Mears described this substance as "soupy," with relatively fine elements. At worst case, it may get as deep as one foot. The debris flow will travel at approximately walking speed. Mears' letter of February 8, 1991 states the debris flow hazard will be eliminated from the playground area by building a three foot high berm around it. This mitigation shall be incorporated into the park design. Regarding the other hazards on the site (rock fall, sever debris flow, and avalanche), Mears' report states that because there are no park facilities which concentrate human activity in the high hazard debris flow, mitigation is not recommended (see Section 3.1). The report continues to say that the proposed park facilities do not justify structural rock fall mitigation to protect facilities or activities located beyond the revised rock fall hazard boundary. There are no facilities within the rock fall hazard (see Section 2.6). Concerning avalanche, Mears states that warning 0 4 • signs, posted on either end of the snow slide area, will be sufficient mitigation measures (see letter dated February 8, 1991) . V. COORDINATION WITH OTHER TOWN OF VAIL MASTER PLANS This area is designated for park use in the Land Use Plan. The Recreation Trails Master Plan shows an on- street bicycle trail by Stephens Park. The Stephens Park Master Plan, as mentioned earlier, can accommodate any of three different alignments. The on- street alignment, which is recommended by the Trails Master Plan, is one of these. Staff believes that the proposed master plan is in conformance with the Land Use Plan as well as the Recreation Trails Plan. VI. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the Stephens Park Master Plan to Town Council. Staff believes that the design meets the neighborhood's expectations and that the design has taken into account a wide range of needs including the VRD. The project is also compatible with Town master plans, specifically the Recreation Trails Master Plan and Land Use Plan. C: \pec \tov \stephens.211 0 5 4 l Itil Illy �. •r P uk;Yy� �I�tiS� °M1f all }�F •�^;.oa p ^and• � ^n P n� RUJ rk �4Q- N �Npp �p'.eiq� Ss �s�w3i, y�.� �`f0 SO a S � roe 111` , � � � • - •��\ ti�� \` 4-- '��111 15 Y. ^`� \ S'� / � I A �. �fi �ilt \\ \\�� � �;� � \ti`s \ \;�\\ • \\� g �� \ �, :"�... �\ co v�v A I R � x � nl• O � A O co v�v A I J La •h 44 &t' L Nil 114 Or 51CIJO7 14 L I Vi x io/ ol I. A LJQ) 2 4 IDAL 0 Ila XX ,d N 5C 106" HAZARb orr'641S FL40 vp v moo It PiT jf,� ouslivs 77 L SEC. & COPYING SERVICE TEL No.303 -641 -2853 Feb. 8,91 15:27 P.01 ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hanish Comulmro 222; PmCoiVeAve. G=dsm, C31om& 81230 $05 -641-3236 February 8, 1991 Mr. Andrew Knudtsen Town planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Read Vail, CO 81657 RE: Debris -flow and snow- avalanche hazard, Stevents park. Dear Mr. Knudtsen: In response to our conversation yesterday, T offer the following comments about the above - referenced hazards: Debris -.. w -- As you and Todd Oppenheimer specified in our meeting, hazard must be completely eliminated at the proposed play < area. Elimination of the hazard can be accomplished by building a berm 3 feet high around the eastern and southern boundaries of the play area. The centerline of the berm is shown on the attached map by a dashed lino. A walk can be located on tap of the berm, if desired. This would divert the fluid -like, muddy flow (expected only once per century, approximately) , around the play area into adjacent "natural" and "turf" areas. .now avalanche -- The snow- avalanche area, identified and discussed in my January, 1991 report, cannot be classified as a "Red" or "Blue" hazard because such classifications have meaning only when applied to buildings or ether fixed facilities that concentrate winter use. The avalanche slops in question is a "backcount.ry" avalanche slope which will be uncontrolled by ski- pat.ral personnel. Avalanche frequency will increase as a result of persons climbing or skiing Canto the steep face and triggering an avalanche which aotild easily bury a person on the path at the base of the slope. Such activities will probably increase as a result of park development because the slope will be mare easily accessed after the bridge is built and a trail will be located below it. I recommend placing avalanche warning signs at the base of the slope on bath east and west sides. 'these signs should identify the slope as being avalanche - prone, indicate that it is not stabilized by ski --area personnel, and advise persons to stay off the slope. I believe warning signs will be sufficient mitigation measures. Please contact me if you have additional. questions. al"Cizrry'L,�, XAWow.-E. Mass Waiting • Audlaaches a Asa4mrhtCan[rofF.ggL�tertrtg • �J ROCKFALL, DEBRIS FLOW, AND SNOW AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS STEVEN'S PARR, VAIL, COLORADO Prepared For xr. Todd Oppenheimer, Town of Vail Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado January, 1991 f ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Haw& Comultants 222 Fak Gothic Ave. Gmdxm, Colorado 81230 303 - 641.3236 January 18, 1991 Mr. Todd Oppenheimer Park Superintendent Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Hazard analysis, Steven's Park Dear Todd: The enclosed site - specific analysis of rockfall, debris -flow, and snow avalanche at the proposed Steven's Park has been completed as we discussed earlier this month. As a result of this revised, site -- specific analysis, hazard boundaries have been revised and Jrockfall severity has been quantified through application of current methods, and potential snow avalanche hazard has been discussed. The enclosed report consists of two parts: a. Text, discussion, methodology, and recommendations; and b. The rockfall, debris - flow, and snow - avalanche map. Please contact me if you have any questions or desire additional consultation. S �.aeam � Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer Encl. Maas Wasting • Aw4mchn • Avalanche ContmlEnenteft • Ll I OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS This analysis of rockfall, debris -flow, and snow - avalanche hazard at the proposed Steven's Park in west Vail was requested by Mr. Todd Oppenheimer, Vail Park Superintendent. Specifically, the ( report objectives are: ! a. Quantitative analysis of rockfall velocities, bounce heights, travel distances, and hazard potential; u b. Mapping and description of debris -f low hazard areas; C. Mapping and description of snow - avalanche hazard areas; and d. Discussion and recommendation of mitigation procedures, if necessary. The analysis presented in this report is based on reasonably foreseeable natural conditions expected to occur at return periods of 50 -to -100 years (1 -to -2 percent annual probabilities) . Even larger (and less probable) rockfalls, debris flows, or snow avalanches are possible, however, because they are very rare they are not usually considered;/\ land -- planning applications. These extremely rare events, however, may affect areas beyond those shown on Map 1. 2 ROCRFALL 2.1 ROCKFALL SOURCE AREAS The rockfall source areas are located on a steep, west - facing slope extending approximately 250 feet vertically above Gore Creek (Map 1) . The slope consists of unconsolidated soil, occasional boulders and small bedrock outcroppings and will serve as an area of rockfall initiation and acceleration during unstable slope conditions. The slope was subdivided into several cells as shown in Figure 1, a profile of the rockfall slope. Each cell on the slope was chosen to represent zones of similar inclination, hardness, and roughness. Detailed field measurements of cell parameters were not obtained during the site inspection of January 7 and 81 1991 because of the continuous snowcover on the site, however the vegetation cover was observed, and the parameter values used in analysis are similar to those found to be appropriate at other Vail sites of similar elevation and exposure. Slopes were both measured in the field and computed from Map 1. 2.2 ROCKFALL QUANTIFICATION CRSP APPLICATIO Rockfall behavior was quantified by application of the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP), a stochastic computer model that outputs a range of velocities, bounce heights, and stopping positions by randomly adjusting slope roughness at each impact point on the rockfall path, similar to conditions which would occur in a real rockfall event. A typical model output for 10 rockfall events is shown in Figure 2, however 100 rockfalls of both 3 -foot and 4 -foot rocks were used in analysis. Stopping positions for 100 simulated 3 -foot diameter rocks are shown in Figure 1; 4 -foot diameter rocks are also shown for comparison. A 3 -foot diameter rock, however, is considered to be the design case, based on rocks found in the area during the field inspection. The complete analysis of 3 -foot diameter, spherical rocks is given in Figures 3 through 6. 2.3 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ROUFALL HAZARD The probable distances of rockfall "runout" is best described in ;terms of "exceedance probability." The analysis indicates that only 10% of the design 3 -foot rockfall events are expected to pass the analysis point, which is located on the west bank of Gore Creek at X =380 feet. This means there exists a 10% chance that the design rockfall event (a 3 -foot rock) will roll past the_ analysis point. However, if a 4 -foot diameter rock is used in analysis, there exists a 39% chance that rocks will pass the analysis point (X =380 feet), and there exists a 10% chance the 4 -foot rock will roll past 420 feet. Field experience and observations in this area suggest that the a- foot rock should be considered to be the design case and the 10$ exceedance probability (located at X = 384 feet) is a reasonable boundary for the rockfall hazard line. This rockfall boundary is. R. shown on Map 1. Most of the 3 -foot rocks will stop in Gore Creek and even the extreme rockfall events will stop in what is proposed to be a "Natural Area" on the Vail Master Plan for the park. V The rockfall hazard boundaries can easily be adjusted through application of the data derived in this study. For example, the E accepted exceedance probability could be made more conservative (say 5% or even 1$) for 3 -foot rocks, or a 4 -foot rock could be used for the design size. These adjustments could be made by the Town of Vail, if an even greater level of protection than that recommended in this study is desired. Mitigation for a 3 -foot diameter rock can be designed based on the analysis point data contained in Figure 4, if an exceedance probability of 10% is thought to present too great a hazard or if the area immediately west of the analysis point (rockfall hazard boundary) will be used for activities that concentrate human activity. According to Figure 4, a maximum bounce height of 2 feet is expected at the analysis point, therefore 3 -foot rocks can be completely stopped by building a berm, or gabion -wall barrier 3.5- feet high (bounce height + rock radius) at the analysis point. U 2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS _ABOUT ROCKFALL —HAZAU The activities planned in the proposed park facilities do not justify structural rockfall mitigation to protect facilities or activities located beyond the rockfall hazard boundary shown on Map 1. Therefore, the 3 -foot diameter rock and the 10% exceedance probability should constitute the design case, as previously discussed. However, development Sast of the rockfall hazard line should be avoided unless structural mitigation is used to reduce rockfall hazard. Such mitigation can be designed in accordance with future discussions with Town of Vail officials about land -use practices and ri Aerance in the park facility. As discussed above, a more onserva approach is possible and can be applied if desired by Town of Vail officials. 3 DEBRIS FLOW HAZARD "High" and "Moderate" debris -flow boundaries are also shown on Map 1. These boundaries are somewhat different than those shown on ;.;rr debris -flow maps prepared for the Town of Vail in 1984. The differences result from analysis of the detailed topography (as. shown on Map 1) which was unavailable at the time of the 1984'00,v,'; study. 3.1 HIGH HAZARD DEBRIS -FLOW AREA The "high hazard" debris -flow area will be concentrated within and immediately below the 10 -foot deep channel that enters the . southeast corner of the property (Map 1) . This channel will concentrate the high - energy and coarse - grained component of the debris flow. In general, areas exposed to high - hazard debris flow can experience severe structural damage and possible loss of life through impact and deposition of mud, rock, and debris. Although such high - energy events are rare, having never occurred here since Vail was founded in 1962 and probably not during this century,, buildings and valuable fixed facilities should be avoided in this, area. Present Vail plans include only an 8 -foot gravel path and ane "informal picnic area" in the high - hazard area. Because these are` not activities that concentrate human activity, mitigation is not'a recommended. 2.2 MODERATE HAZARD DEBRIS-FLOW AREA ` The "moderate- hazard" debris -flow area extends laterally beyond the high- hazard limits and will spread over much of the alluvial fan. The areas mapped as moderate- hazard debris flow on Map 1 may be reached when the main debris -flow channel discussed above is blocked and water, mud and fine - grained material is spilled laterally onto the fan surface. Moderate - hazard debris -flow areas can experience property damage through flooding, erosion and impact of muddy water, soil, rock, and debris. These relatively low - energy events will not be life- threatening, therefore, buildings and other fixed facilities can be located within moderate - hazard debris flow areas. Structural mitigation or site - specific design is required by the Town of Vail if debris impact can cause expensive damage or endanger persons. Present Vail plans call for a "Play Area" within the moderate - hazard debris -flow area. Such areas are subject to intermittent, rather than continuous use (such as a building), therefore the probability of a flow reaching a person is very small. 3.3 ,GORE CREBK FLOODING DUE TO pEBgIS.FLOWS Debris flows can cause blocking of Gore Creek and overland sheet flooding on the flat floodplain area located on the north side of Gore Creek. Details of water flooding and related damage caused by such blockage are beyond the scope of this study but should be considered in hydraulic flood plain calculations and flood plain boundary delineations. 3.4 DEBRIS -FLOW MITIGATION, Mitigation is required if the very small probability that a flow with a return period of about 100 years will reach a person who may be in the area is unacceptable to the Town of Vail. Debris flows cannot be prevented or stopped in the channel, therefore two forms of mitigation are possible: a. Avoidance of the area for planned activities such as play areas, paths, picnic areas, or other facilities; or 9) Construction of a 3 -foot high berm or structural wall around the play area (open on downhill side). In general, parks and recreational activities are appropriate land uses for f loodplain, debris flows and other similar hazard area because they do not concentrate activity similar to residential or commercial use. A final decision about whether mitigation alternative "a" or "b" is used depends on the level of risk accepted by the Town of Vail. 4 SNOW AVALANCHES 4 SCRIPTI ES is Small snow avalanches can release from the sparsely - vegetated rockfall slope discussed in Section 2 (Figure 1; Map 1). However, snow avalanches will be small and will not attain high velocities or large mass. The largest avalanches can release as dry or wet slabs from approximately 200 feet vertically above Gore Creek. Part of the avalanche mass will stop on the proposed gravel path above Gore Creek, and the remainder will stop in Gore Creek, (Maps 1). Avalanches will not extend across Gore Creek, even during ;. design - avalanche conditions.:';- Although avalanches will be small, they may present a hazard to persons using this area for recreational purposes. Avalanches could trap, bury, or kill persons who happen to be on the path as snow and debris quickly accumulate to a depth of several feet at this location. Furthermore, avalanches could push a person into r Gore Creek. The probability of a person being on the bench just when an avalanche releases is small, however a skier - triggered avalanche on the slope presents a greater level of potential hazard. Many slopes, such as the steep slope southeast of Gore Creek are tempting recreational sites, especially for telemark skiers who wish to test their skills on an uncontrolled slope beyond the ski -area boundary. This temptation may be especially great immediately after a fresh, deep snow fall, the precise time when snowpack instability is greatest and skier - triggered or natural (spontaneous) avalanches are most likely. The hazard from snow avalanches will increase if this area is developed and maintained by the Town of Vail during the avalanche season, a period which may extend from November into May during some years. This conclusion is simply based on the fact that an increased number of persons will be drawn into the area as a result of the park development. .2 SNOW-AVALAXCHE MITIGATION Potential avalanche hazard can be reducea if the Town of Vail places avalanche- warning signs on the bench below the slope. Warning signs should be informative, describing that the slope is steep enough for avalanche activity, given proper snowpack conditions and that slides are often triggered by the victims. Activities on and below the slope must be avoided during avalanche: warnings and advisories.' Report submitted by, CA'Q�" . V'I'I e0,0 Arthur 1. ears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer a� U D N r-i cd U D H 'd (D d 4-i 0 m � rd ai U H ,� Ln p tad tad $4 N .Q C U U m 4ulod STSXTVUV `� h cr p., U N N ca x _ o o �I} N Lo r. 0 rd N 5 t!/ v Ri 0 �4 D 4m4 O to N 4-1 O cr% C-1 xx � H N o W U 1 k 0 ^ • - - 0 A N/ v1 Ea O O N r{ + 0 N (a -H W A p �a n ri U O 0 r-i 4.1 4a 0 0 0 0 0 c 01% N FILE NAME= \rockeite \vailrock,i . MAXIMUM AVERAGE CELL # VELOCITY VELOCITY -� (FT/SEW (FT/GEC) 1 . 73 46 2 63 38 3 84 53 4 77 41 _ 5 SB 27 6 62 31 7 51 16 § 22 10 9 NO ROCKS PASSED POINT X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED 0 TO 10 FEET 2 310 TO 320 FEET ! 330 TO 340 FEET B 340 TO 350 FEET 25 . 350 TO 360 FEET 24 360 TO 370 FEET 21 370 TO 380 FEET 9 3BO TO 290 FEET 7 390 TO 400 FEET 2 400 TO 410 FEET 1 � 0 I I 0 STANDARD DEVIATION VELOCITY 10.58 11.6 14.22 13.06 11 10.54 12.37 6.07 AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) 6 B 1 4 0 1 MAXIMUM DOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) !9 !0 25 !4 7 15 4 FIGURE 6. Velocity and bounce-height statistics for a 3-ft diameter roe rolled 100 times from the top of the s ope. The stopping-position statistic are also shown for a 3-ft diameter roe . The stopping-position Statistics r a 4-ft diameter rock are also shown on Figure 1. COLORADO ROCi.FALL SIMULATION PROGRAM { �FILE NAME ROC[::' STATISTICS 23'7"? LB SPHERICAL ROCK 1...5.E FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS 9 NUMBER OF ROCf: -'S 100 t ANALYS,].S POSITION .:eo k INITIAL Y ZONE 305 TO 315 INITIAL X VELOCI"T"Y 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY -1 FT /SEC TANGENTIAL. SURFACE COEFFICIENT CELL # ROUGHNESS 1 1.5 C 1.5 _ 1.5 4 j1.5 1 5 6 1.5 7 (GORE CK.) 1.5 6 1.5 9 1 .8 .B . 8 . C3 .9 .B .5 .8 .9 NORMAL COEFFICIENT RESTITUTION n L .3 BEGINNING X,Y 0 , 300 I B s y 150 200 4 140 272 70 304 S4 321 52 333 ' 44 360 44 :?71 . 46 ENDING X.Y 180 15C-) mac_ 0 q 140 X72 , /t ) :304 , 54 321 5^ ry -; -; 44 360 44 371 46 479 50 FIGURE Input data used in defining slope inclination, roughness, and hardness. Tangential and normal coefficients are reduced to account for damping effect of water in Gore Creek. a co CC) C CYIIW L -' qw ---I i • f FILE NAME BOUNCE HEIGHT 28 - -26 4 0 is 16 14 ^ 1 G 6 4 iz BOUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH x VELOCITY 9' 85 79 73 —67 61 H 55 �+ 4 9 v 4:* :7.7 7.1 0 79 159 11 *17 :319 HORIZONTAL.. DISTANCE (FT) VELOCITY GRAPH 79 159 259 319 HORIZONTAL. DISTANCE (FT) 7.;99 M EjggE J. Design (3--ft diameter) rock bounce heights and velocities along the slope profile. 1 y+ 01 ~ FILE NAME: \rochsite\va11rock.1 ANALYSIS POINT X= 380 Y= 46 MAXIMUM VELOCITY 23 FT/SEC AVERAGE VELOCITY 11 FT/SEC MINIMUM VELOCITY 2 FT/SEC STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) 6.83 AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT 1 FEET MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT 2 FEET MAXIMUM KINETIC ENERGY 19279 FT LB BOUNCE ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION HEIGHT 2 1 �NN� � 10 20 30 40 50 FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 2 2 12 23 VELOCITY a 60 FIGURE 4. Bockfall velocity and bounce-height statistics at the analysis point (see figure 2). The analysis point is located at x = 380 ft: only lC% of rocks were able to zwamb this Iuoutlon° Dawlgo rook size has diameter equal to 3.0 ft. 0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1991 RE: A request to amend the Town of Vail's Avalanche, Rockfall and Debris Flow Hazard Maps in the general vicinity of Stephens Park, located at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road, pursuant to Section 189.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail • I. BACKGROUND For the preparation of the Stephen's Park Master Plan, Town staff hired Art Mears to thoroughly analyze the hazards on the site. The boundaries, as Mears states in his report, "are somewhat different than those shown on the debris flow maps prepared for the Town of Vail in 1984. The differences result from analysis of a detailed topography which was unavailable at the time of the 1984 study." Not only has detailed topography been established to determine the exact location of the hazards, but more sophisticated computer models and simulations have been developed since 1984 that provide more accurate information to map hazards. The changes from the existing Town maps are shown on the attached maps and as described as follows: Rockfall: The area has been changed from south of the interstate and north of Gore Creek to the south side of Gore Creek, parallel to the southeastern boundary of the park. Debris Flow: This hazard has not changed significantly, but has been identified more specifically. It is in the same general area as the 1984 study. Snow Avalanche: Avalanche mapping for the Town of Vail has not been done west of the Vail Village area, as the avalanche potential decreases as the valley opens to the west. In the detailed hazard analysis of the property, however, Mears did find an avalanche hazard and has mapped it. This is in the same general vicinity of the rockfall area. Art Mears' report is provided the Stephens Park memo. That analysis of the hazards. 0 1 in the PEC packet attached to report provides a detailed • II. PROCESS Sections 18.69.030, 18.69.031 and 18.69.052(H)3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code set up a procedure which allows modifications to the master hazard plans for the Town. These modifications must be made by Town Council with a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission. The sections of the code are listed below: Section 18.69.091: "The master hazard plans shall not be considered to be official hazard master plans of the town until and unless the Town Council adopts the same, by motion. No substantial modification of the master hazard plan shall be made unless it is first approved by the Town Council in a similar manner." Section 18.69.030: "The master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to conform with new information or existing conditions." Section 18.69.052(H)3: "If the applicant establishes at the hearing by clear . convincing evidence that the information contained in the site - specific geologic investigation is reliable, the town council shall direct the community development department to keep a copy of said site - specific investigation on file in the community development department and available to the general public and shall further direct the community development department to notate the appropriate official map adopted by this ordinance so that it indicates that said site - specific investigation is on file with the community development department." III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the PEC recommend that the Town Council approve the proposed modifications to the rockfall, debris flow and avalanche hazard maps. The hazard study done to identify the hazards is based on more thorough information than the previous studies, as well as more sophisticated hazard simulation tools. Because of these factors, staff believes that the proposed hazard areas are more accurate than the existing maps show. 0 2 TO! Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 11, 1991 RE: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND The primary purpose of this request is to add another view corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5 and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many view corridors as possible. The view that is under consideration with this proposal is number four from that list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current view corridor ordinance. II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR The proposed view corridor will read as follows: "View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is 8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view was established by setting a camera five feet one inch above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range." III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE The current ordinance is attached to this memo for reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed are marked with an asterisk in the margin. A. The first change is to delete the following sentence: "Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appropriate approvals from the Community Development Department are obtained." . Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with: "any modifications to the roofs or structures which are • proposed to be located, or are currently located above the line (in the view corridor) shall be reviewed by the PEC." B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph: "As circumstances affecting views chan4 rezonings, variances and height or new view corridors will be reviewed and if revised. If a conflict exists between height allowed and the view corridors, restrictive regulation will apply." je, such as buildings, the necessary the maximum the more Instead of the above, staff proposes the following language be added: "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the view corridor shall apply." C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the ordinance reads as follows: "Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line, even if it is proposed to be built behind an existing structure that is in a view corridor (the Clock Tower or a chimney for example) shall not be allowed." The reason staff would like to add this to the ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively determined by existing buildings. In some cases, buildings frame the corridor. In other cases, portions of building encroach into the corridor. Staff acknowledges that encroachments exist; however, staff believes that the Town should not allow any new encroachments, even if they would be located "behind" an existing encroachment. As existing buildings are renovated, staff sees the potential to open up the view corridors. D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to the ordinance is that: "Some view corridors include portions of existing structures that currently encroach into the corridor. Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. For example, decks which extend out into a corridor [-I is will not be allowed to be cants requesting changes corridors should be aware ments will be encouraged corridor as part of any IV. CONCLUSION enclosed or expanded. Appli- to buildings adjacent to view that any existing encroach - to be removed from the view major building modification." Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the clarifications will make the development review process simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future. Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use pedestrian area of the village. (U�ll(ii{,P�fi�Ct ►� i3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN -- DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: VIEW SECTION _1 ZD VT1,7W f'ORRTI)0TZ MAD TO RFT)CCE THE NU %11131.R GF :1.1JOIt VIF.iY CoRittUORS AND TU ELIMINATE MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION :.IN=TO. WHEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design Guide Plan - Design Considerations and the View Corridor Map has been under study by staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council for a considerable time.period; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort; and WHEREAS, the preservation of such views will protect the municipalities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore, enhance and protect its economic vitality. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom- mended adoption of the nine view corridors, one focal point and amendments to the language in the view section to the Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY-THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: Section 1 Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is hereby amended to read as follows: G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail!s mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Certain building features are also important character features, orientation refer- ences and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated on the View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan) and photographically documented (.photos on file in the Community Development Department). However, the view corridors. depicted on the maps and in the photographs should not be considered �____ M, ---- --- ,.i,r,;n,iaiv manv other important views too -2- The official photographs and field surveys of the view corridors and focal point contain the area to be protected. No encroachment will be allowed above the top of the black and white line on the photographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants in determining the specific dimensional restrictions produced by .the view corridors. Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appro priate approvals from the Community Development Department are obtained: To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should 2 include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch --ups, models, or other simulation - techniques. A means of demonstrating in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required by the zoning administrator. As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and, 3 if necessary, revised. If-a conflict exists between the maximum height allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulation The following is a listing and verbal description of the adopted will view corridors and focal point: apply NO. DESCRIPTION 1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The *4 view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center. 2 This is a significant view because.it allows one to see the ski slopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the ticket and lift facilities in the Village. 5 This is a view of the Gore Range'from Hanson, Ranch Road just east of the bill Creek.Bridge and west of the Mill Creek Court B1 6 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view. 0 --3- Section 2 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause phmDo of this ordinance is for any reason held to be ia of this shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,•sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall-not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reeacted. orhany repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND,ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of 1983• A public hearing shall be held hereon on the TL/.at day of 1983, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of.th Town of Vail, Colorado, in The Municipal Building of the Town. Rodney E. lif r, M or ATTEST: Q A Lk Pamela A. Brandmeye Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED _ this day of 1983. • • TO: Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 11, 1991 RE: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND The primary purpose of this request is to add another view corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5 and 5. These numbers are based on a large list that was put together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many view corridors as possible. The view that is under consideration with this proposal is number four from that list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current view corridor ordinance. II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR The proposed view corridor will read as follows: "View No. 4 The point of origin for this view is 8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view was established by setting a camera five feet one inch above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range." III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE The current ordinance is attached to this memo for reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed are marked with an asterisk in the margin. A. The first change is to delete the following sentence: "Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appropriate approvals from the Community Development Department are obtained." f I Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with: "any modifications to the roofs or structures which are proposed to be located, or are currently located above the line (in the view corridor) shall be reviewed by the PEC." B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph: "As circumstances affecting views chant rezonings, variances and height or new view corridors will be reviewed and if revised. If a conflict exists between height allowed and the view corridors, restrictive regulation will apply." je, such as buildings, the necessary the maximum the more Instead of the above, staff proposes the following language be added: "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the view corridor shall apply." C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the ordinance reads as follows: INAny expansion proposed above the view corridor line, even if it is proposed to be built behind an existing structure that is in a view corridor (the Clock Tower or a chimney for example) shall not be allowed." The reason staff would like to add this to the ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively determined by existing buildings. In some cases, buildings frame the corridor. In other cases, portions of building encroach into the corridor. Staff acknowledges that encroachments exist; however, staff believes that the Town should not allow any new encroachments, even if they would be located "behind" an existing encroachment. As existing buildings are renovated, staff sees the potential to open up the view corridors. 0 D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to the ordinance is that: elsome view corridors include portions of existing structures that currently encroach into the corridor. Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli- cants requesting changes to buildings adjacent to view corridors should be aware that any existing encroach- ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view corridor as part of any major building modification.@' IV. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the clarifications will make the development review process simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future. Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use pedestrian area of the village. i S� � i.. `+_ 4e t� � � x � { ; g . ^�'. � � - � ,, .. D .. q .k �. °34 i.(g "� g Y �1 �- &��� � b- ¢ ��. �� �� � ON����� k�',� - 5 a Y .. 1:' �' its � zj ¢ q L 4-4 *� to WAY5� TT k k P ! 4 3 h 4 x St pi 3 < E x St 3 < a VAN TO P-M Vol 111T. A JO, Jul P JIM VAT M. W, Tit r as In" -N, VAN TO 111T. A VAT M. W, Tit r as In" -N, KA! 40 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 25, 1991 AGENDA 1:30 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing Site Visits 1 1. A request for a rear setback variance at Cascade Crossing at 1031 South Frontage Road on a parcel of land located in the northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5S, R81W of the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado Applicant: Vail Enterprises Partnership 3 2. A request for a front setback variance, 5188 Gore Circle/ Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Filing. Applicant: Nowell May 2 3. A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional View Corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends to the east down Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front of Frivolous Sals. Applicant: Town of Vail 4. ✓ Approval of minutes from January 28, 1991 meeting. 5.v" Review of draft Spraddle Creek minutes from February 11, 1991 meeting. 6--" Select date for PEC workshop (re: Board organization, the planning process, public participation, legal advice, etc.) 7. ✓ Recommendations for potential PEC candidates. 8. Updates on: Zoning Code Task Force, Master Transportation Plan, Air Quality. ITEMS TABLED TO MARCH 11, 1991: 1. Lifthouse Lodge variances and exterior alteration requests. 2. Affordable Housing Zoning Code Amendments 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 25, 1991 Present Kathy Langenwalter Jim Shearer Ludwig Kurz Absent Diana Donovan Chuck Crist Connie Knight Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Amber Blecker The meeting was informally called to order at 3 :15PM by Kathy Langenwalter. In the absence of a quorum, the Commission reviewed items not requiring a vote. 1. Review of draft Spraddle Creek minutes from the February 11, 1991 meetin . This item was taken out of order. The Commission members present, Kristan Pritz and Jay Peterson gave their corrections of the minutes to the Secretary to be input into the final minutes. 40 2. A request for a rear setback variance at Cascade Crossing at 1031 South Frontage Road on a parcel of land located in the northwest 1/4 of Section 12 Township 5S R81W of the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado Applicant: Vail Enterprises Partnership Mike Mollica briefly presented the request. The background information on the project was explained. Cascade Crossing originally received approval for a rear setback variance of 5 feet on January 26, 1987. A front setback variance for parking was also approved at that time. The project was issued a building permit on December 1, 1989 based on the original plans submitted, which relied on previous surveys performed on the site. The original property survey, performed by InterMountain Engineering, indicated that the project was within stated bounds. Subsequently, after the building permit and Certificate of Occupancy were issued, Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. was hired to prepare an ALTA survey for the site. According to that survey, the northerly property line of the Cascade Crossing parcel was reconfigured, based on the original property deeds to the I -70 right- -of --way. Because of the new property line location, the existing building now slightly encroaches into the rear (northerly) setback. is 1 At the time the project was built, all construction was in . accordance with the approved drawings. However, since the correct property line had been identified, the building was now out of compliance with the previously approved variance. Staff recommended approval of the rear setback variance, citing Section IV, subsections A, B, and C (1 -3) of the staff memo as being appropriate to this application. More specifically, the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and that the variance is warranted for the following three reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical. difficulty; 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; and 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district. In addition, the applicant agreed to permanently disconnect the exterior lighting on the north side of the building as a condition of approval of this variance, as well as plant . additional evergreens (consisting of 3 ponderosa pines) along the north wall to minimize the visual effects from I -70. Jim Shearer opened the discussion by stating that he was in favor of granting the variance. He also indicated he liked the fact that the north lights would be turned off, but that he would like to see even more plantings along the northern wall. Ludwig Kurz agreed with Jim's comments, and said they reflected his thinking. However, Mr. Kurz felt that more landscaping, specifically along the west side of the north wall would be beneficial. Kathy Langenwalter commented she felt strongly that the site would benefit from more evergreens, perhaps a total of 8 trees, consisting of a mix of pine and spruce and, for better visual variety, the trees should be between 7 -11 feet in height. When she asked the applicant if that would be acceptable, the applicant agreed. At this point, since no quorum was present, discussion ceased on this request until a quorum could be obtained. 0 2 3. A request for a front setback variance, 5188 Circle/ Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Filing. .Applicant: Nowell May Jill Kammerer summarized the staff position on the variance request for an entryway and bay window. She explained that the entry encroachment would be an approximate 6' -9" encroachment into the front setback. The bay window would have an encroachment of approximately 1' -311 into the front setback. Jill explained the allowances for bay windows. She stated that a bay window may project not more than 3 feet into a required setback, provided that the surface area of the projection does not exceed 10% of the surface area of the wall surface from which it projects. However, the proposed window's surface area equates to 49% of the surface area of the wall from which it projects. This exceeds the allowable projection by 39 %. There would be no impacts on other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. However, staff believes that approval of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. There would be no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities or public safety. In order for the Commission to grant the variance, there should be a finding of: • 1. No grant of special privilege; 2. No detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the variance is warranted because: a. The denial would result in physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this site which do not apply generally. C. The strict enforcement of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others in the same district. Staff recommended denial of the variance due to the fact that it was a part of a major remodel of the house, and it was believed that other alternatives could be found which would not require a variance. Staff also stated that the project did not meet any of the criteria for a variance. The architect for applicant, Pam Hopkins, addressed the Commission with the rationale behind the requested variances. She explained that the original structure was built in 1977, before that section was incorporated into the Town. At that 0 3 time, the setback requirements were either non - existent, or • consisted of 10 feet. Pam stated that the remodel project was not one intended to impact the entry area of the house. The applicant wanted the addition of an airlock in the entry in order to provide the family with a place to store their coats. In addition, the bay window was requested to provide architectural balance through the use of two dormers. The bay window, in her opinion, would be a visual "reason" for the second dormer. Applicant Noel May stated that his instructions to Pam had been to save as many trees as possible, and the result had been that the window and entry moved out, rather than back. In addition, there was a problem with drainage in the current configuration, with the result being dangerous ice at his entryway. He expressed his desire to have the architectural balance through the use of the dormer and bay window. Kathy Langenwalter asked Pam Hopkins to explain the reason a variance was being proposed. Pam answered by explaining that they had been unable to find another, more practical, location for the entry. The request for the bay window was simply for a window seat and to give purpose for the second roof dormer, and provide a unifying architectural theme. Kathy responded that she could not find a reason for granting the • variance for the bay window, and that she believed the same effect could be achieved through another method whereby the entire area of the bay window would be reduced by 2 feet. Ludwig Kurz agreed with Kathy and further explained that he could see no reason for the window to encroach further into the setback when there were other areas available. He did indicate that he liked the idea of an architectural tie -in, but felt it could be achieved without the use of the bay window. Mr. Kurz stated that he felt that the entry encroachment was acceptable, since it did present a hardship to the applicant if the variance was not granted. Jim Shearer asked Ms. Hopkins if it would be possible to cut the bay window down. Pam thought it might be possible. In response, Jim stated that he could see no reason to repeat the dormer at the expense of a variance. He did express his support of a variance for the entryway, with the provision of an airlock, as it posed a hardship for safety to the applicant. Connie Knight joined the meeting at 3:40 p.m. She asked staff for a clarification of the current policy on airlocks. Kristan Pritz explained that there was no longer a specific provision on the size of an airlock and that it was now considered a part of 0 4 C7 LJ the GRFA. Connie asked applicant when they were planning on building the entry and bay window. Noel May answered that it was planned at the same time the rest of the remodel was completed. Connie expressed her feeling that a variance was not warranted for the entry, as she did not feel there was a hardship presented. She indicated she believed the entry could be moved back an additional 2 feet to eliminate the necessity of a variance. Kathy Langenwalter discussed her opinions on the request. She supported the entry variance on the basis of hardship, since the present location was in better proximity to the garage and driveway, and to move the location would be detrimental. However, she could find no hardship to justify the bay window. Jim Shearer moved that the entrance variance be accepted with the provision of an airlock. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. Pam Hopkins said the applicant would accept that motion, as there was no provision for a window in the building permit. If they could re- design the bay window, they would come back to the Commission if required. Kristan Pritz asked for a clarification of the motion to add the reasons the Commission was approving the variance for the entry. She requested that staff memo, section 5, subsections A, S, and C1 be used as the justification for the variance. Jim Shearer agreed to that amendment to his motion, with Ludwig Kurz further accepting the amendment to his second. Jim Shearer proposed a further amendment to his motion that the issue of the bay window be tabled to a future meeting. Ludwig Kurz amended his second to include that provision. A further amendment by Jim Shearer, and seconded by Ludwig Kurz, was to add the provision that an airlock be provided in the entryway. The vote in favor of the motion was a unanimous 4 -0. Since a quorum was now present, the Commission returned to item 2, the request for a rear setback variance for Cascade Crossing. Kristan briefly reiterated the reason for the variance request to Connie Knight, with the additional provisions the applicant had agreed to as a condition of approval. Ludwig Kurz moved that the application variance at the Cascade Crossing Retail South Frontage Road on a parcel of land 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5S, R81W of Eagle County, Colorado be approved per the additional provisions that 8 spruce 11 feet in height, be placed along the 0 5 for a rear setback Center, located at 1031 located in the Northwest the 5th PM, Town of Vail, staff recommendation, with or pine trees, between 7- north wall, and that the owner permanently disconnect the outdoor lighting along the north wall. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of the motion. Since it appeared that a quorum may not be able to be maintained through discussions of the remaining agenda items, the Commission discussed alternatives available to them. The eventual consensus was that the Commission felt it was important for the full Commission to review the view corridor ordinance, and have the full weight of the Commission behind any recommendation to Council. Ludwig Kurz moved to table the discussion of the view corridor amendment until the March 11 meeting. Connie Knight seconded the motion. The affirmative vote was 4 -0. Kristan Pritz asked the Commission for approval of the January 28, 1991 minutes before the quorum was lost. Connie Knight moved to approve the minutes as written. Jim Shearer seconded. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of the motion. At this point, Kristan Pritz reviewed the action taken by the Commission during the meeting. She summarized: 1. Cascade Crossing variance was approved with the above -- stated conditions. 2. The front setback variance request for Noel May was approved with regard to the entry, with conditions, and the bay window variance request was tabled. 3. The view corridor ordinance amendment was tabled until the . March 11, 19,91 meeting. 4. The minutes from the January 28, 1991 meeting were approved as written. 5. The draft minutes for Spraddle Creek from the February 11, 1991 meeting were reviewed. staff will contact Diana Donovan to discern any comments she has. The revised minutes of the entire February 11, 1991 meeting will be presented to the Commission for approval at the March 11, 1991 meeting. The date for the Planning and Environmental Commission's workshop was discussed. It was concluded that the staff would contact the absent Commission members and propose Thursday, March 28 at 5:30PM for the workshop. The alternate dates would be April 1 or April 4. Kristan Pritz stated there would be a joint work session of the Commission with the Council on March 5 to discuss the Master Transportation Plan. Staff will call the Commissioners with confirmation of this date and time. Kristan also presented the actions of the Zoning Code Task Force to the Commission, stating that the 250 ordinance was most likely going to be eliminated. On Thursday, February 28, the Task Force is 6 would meet on the issue of Multi - Family districts and possibly the parking pay -in --lieu ordinance. • The final discussion centered around staff's direction with regard to the woodburning fireplace ordinance. Kristan presented a summary of the current actions and course for future review. Since a quorum was not available for further action, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P.M. • 0 7 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1991 RE: A request for a rear setback variance at Cascade Crossing at 1031 South Frontage Road on a parcel of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5S, R81W of the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado Applicant: Vail Enterprises Partnership T. BACKGROUND • On January 26, 1987 the Cascade Crossing retail center received approval for a rear setback variance of 5 feet. Also approved at that meeting was a front setback variance, to locate a portion of the parking area within 10 feet of the front property line, and a variance from the landscaping standards for parking areas with over 30 spaces, requiring that 10 percent of the lot be dedicated to interior parking lot landscaping. . On June 21, 1989, the Cascade Crossing retail center received final DRB approval for the project. Said approval was conditional upon four items, which have subsequently been addressed. • On July 11, 1989, the Town Council upheld the DRB decision granting final design approval to the Cascade Crossing project. • on November 13, 1989, a demolition permit was issued by the Town for the demolition of the existing residential structure on the site. • On December 1, 1989, a building permit was issued for the construction of the new commercial building at the Cascade Crossing site. • On May 5, 1990, the Town of Vail Planning Department approved the improvement survey, which allowed the Building Department to complete its framing inspection of the Cascade Crossing project. Throughout the above stated planning, and building permit processes, the Town of Vail and the applicant relied upon survey information provided by Inter- Mountain Engineering of 0 1 Avon, Colorado. The topographic and site survey submitted by Inter - Mountain Engineering was completed on January 27, 1989, and is Project Number 890145. The improvement location certificate submitted by Inter - Mountain Engineering was completed on April 27, 1990, and is Project Number 893705. These surveys indicate that the easterly 296.62 feet of the northerly property line, which is common with Interstate 70, is a curved line, concave to the southeast with a 2,715 foot radius. The Cascade Crossing project was designed, submitted, and variances and building permit granted, based upon this curved property line. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED Upon completion of the Cascade Crossing retail center, Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc., was hired by Vail Enterprises Partnership to prepare an ALTA survey for the site. The ALTA survey was a requirement for permanent financing for the project. According to documentation submitted by Eagle Valley Surveying, their research of the property deeds for the I -70 right -of -way and the Cascade Crossing site indicates that the northerly property line of the Cascade Crossing parcel is described as three tangent sections, without any curved sections. As a result of this "new information ", and reconfiguration of the northerly property line for the project site, the Cascade Crossing building now . encroaches into the required setback along the northerly property line. (Please see attached letter from Dan Corcoran.) As a result of the above information, the applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow for a building encroachment of 6-- inches, along the northeast section of the existing structure, into the 5 -foot rear setback. Additionally, the roof overhang of the building encroaches a maximum of 1.8 feet into the same setback area. III.CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 0 2 0 It is the staff's opinion that the proposed setback variance, if approved, would have no significant impact upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The rear setback encroachment occurs at a point on the property where the vertical elevation of the site is lower than that of the adjacent Interstate highway to the north. Because this encroachment is at the area where the building elevation drops to the lowest point on the site, staff believes that the proposed encroachment would have a negligible impact upon adjacent land uses. Upon review of the final DRB approved landscape plan for the retail center, and after further site analysis by the staff, we have determined that the northeast corner of the building should be further screened with additional evergreen plant material. The applicant has agreed to provide some additional, evergreens in this area (a site plan will be provided at the PEC hearing). To further reduce any potential impacts of this structure with regard to its close proximity to I-- 70 and properties to the north, the applicant has agreed to permanently turn off all building lighting along the north side of the structure. 2. The dearee to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Upon examination of the new survey submitted by Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc., it becomes apparent that the applicant could have shifted the building slightly south to avoid any encroachment into the rear setback, had they been aware of the correct location of the property line. The staff does not believe that approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege, given the unique circumstances resulting in this variance request. Relief from the strict interpretation of the setback regulation is warranted. 3. The effect of the re guested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public utilities and--public safety. • 3 The staff is of the opinion that the applicant's variance request would have no significant impact upon any of the above criteria. The Colorado Department of Highways was notified of the variance request and has had no response to date. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting _a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this variance request is for approval. We believe that the applicant acted in good faith during the planning process, as well as during the building permit and construction processes. The applicant and the Town relied upon a licensed land surveyor within the State of Colorado, for all survey information. All previous survey work submitted and approved by the Town indicated that the Cascade Crossing retail center was in compliance 0 4 with all of the Town zoning requirements. It was only after further review by a second land surveyor, that the setback encroachment was identified. Given these circumstances, the staff believes that approval of the variance request should be granted. Staff believes that Findings IV - A, B, C -1, C -2, and C -3 are all relevant to this request. • 0 5 UZ(Ivie /.L Va:zz "t)U4 040 vOU4, 1. Y .7UKYr IMx LEIUV4 -. '- T-i► -•of :. _... _]eptieat [sf Community ,Dc�velopmeat._ 'Frontage ' Road- West.•:.' 'CO -8jO57 - - r ascad' ' Cross!n1X:. .Per converCt tf&fd- thi:sZ'let�er':TS MY"iu.Ad rsta�di'ng -of! :- ..that ..haue - ca =.Qd__the- northeasterly .cornea . cif.. mac ,.str-uctur-P—�� -- : bone :r ar .to,:. a aach- intcy - the apprr�v d•_.setback varaan :e The..•prp submittal dxid subsequent" variances granted f --tb±s based'.upon a..surv'vv y In tee -- 15"ourtta z; rigiaee7C3 3g.I� t1.. _ d�tec .2I 7I 2• iii rechegked .and. readit'ifie -d 1270Z/86- - ind� cawed. t iL-. -- easterly. 296w -62 feet of the •northerly_praperty Intetate H�.gh�ra:_v' NO.-.70 'a.s a "curved e= s�iutheast with ,a" 2 a_t30 foot radio - ,Tt --T) was dsaigne .Y . _ - _ . -._s bm tte33, mid var an es 'granted based upaic% �hls ' ved .pro rtv_'7 1 Imo: -The- pro ject::. as. then. _staked and: constructed. with U:e . - -- :as,s'umPrtion .of a .�.srvad - protierty-Iine. Whexi the gxa ec�t;.;was ple-ted pure were hired' by Vail R.tlq. M: set__ sFbhiV: -' to prepare , art ALr T,L -- ,-;=ev for'-the. _ prope7rtg..= - researched .tie -:p op :rtv desc ptian for , thzs pat es for : 'pragr. . . -- .6wife�r'.'Vi:obtain.ed from .the Sigiigav D 'epartmdnt, copies' of tji6'di�-� _ for-, Parcel 3 of tits "Departmian� : of_ $� gh�ays r -state _af 183. -Th- s is-the parcel: -,obt ed• tha - rte state -j ghwav No. 70• right_ of -siav that is th - th�:"-�ortherlg =1nef the _.Cascade Grossing In Lcati�z-F _ -tjie a' therly Line • of. -t6E ':' Cascade - -Gr sling :'pargq:,:.as Chcee - d ei t is rtt —Section , ? tlioat- q , '-Based .or _this.. v �r -description• -the .,northeasterly portion:o Vie Cascade Grokajmg, _ bii�_1d g. enc dachas:- =into - req�i ed_- setback .... Zohg . the -no -t7x §1* __. 41199 Hig*sy 6 & 24:,�g1 V f -- -- _ _.., ' _• - - -- :...... _'Edward§. 0 81 532 =30�- 949 -1�6.: ... _ . .., .. _ —_ .. _ •--•• _. _ -•- -- �. UCi1N /ul UU;ZU} '"Jua 545 UUU4 L'' V buxyl�XIAi L91UUa February cascade Crossing Page 2 If the.-owner had been aware of this property Line being straighi ' ' instead of, curved' the project could have bees built Without any c lncroachzents • into the approved setbacks without any chauge* to. the building. _Please call me if I can w a —any additional . information for iron on this project. - Sincerely, Eagle. galley Surveying r Inc, Dc-m Corcoran, P.-L.S. _ President .. TO! Planning and Environmental Commission isFROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1991 RE: A request for a front setback variance in order to allow construction of a bay window and an enclosed front entry way. Project location: 5188 Gore Circle/ Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Filing. Applicant: Nowell May I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is proposing 83 sq. ft. in expansions to an existing single family residence. In order to construct the bay window and covered entrance way called for under the expansion proposal, the applicant must obtain approval of a front setback variance. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The northeast corner of the existing residence encroaches 1' -0" into the required 20' front setback. Because the residence sits at an angle to the property line, as one moves from the northeast corner of the residence west 13' -0" along the north facade, this encroachment tapers to 0. The proposed entryway would encroach approximately 6' -9" into the required setback. A variance is necessary for the 61--9" encroachment into the setback. The resulting setback would be 131-311. The proposed bay window would encroach approximately 1' -3" into the front setback. Under the code, bay windows may project not more than 3' into a required setback provided the surface area of the projection does not exceed 10% of the surface area of the wall surface from which it projects. In this instance, the total wall surface from which the bay window projects is 262 sq. ft. The surface area of the window is 129 sq. ft. Therefore, the surface area of the projection is 49% of the surface area of the wall surface from which it projects, which exceeds the allowable by 39 %. A variance is necessary to allow the wall surface to encroach an additional 39 %. On September 18, 1990 the Design Review Board approved those portions of the expansion proposal which did not encroach into the front setback. • 1 0 • III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this variance request: 1. Zone District: Single Family 2. Lot Area: .5283 acres/ 23,012.7 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage: Required (20 %): 4,603 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,463 sq. ft. Remaining: 1,140 sq. ft. 4. GRFA: Allowed: 4,976 sq. ft. Approved: 3,989 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,072 sq. ft. Remaining: 904 sq. ft. 5. Setbacks: Required Proposed front (north) 20' 13' --3" rear (south) 15' 51' -6" (no change) east side 15' 45.0' (no change) west side 15' 18' -6" (no change) 6. Parking Requirement: 2.5 spaces (no change) Parking Provided: 2 covered spaces and 2 surface spaces IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Across the street to the north is a single family home and a vacant lot. The proposed entryway and bay window will not impact these properties. Likewise, properties to the east, west and south will not be impacted. No trees or shrubs will need to be removed in order to allow the entryway 40 2 and bay window to be constructed. The entryway expansion will require the removal of 65 sq. ft. of lawn area. No landscape variance would be required. 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 pri.vil_e_ge. On September 18, 1990, the DRB approved an expansion plan for the May residence which did not require any setback variances. Since no construction has occurred on this proposal to date, staff believes alternative design solutions may be explored which would not require any setback variances. Perhaps the entry way /mud room could be internalized and the facade from which the bay window will project could be shifted to the south so that the bay window would not project into the setback. (See attached site plan). Staff does not believe this front setback request warrants relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the code and that the approval of the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will not impact the above referenced issues. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission_ shall make the following findings before granting _ -a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 0 3 B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the front setback variance request. Specifically, staff believes under a major remodeling project such as the one proposed, the applicant could construct the desired improvements without encroaching into the front setback. Staff does not believe the requested variance meets any of the Variance Findings criteria. 0 4 i, QI44 s 3 • • • i � 4 a fl 0 t • • 0 } JL nx g s �.... A ..d oc I IT r Of o MN s sl.Idi �� i i� ^,r , °n �+ N o� 70v— ,G1 —G1 • • 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail Since the PEC work session on February 11, 1991, staff has rephotographed the Gore Range and identified the view corridor more clearly. Attached to this memo are two alternative ways to set the boundary of the corridor. The first is staff's recommen- dation, which runs the boundary along the roofs of the existing Red Lion and Christiania buildings. The second reflects PEC's discussion during the work session, which runs the boundary directly between two balcony railings on either side of the corridor. The vertical boundaries which frame the two sides of the corridor are the same on both alternatives since there was general agreement on that issue. The attached photographs were taken using a 3' -10" high tripod. After reviewing them, however, staff decided the corridor should be based on the "eye level" of the average pedestrian in the Village. Additional photographs taken from a height of 5' -2" will be provided at the hearing. Staff has modified the text of the proposed ordinance regarding existing encroachments, so that it is clear that some encroachments (like the clock tower) which are focal points, are intended to remain. During the PEC work session, it was mentioned by Jay Peterson that the Council, when discussing the proposed changes to the Red Lion, had said that view corridor number one was to exclude the Red Lion chimney. Staff has included it as part of view corridor number 4. Staff could find no Town Council minutes that discussed the issue of whether the Red Lion chimney should be excluded from the view corridor. Because the Council discussion focused on roof ridges and did not mention the chimney, staff believes that it is consistent to include it in this view corridor. The significance of this issue is that the chimney will become an encroachment. In the future, staff will encourage the Red Lion to remove it if and when the Red Lion comes back for another remodel. • The staff memo from the February 11, 1991 PEC work session is attached to this cover memo. It has been modified to reflect the concerns the PEC expressed, including the discussion of the chimney and clarifying the language regarding focal points like the Clock Tower. • • r� L_J • • TO: Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 11, 1991 (Revised February 25, 1991) RE: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND The primary purpose of this request is to add another view corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5 and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many view corridors as possible. The view that is under consideration with this proposal is number four from that list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current view corridor ordinance. II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR The proposed view corridor will read as follows: "View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is 8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view was established by setting a camera three feet ten inches above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range." III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE The current ordinance is attached to this memo for reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed are marked with an asterisk in the margin. A. The first change is to delete the following sentence: "Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appropriate approvals from the Community Development Department are obtained." Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with: "any modifications to the roofs or structures which are proposed to be located, or are currently located above the line (in the view corridor) may be permitted if approved by the PEC and Town Council." B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph: "As circumstances affecting views chan4 rezonings, variances and height or new view corridors will be reviewed and if revised. If a conflict exists between height allowed and the view corridors, restrictive regulation will apply." je, such as buildings, the necessary the maximum the more Instead of the above, staff proposes the following language be added: "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code • exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the view corridor shall apply." C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the ordinance reads as follows: $ +Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line, even if it is proposed to be built below, behind or in front of an existing structure that is in a view corridor (a chimney or other architectural feature for example) shall not be allowed." The reason staff would like to add this to the ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively determined by existing buildings. This clarification is needed to make the point that no new construction above the view corridor line is allowed. Hypothetic- ally, new construction could impact existing view corridors in the following ways: U 0 • View 1: Potential applicants may additions above the view not exceed the height of However, this should not would compete with the p: Clock Tower. want to construct corridor line, but the Gold Peak House. be allowed as it rominence of the View 6: Additions to buildings could be done in such a way that the mountain views are preserved. However, staff believes the prominence of the Clock Tower should not be reduced with any other construction that would exceed the height defined by the view corridor. View 4: Expansions to the Red Lion or Mill Creek Court Building could be located behind the Red Lion chimney. This should not be allowed as the existing chimney blocks part of the Gore Range from view and, ideally, should be removed. Staff believes the existing functions this way already. ambiguous in the present or, keep the areas around focal D. Lastly, a fourth point that the ordinance is that: ordinance actually However, the wording is finance. This approach will points more open. staff would like to add to I'Some view corridors include portions of existing structures that currently encroach into the corridor. Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. For example, decks which extend out into a corridor will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli- cants requesting changes to buildings within view corridors should be aware that any existing encroach- ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view corridor as part of any major building modification. Encroachments like the clock tower and bell tower, which are focal points, are excluded from this policy.11 IV. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the clarifications will make the development review process simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future. Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use pedestrian area of the village. 1 � i k ls.�•o. r AN k 5� 1� t� i q ice,, r s"•�_sP -. 'iii '� l -'�s�.ei .. �r .• f T4'* �..rY �r 4 j� ' a,:,- ' ' { MW ;�, -3 �•._ � 'fit ;^^5+�..► _ �.' #!tt>''' y'� _ ;�., � ".4'� s., 4 lit Ma PRO it i►`1� $a y,' llejr,: 41. `x�..� r _. { F I � ,�, �'� •3 �c � ��'R � �• �• ° fir+ °STS a H y�, 5i4��� 5'2" height �..a�.Nc 4's+.+'N hi4"I�/�y'x•+..:. 11111 lens ...�+11M�"" w .r�1 3 ,� AA.. A ,T. ';G` "y.. •4".'!.'�,�T� � ����^r. fi. �� "7^ w. a,.. RE. 1L56 :a �'_ - 'Sf "'Yfl' �y�y. >�+.i K .� .q�JN 3•r -� - �. • .. jf �i� allb - f S-i( iii Qx''ai� i .3 3.. 7 4 it, dw h ys'".9►r 3 1 .,r4 ,'' - e aafi ,r a 4 "�` _r s. -' 'Yx ,- v'^ +rr F 12 q'jjj><�rt - -y �' & - -A .,rs das t E 1 !w .- ',7llk h �' _ �'[ •.eMY �7�1 '-�+� -4Y F'e ��. 3 � � ;�/ `� 1 Vy �, e ; � k r ii°.�.'���i r'�''�y�",t ' �k �'- ra'�="�' iq,• ^'r. �' I�YIYr" � �. }',� -'_ ~ �e #1 '!'� �.. . �CC .T •.4 _:'`5'�S .maid- - `�-,��yry..++tq�. �.a.■r.�`v' 41, -;s - - :� _ n 4� S•.i i"k:a �-�.y *i't- �,y�'*'ac"7L"1:F F�. i.s t�Y.tai -L•+' 's ; • .$d� ,tr j'..y�ws +r.F tc -'9'^r r i T. Ak sion of PEC discussion Conclu on 2-11-91 rksession from wo - "* �a tip -.+-n '�'��'" r� 1 �k�q ��.�GG�� �.` i1.-e�2 � � �i,*v,- g - 4. ti ■.:p'"j ' .' _.a7 r -�,'_T 5 Y�'+ f� Sl'4 .. �, f� <.,•�y -'� .'?S�y..,.'ii�y. -. - -M "t- " -Z.. ;w. W.7 (. yy } wi y Jr lip Ak 3• i %r c•� � r a' dl -' 'sic ��2�` • � a%_ r 4 s 1 sl r Sao- i k � a t � .u,+ � F' dr� ��� � .3 ''1 � �„ cam: � � R A.�� �wll � � f � a � s,�: ♦414s� -. p i�M �.� o !!!► •9 a ,�1��> U fyki Y'�s` 5 v'^' �� '7.r a! s '4 v 'Y : _ �� _ � ��' �•,�� � �r _.' .J .�'y ,W!.. -",. � Jy. ta,y ," _' z -•PAZ It♦ - -1 l r ..gyp, ��ww :i qh�;�` r 4` .ii t .I'' [i Vii;,' ' �, >rr r�3 f 3r r r +, � �` ?t� ,r �y P w �`( `_' �� {5 G n ;. ' : � w" ' • �r {' 4 "� _, _ sy t� , ,�7� r 3. {M .l k� �S•�' ,ra =7' ;� a'� y�`t•�`F� �.� h J tr� x '•' l y r�p Y ; 'LY ii�� Iti#`� rk� -, t . ysi ; J F eta �•, " 4 4 F \i1 . t ? x M� ds •iL r kj" `,. le �r� Y 5a K a > €. fg� • ti i �.'^ C +^oM' at f . -,- � 'r + .� r !y �x°� t �� (� i ,F i!l Fl a4 �'a 1 ,rb r' ii r f,� 4 y5 M � �, ' •Yr -Y� {. - ,�.•� Rj�:L� � �,� � s�� �siY r��� rt,� i.� �5 �ii,k� L 1 -..�� '� i a e{a� }tit ls� }S£ < pf fi�Y4ruza Fr�4t -�{ lop k! M d r. 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 11, 1991 vol _f AGENDA 1:00 Site Visits 2:00 Public Hearing Site Visits 'I&- 1.}IM Air Quality - PEC update on road sanding practices in the Town of Vail. Susan Scanlan /Pete Burnett 3 2. Notification of PEC of staff approval of Minor Amendment to SDD #6 - Vail Village Inn to allow for the installation of a satellite dish in a setback. Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems 3. A request to amend ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional View Corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends to the east down Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front of Frivolous Sal's. Applicant: Town of Vail 4. A request for a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School 1 5. A request for a worksession on setback and site coverage variances and an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier 2 6. A request for a front setback variance for the Perot residence, located at 64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ross Perot 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable housing unit. Applicant: Town of Vail • • • 8. A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single - Family District, 18.12 - Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 - Primary/ Secondary Residential District to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 9. A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster District, 18.16 - Low Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple 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 - Arteriai Business District and 18.36 - Public Use District, 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation District; to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 10. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development /zoning standards for affordable housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail 11. ✓Approval of minutes from February 11, 1991 meeting. 12.,v/ Approval of minutes from February 25, 1991 meeting. 13. /bate for PEC workshop /dinner. Tentatively scheduled for April 1, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. at the Golfcourse Clubhouse. 14. ✓Upcoming joint meetings with Town Council: a. March 12, 1991 - Master Transportation Plan. b. March 191 1991 - Streetscape Plan. • U • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 11, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Jim Shearer Gena Whitten Absent Connie Knight Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker The meeting was called to order at 2:30PM by Diana Donovan. The Commission welcomed Gena Whitten as the new member of the commission. 1. Air Quality - PEC update on road sanding practices in the Town of Vail. This item was postponed, due to Pete Burnett being called in for jury duty. 2. Notification of PEC of staff approval of Minor Amendment to SDD 06 - Vail Village Inn, to allow for the installation of a satellite dish in a setback. Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems Shelly Mello briefly explained the process of a minor amendment to a SDD. The approval was per the previous PEC meeting, where the Commissioners expressed their desire that the dish be placed at ground level. Shelly elaborated that there would be a brown, wood fence to match the building trim and 3 spruce trees placed to screen the dish. Additionally, shrubs will be placed on the south of the dish. Shelly concluded her presentation by stating that the Design Review Board has not yet reviewed or approved this placement, and their approval would be necessary before the dish could be installed. She then called for comment by the Commissioners. Chuck Crist began by asking if the adjacent condominium owners had been notified. Shelly verified that all adjacent property owners which would be impacted had been notified of this project over a week before. 1 Procedurally, Diana Donovan requested clarification from staff of whether the Commission could discuss this without formally • calling it up. Shelly indicated that if the Commission informally agreed with the staff's approval, no action would be necessary. If, on the other hand, it was apparent that the PEC was in disagreement, the issue should be discussed by the PEC. When the public was asked for comment, Irene Westby, manager of the Talisman Condominiums, asked for clarification of the location of the dish. Shelly Mello indicated the location on a site plan and explained the request. Ms. Westby indicated she had no problem with the landscaping, and she didn't believe the owners would have any difficulty with the entire placement. Since there was no further public comment, Diana Donovan opened Commission comment by stating she had no concerns over the location, but she did not like the idea of moving the trees in order to install a fence for screening. Further, Diana commented that the efforts to screen structures often result in making them more obvious. She suggested that the fencing be integrated with the existing landscaping. Jim Shearer stated that he liked the plan. Ludwig Kurz stipulated that he had the same comments as Diana, and that he would like to see the trees remain where they were, as it would be healthier for the trees. . In concluding the discussion, Diana Donovan stated that the Commission was in favor of upholding the staff approval, with a strong recommendation to DRB regarding the integration of the existing landscaping and the proposed fence. 3. A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sal's_tothe east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Ra cr _ Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen summarized the changes which had been made since the previous submission of this item to the Commission. He indicated that staff had rephotographed the proposed view corridor without clouds surrounding the Gore Range, per the PEC's request, and at a height of 5' -2" to better reflect the angle at which an average person would be looking at the view. Staff further taped the photo at both the staff's recommendation for the boundaries of the corridor and the PEC's request for the boundaries to better illustrate the specific lines. In addition, on one of the photographs, the proposed post- Christiania expansion had been taped as a reference point for discussion. 0 2 Staff's recommendation included the provision that the Red Lion's chimney be included in the view corridor so that, if at some future date, the Red Lion proposed a remodel, the chimney could be removed. Staff believed that building walls provided better boundaries of a view corridor than architectural projections such as chimneys or balconies, and the staff recommended photographs reflected this philosophy. Andy also explained that staff believed a grace period provision for this ordinance, similar to the one used for the fireplace ordinance amendment, was appropriate. Under that grace period, an owner would have six weeks from the second reading and adoption of the ordinance by the Town Council to submit a complete DRB application without being affected by the new view corridor limitations. Regarding the proposed text changes, staff's goals were enumerated as being to clarify the entire view corridor ordinance, prevent any building above the line of the view corridor, and prevent the cluttering of view areas with new development. As an example, Andy cited View #6, which included the Clock Tower. If a developer were to build above the view corridor line, that construction would compete with the prominence of the Clock Tower. The same philosophy applied to View #1. Even if the addition could not be seen from the point the corridor was based on as a result of being "behind" the Clock Tower, it would still compete with the prominence of the Tower in general views of the Village. Andy also elaborated on the fact that, when a view corridor is created, these are focal points which are intended to remain and are set forth in the description of the corridor. As the discussion opened up for public comment, Jay Peterson started the discussion by mentioning that the Christiania project already had DRB approval. Paul Johnston of the Christiania remarked to the Commission that when he had attempted to re- photograph the corridor himself without clouds surrounding the Gore Range, he was thwarted because there were clouds over at least part of the Range between 3- 4:OOPM on 14 consecutive days. In addition, he commented that he had found staff's observation that people were stopping to look at the Range to be valid, but clarified that it was more due to curiosity at what was being photographed. Jay elaborated that the additional photographs were being submitted to illustrate what happens to the view corridor during differing conditions. In the summer, Jay hypothesized that trees block most of the corridor, while in winter, the clouds were blocking the Range itself. Paul stated that, through his observations, more people stopped to look at the tree stump in a window than at the Gore Range. Jay Peterson continued with his 0 comments, stating that the past view corridors were created with sensitivity to what an owner could do with a building in the future. He reflected that the Town Council had amended some of the original PEC recommendations to allow more flexibility for development. Mr. Peterson recommended that the Commission look at the original 39 view corridor photographs to determine if this particular corridor was any more significant than the others. He asked that the Commission be sensitive to the owners affected by this ordinance, but reiterated that the Christiania had received DRB approval for their project. To conclude his statements, he submitted additional photographs to the Commission for their scrutiny. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Christiania, if built as approved, would encroach into the view corridor, and would then be encouraged to be removed at a future redevelopment. Kristan Pritz responded by indicating that when staff formulated the view corridor proposal, they were trying to define the best possible view, without looking at the Christiania project specifically. Kathy Langenwalter indicated that she understood the reason why staff recommended the corridor follow the roof lines, and believed that the Christiania's proposed roof line should determine the view line when built. Kristan expressed her concern that, if the Christiania redevelopment were used as the boundary of the corridor, the result could be that the corridor ordinance approval would be unnecessarily delayed. Jay Peterson said he thought it could be included now, but Kathy Langenwalter replied she believed staff would want an exact survey. Kathy continued by saying she was comfortable with the staff's recommendation, with the provision that the corridor be rephotographed after the Christiania expansion was completed, so as not to precipitate problems in the future. Kristan Pritz suggested that the Commission approve the corridor with the provision that staff would amend it after the construction of any building or addition, submitted to the DRB during the grace period, was completed. This would allow for the establishment of the view corridor without delay. Kathy Langenwalter indicated she felt this would be appropriate, as the staff's recommendation conformed best to the previously - defined view corridors. Jim Shearer agreed with Kathy, but expressed his opinion that straight lines were easier to deal with, but that conforming to the roof line allows for a greater area of corridor. He supported the proposal that the corridor would be amended once all approved projects were completed. 0 4 Discussion ensued among the Commission members, staff and concerned public about the specific points of the corridor.. At the conclusion, Chuck Crist indicated he supported Kathy Langenwalter's opinion regarding the proposed view corridor. Ludwig Kurz and Gena Whitten were also in agreement that this was a reasonable solution. Diana Donovan requested direction from the staff as to how the motion could be written. Kristan replied that, once Town Council had proceeded through second reading of the ordinance, applicants would have 6 weeks from that time to submit complete DRB applications. If an application is approved, and construction is started before approval lapses, staff would revise the view corridor line, basing the boundary of the Corridor on the completed construction. Diana stated that, with this provision, she believed the ordinance could be voted on today, but clarified to Jay Peterson and Paul Johnston that the DRB approval could not lapse. If it did, the current Christiania proposal would not be able to be approved at a later date. Jay responded that he felt comfortable with that provision, but asked that the Commission look at additional pictures to gain a better understanding of view corridors as a whole, and this particular view corridor in specific. He asked that the Commission be sure that this was a "significant" corridor, with more impact than those which had been rejected in the past. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the request to Amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sal's to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range per the staff memorandum and the staff recommended photograph taken at a height of 51--2" on February 25, 1991 with a 50mm lens; and further, that after the 6 -week grace period from the adoption of the ordinance by the Vail Town Council, any project submitted during the grace period, receiving DRB approval, and such approval being valid until completion, will be allowed to be built, with the boundaries of the corridor being defined after the construction is completed. The motion was seconded by Jim Shearer. Chuck Crist clarified that the grace period would be in the final ordinance. Jay Peterson asked that a few more pictures be considered by the Commission. The vote was taken, with a unanimous 6 -0 approval of the motion. After the vote, Chuck Crist expanded upon his opinion regarding view corridors, stating that this was an important, environmental issue. He stated that these view corridors add critical visual interest to the Town, and that he felt the PEC should try to maintain that interest. Diana Donovan continued that she would like to adopt more of these view corridors, and asked that staff . bring more to the PEC, perhaps in 6 weeks or 2 months. Kristan Pritz stated that staff was intending to do a view analysis, but had not anticipated bringing more to the Commission that quickly. However, staff would investigate returning some of the views previously discussed to the Commission for their review, if possible, given their responsibilities to other projects. 4. A request for a conditional--use-permit to expand the Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Roads Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School The short overview by Andy Knudtsen of the application began with reference to the site plan. Andy indicated the location of the Phase II expansion, and stated that the application would not result in an increase in height. He reiterated that this was somewhat of a housekeeping issue, since a conditional use permit had been granted in 1989, but had lapsed. The application would only apply to the Phase II expansion, and not Phase III. The issues Andy discussed were the effect of the request on the character of the neighborhood. Staff review indicated the need for a landscaping buffer between the school and the adjacent residential properties. Staff requests that the permit be conditional upon landscaping between the school and adjacent housing being installed or funds for landscaping escrowed before a building permit is released for future construction. The same condition would apply to the landscaping between the school and North Frontage Road. Public Works had raised an issue of a drainage problem on the site. This problem appears to have been created during construction, and should be corrected before completing the work of Phase II. Staff findings recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions listed in their memorandum. Pam Hopkins, representing Vail Mountain School, stated that the school was troubled by the condition that a building permit for Phase II would be contingent upon landscaping being installed. Ms. Hopkins reviewed the difficulties the school had in maintaining the landscaping which had been installed, and declared that the school had hired a landscape maintenance firm. She indicated that the school wanted to do the landscaping, and do it right, but that the timing of the conditions would create difficulties. She also indicated that since the school is a non- profit organization, a letter of credit would be costly. Kristan Pritz clarified that if the landscaping was not planted, the school could provide a financial guarantee to cover the costs. Kristan explained further that many developers escrow a portion of their building loan to ensure the landscaping would be performed. This method would not cost the school additional points or interest. Pam indicated this would be acceptable. A neighbor of the school, Joe Tonahill, indicated that he did not have concerns with any obstruction of views by the Phase II expansion. Pam stated that since Joe had taken it upon himself to plant screening evergreens, the school definitely wanted to work with him to devise a satisfactory solution. Joe said he would like to see trees of a higher quality than aspens, or something which would accomplish the screening more satisfactorily, placed by summer, not fall. Joe also indicated he was representing another owner who had concerns with the fencing near a berm on the northeast corner of the school. That owner, Robert Lawrence, believed that the fence was an eyesore, and it touched his lot. It was discussed that this fencing was required by code, but that at some future date, it might be removed. Diana Donovan declared that it appeared the school was trying to be a good neighbor, and she did not have any problem with the request. Joe Tonahill reiterated that he would like to see the planting in the summer, but otherwise he felt the plan was good. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the existing Vail Mountain School facility, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing per the staff recommendation. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was further moved by Ludwig that staff and applicant would work out a satisfactory financial guarantee for the landscaping work. Jim accepted that motion with his second. The motion passed with a unanimous 6 -0. After a brief recess, the Commission reconvened at 3:40. 5. A reauest for a worksession on setback and site coveraae variances and an exterior alteration to the Lift_h_o_u_se Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1 Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier Jill Kammerer briefly reviewed the outstanding issues from the February 11, 1991 PEC discussion of this item. At that time, the planning staff and PEC's main concerns were the roof connection, landscaping, whether the roof would be sloped or flat, the tyrolean flavor of the architecture, transparency of the facade, and the impact of the addition on the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance. 0 7 With regard to the landscaping, staff will continue to work toward resolving the proposed landscaping to the satisfaction of the Public Works, Fire and Community Development Departments, the Town landscape architect, the project architect and the Lionshead merchants. In addressing the landscaping, the staff's goal is to accomplish more plaza shading to soften the starkness of the plaza area and to create a sense of enclosure for the northern plaza area. Regarding the connection of the addition's roof to the existing structure, staff felt the connection point was an important design element, and that a connection point at the floor level of the second story balcony would better respect the strong architectural line of the existing building and eliminate the cantilevered appearance of these decks. Regarding the visibility of the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech, area, staff felt the changes made by the applicant increased the visibility and were more acceptable. However, these changes would result in a need for a site coverage variance to allow the approximately 850 sq. feet of additional site coverage to be constructed. Jill Kammerer explained the allowable site coverage is 70% and the additional 850 sq. ft. would increase the coverage to 74 %, resulting in the need for a site coverage variance for the 4% of site coverage over the allowable. Galen Aasland, project architect, made the presentation for the • applicant, explaining the changes made in the design since the February 11th presentation. At the conclusion of his presentation, the Commission began discussing the project design. Gena Whitten began by stating she was concerned with the exposure of the northwest corner commercial space and that felt the color of the roof should better relate to the color of the existing structure. Galen responded that they had examined using a washed white or grey stone color. In response to Chuck Crist questioning whether the roof was going to be gravel, Kathy Langenwalter told the applicant if the roof was to be a flat, gravel roof, it should be capable of supporting ballast. Further discussing the roof, Kathy stated she felt that whether the roof is flat or pitched, it was important that it go above the line of the bottom of the balcony. She further indicated as long as there were no roof penetrations (such as vents), she would not mind a flat roof, but preferred a slight pitch with a metal roof so that debris would not collect from the wind. Kathy then examined the projection of the commercial space south of the Pedal Power space. She thought the projection made the pedestrian area too tight. She would also like to see the roof line change, perhaps with a jog in. 9 8 In Kathy's opinion, the Banner Sports area was much better, but next time she would like to see proposed planters staked. In examining the Lifthouse Condominium entrance, Kathy said she believed the entrance was too narrow. Gena Whitten echoed this opinion, stating that the entrance needed to be better identified. Kathy summarized her statements by clarifying she was concerned with both the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium entrance and the visibility of the Pedal Power commercial space, the point where the roof interfaced with the existing building. She elaborated by saying she would like to see a 2 -12 pitched roof, and the line moved back so the entire pedestrian area would be more open. If a flat roof was being proposed to control drainage, she recommended the installation of a concealed gutter to enhance drainage control. Jim Shearer commented that he would definitely like to see a sloped roof for the project. Galen asked for clarification on whether the Commission would like to see the slope continuing beyond the point where the roof intersected with the floor level of the second floor balcony. Kathy answered she would like to see the slope continue up until it intersected with the facade of the existing structure, and the applicant should not worry about the relationship of the roof slope above the condominium entrance to the west facade roof slope. Ludwig Kurz concurred with Kathy that he would like to see the roof be a pitched metal roof. He also agreed that the building projection near the Pedal Power space should be eliminated. However, he was not as concerned with the plaza area. Ludwig thought there would be enough space for pedestrians. He expressed a desire to see the staff work with Public Works to ensure snow dump and fire access issues didn't dictate the design of the building. Jim Shearer examined the project, elaborating on his comments in favor of a sloped roof. He felt a flat, graveled roof was tacky. He agreed with Kathy and would also like to see something happening on the roof line near the condominium entrance He further agreed with Kathy that the planters on the west facade may create an obstruction because they project out so far from the building. He expressed concern as well that trash would collect in the corner, which he would not want to see happen. Jim felt that the Lodge entrance was not identified well enough. Galen Aasland suggested that the roof line near the condominium entrance come across straight, then be hipped at the end. Kathy Langenwalter recommended instead a small dormer be added at the plane of the door. Jim Shearer commented he liked Kathy's suggestion that the door be enunciated in this manner. When Galen indicated the facia would go straight across and then step back 2 feet, Jill Kammerer asked if, beyond the plane of the facade of the balcony, whether or not the roof would continue to be sloped or whether it would flatten out until it intersected with the facade of the existing structure on top. Kathy indicated a strong preference to have the roof continue to slope at the same pitch until its intersection with the existing structure. Attention turned to the issue of the wood pillars in front. Jim asked if they were rough, and Galen answered that they would be smoothed out. Jim was concerned with the compatibility of the style with the existing structure. If the pillar detail were continued along the entire facade, Jim felt it would be too much. Jim did not like the way the pillars married themselves to the existing building. Kathy elaborated the pillars were a detail specific to Banner Sports, and should remain as such. Jim and Kathy both thought the pillars should be simply a Banner Sports entry detail. Chuck Crist and Diana Donovan were opposed to a flat roof for the project. Chuck thought perhaps a light gray roof color would be more appropriate. Kathy disagreed, stating she liked the darker roof color, because there was so much reflection in the area now. Both Chuck and Diana were concerned with the possibility trash would collect on top of the roof and then be visible to people accessing the plaza from the stairway. 40 Diana thought the point where the roof of the addition connected to the Lifthouse was critical. She thought the current design buried visibility of the Pedal Power space, and that the projection should be eliminated. Regarding the wood pillars, she believed that fewer were better. She was also concerned with the types of trees to be installed in the grates in the plaza. Because of the extreme summer and winter temperatures, she suggested.tall, hardy trees be installed. She preferred to see a sloped roof and the installation of the maximum of landscaping possible. Regarding the impact snow dump concerns and fire department vehicular access concerns had on the landscaping, Kathy suggested staff work with the Fire Department and Public Works to devise a compromise design. Kathy would like to see the exterior of the entire Lifthouse Lodge renovated in conjunction with this proposal. Jay Peterson responded he would talk with Packy to see what the Lodge's time table was for making improvements to the exterior. • 10 6. A re uest for a front setback variance for the Perot residence, located at 64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 31—Block 7, . Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ross Perot Staff presentation was given by Mike Mollica. The request was to encroach a maximum of 6 feet into the front setback of the lot in order to expand a ground level entrance. Mike indicated that the existing three -car garage under construction in the front setback was acceptable since the lot slope average was over 30 %. After giving a brief history of the lot's development, Mike elaborated on the analysis of the zoning. He stated that the site coverage and GRFA was at the maximum allowed for the site. Regarding the Consideration of Factors, Mike conveyed that the staff had a difficult time with this request. Although there would be a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood, staff could not determine what site hardship existed to warrant the granting of a variance. Staff believed that since the house had gone through extensive plan review and design, the entrance could have been designed without the need for a variance. As an example, the entry could have been designed in conjunction with the garage. Mike reminded the Commission that in order to grant the variance, they must find the granting of the variance would not be a grant • of special privilege, that the granting would not be detrimental to the general public, that the strict or literal interpretation of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or physical hardship, that there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this site which were not generally found in the same area, or that the strict interpretation of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others in the same zone district. Staff believed that the current variance application did not meet any of these criteria. In conclusion, staff recommended denial of the variance request, as there was no finding of hardship or unique circumstances. Jim Morter, architect for the applicant was queried by Diana Donovan of what would be accomplished with the addition of an open gate to the entry vestibule. Mr. Morter responded that the gate was open air with a wrought iron door, but not openable for security reasons. When Kathy Langenwalter asked why the entrance was being moved, Mr. Morter reviewed the changes on the site plan, and said that there were special circumstances surrounding Mr. Perot with life and death consequences. "The security concerns had arisen from a change in world events subsequent to the design of the house." This expanded entry was a change requested by Mr. Perot's security team, and was believed to be a problem in the sight area surrounding the entrance. 0 11 Kathy Langenwalter quizzed the staff about whether a variance would be necessary if the walkway were designed with decorative . metal, but no roof. Mike clarified that there would need.to be a wall or fence height variance under that circumstance. Mr. Morter elaborated that walls without a roof would not solve the security concerns. Chuck Crist requested information on what material would be used on the outside wall. Jim Morter said it would be stone. Jim Shearer asked if the walkway walls could be sloped or lowered to be more architecturally pleasing. Jim Morter thought that perhaps the grades next to them might be able to be raised. Turning the Commission's attention to the requirements necessary for granting a variance, Diana Donovan stated she believed that there was a unique hardship to the owner. She supported the request. However, she felt that if ownership of the house changed, that the addition should be removed. Gena Whitten said she did not believe there were enough impacts to warrant a condition of later removal. Diana believed that to not require the later removal would be setting a precedent. Kathy Langenwalter reiterated that the owner could not create the hardship. Jim Shearer elaborated that he felt granting this variance might be a grant of special privilege. Chuck Crist explained his opinion that if the ownership changed, there would no longer be a hardship, and that the entry walk should be removed. Gena thought that the removal should be at Mr. Perot's expense. Diana asked the Commission how they would like a condition of approval phrased. Mike Mollica requested clarification that the Commission was looking for language that would require the addition to be removed if Mr. Perot sold the property. Diana answered affirmatively, that the expansion should be removed upon a change of title. Jim Morter requested that the provision be expanded to state that removal of the entry would be required if the ownership of the property left the family. Mr. Perot might want to visit his children if they were the subsequent owners. The same security concerns would exist as long as the ownership remained in the Perot family. Kristan Pritz offered guidance to the Commission that if they wanted to approve the variance, it would be difficult to require an approved structure to be removed, but that if the Commission felt the variance was for safety concerns, it would be appropriate to approve the request, and there were unusual circumstances on the site, such as the topography and the location of the garage already encroaching into the setback. 0 12 Jim Shearer confided his hesitance to set precedent to base a variance on security concerns, as there could be many in the Town . who believed they had similar concerns. Kathy Langenwalter expressed her belief that this particular variance was based on extraordinary circumstances. She wanted to be sensitive to the owner as well as to the site, and compared the request to one for an owner with a particular disability. She believed the variance was for a unique combination of site constraints and owner hardship, and that if the ownership of the property changed, the addition should be removed. Gena Whitten said she did not think that a removal condition would be necessary. Ludwig Kurz agreed with that opinion. Neither Chuck Crist or Jim Shearer had an opinion on the condition. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Commission approve the request for a front setback variance for the Perot residence, located at 64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, as submitted, and with the finding that extraordinary circum- stances are applicable to this site which does not apply generally to the other sites in the zone district, in that the garage was located in the front setback of the property due to the overall slope of the lot exceeding 30 %. Additionally, an expanded entry /security gate was necessary for this owner. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. Kristan Fritz indicated this would not be counted as GRFA for the house. • The vote was a unanimous 6 -0. Subsequent to the voting, Diana Donovan indicated she appreciated the staff's assistance in formulating the wording for the variance, even though they had originally recommended denial. 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable housing unit. Applicant: Town of Vail 8. A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single - Family District_, 18.12 - Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 - Primary/ Secondary Residential District to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 9. A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster rl; o*l ir+- 10 1r, - T.nG7 ncr,eeit-v miiii-inip Family ni -.trint. Y i!�ii�iR�Y�7Tiii1•YT3 aL-ii �t�C1�Y���YlY7��: Y�YIIYI�YV�YIf��f�r t�i��ti��.Li� 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, 18.36 - 13 Public Use District and 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation District; to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 10. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development zoning standards for affordable housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail These four items were presented together by Mike Mollica. He described the changes requested, namely explaining that the changes were recommended from the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study as Phase I changes. He summarized these as being proposed as conditional uses for differing zoning districts, as well as defining Affordable Housing Unit (AFU). The staff recommendation was that all suggested changes be approved. Type I units would be allowed as a conditional use in SF, 2 -F, and P/S zone districts. Types II and III would be a conditional use for Residential Cluster, Low Density Multi - Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Use and Ski Base /Recreation zone Districts. Staff also recommended adoption of the definition of Affordable Housing Unit as being "a dwelling unit, with a restricted floor area, that shall be used for long -term rentals, or ownership, by local employees in the Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas) for the specific purpose of housing." Staff also encouraged the adoption of the development standards for AFUs, Types I, II and III. These development standards would be in the zoning Code under Section 18.58.330 and cross - referenced. Chuck Crist asked for clarification on the parking requirements, specifically if an AFU were placed on a P/S lot, would the enclosed parking be 5 spaces? Kristan responded that yes, there could be up to 5 spaces, but one enclosed space would be required to be on the lot. She also clarified that there would be no GRFA credit for the garage. Mike Mollica further explained that the AFU would have to come from existing or available GRFA, but that the 11250 Ordinance," after possible revision and reenactment for this specific purpose, could be used for a portion of the GRFA. Jim Shearer requested information on what specifically would be included in a full kitchen. Mike stated that it would include a refrigerator, sink, range and /or microwave. Mike continued his explanation of the three types of AFUs. Type I would consist of 300 -700 sq. ft., including a bath and full kitchen. Type II is 14 larger, ranging from 450 -900 sq. ft, and would also include a bath and full kitchen. Two people per bedroom would be allowed, and the unit must be on a bus line or a private shuttle would be required. Further, both Type I and Type II units would be permanently deed restricted. Type III units would consist of 200 -300 sq. ft., and would have a bath and kitchenette consisting of a small refrigerator, sink and microwave oven. A central kitchen and lounge area would be required for every 5 Type III AFUs in each building. Storage lockers and laundry facilities would also be required. Jim requested that the language "in each building" be added to the storage lockers and laundry facilities sentence of the description. Ludwig Kurz asked for a definition of what "accessible" to the Town of Vail bus line would mean. Mike replied that it should be more clearly defined. Kristan Pritz suggested using the term "walking distance." Mike recommended perhaps using "reasonable walking distance." Jim reiterated his desire to see a clear definition. Diana Donovan thought that a "reasonable" walking distance would be appropriate, as the Commission could review each request as it came up through the Conditional Use permit process. She also believed that the precluding of the use of cars should be stated as the objective for this requirement. Mike Mollica turned the attention of the Commission to the issue of density. He stated that Type III units would equal 0.333 dwelling units, or three units would equal 1 dwelling unit for the purposes of density. He further explained that these units • would not be allowed to exceed the allowable GRFA for the district. Chuck Crist asked if the density could be exceeded. Mike indicated that it could not. Kathy Langenwalter asserted that the proposed density language was not clearly stated. Mike agreed to change the density language to delete the "if the 0.333 density standard is utilized" to clarify the section. Mike asked the Commission for their opinions regarding the Type III units, and questioned whether these units were necessary, as they seemed to receive a cool reception during the previous public hearing process. The Commission stated very clearly that they believed this type of housing was necessary for seasonal workers. Kathy Langenwalter asked if a Type I unit would be allowed in a garage if the garage was placed in the front setback of a property. Kristan explained that there was already language in the code regarding this, but she would make the changes in the definition of Type I AFU to read "if a garage is located in the front setback of a property, a Type I AFU shall not be allowed." Kathy also inquired how the 250 Ordinance would be used. She did not like the use of the 250 in a P/S district by both owners to provide 500 square feet. She believed that 250 square feet per lot should be the maximum allowable. She felt that if two 250s 0 15 were used, the buildings would be too large. Jim Shearer asserted that verbiage was needed so that the property owners could decide between them who would use the 250. Kathy expanded on to say that there would only be 1 AFU allowed per lot, and both owners would have to agree on it. Diana Donovan asked if this had been a big discussion item during the Zoning Code Task Force meetings. Kristan explained that the existing 250 Ordinance was proposed to be eliminated, and then perhaps it could be re- established specifically for the AFUs. She agreed to the change in language that there would be 250 per lot, rather than per dwelling unit. She suggested that the 250 language be taken out of the current definition, but with a footnote as to intention to reinstate, once the current 250 Ordinance is repealed. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Housing Authority would set the rental rates for the units. Kristan replied that they probably would. Diana stated she believed it was part of their job. Kristan said that Ji11:Kammerer would investigate that with the Authority. Jill explained that the Authority was still trying to decide how, or if, to set the rates. Diana asked that guidelines be established, to which Ludwig Kurz suggested the rates be set on local wages. Jim Shearer declared he believed a range was necessary, and that the Housing Authority should be the ones to set it. Diana agreed with setting guidelines, not specific rents. is Diana Donovan reiterated her opinion that Type III units were necessary for seasonal employees. Jim thought that commercial buildings could provide these units on the top floor. Kathy believed SDDs would also be a good source to provide the units. Diana viewed a definite need for these units, and expressed her opinion that the workers who would occupy Type IIIs would not necessarily be the ones to turn out to public hearings. Mike Mollica asked Kathy what she would like to see for parking. Kathy replied that she did not believe 1 parking space was adequate, but was not sure requiring more would be practical. Kathy asked staff to add wording that all required parking be built as a part of the conditional use. Diana also wanted to explore Aspen's plan that a second car would have to be parked at a location other than the AFU. She also stated that if parking became a problem, the cars could always be ticketed and towed. Mike Mollica agreed to amend the parking changes in the AFU language. Diana explained to those members of the Commission who were not on the Affordable Housing Task Force that the rationale behind the density requirements was to protect the neighborhood. Chuck 0 16 wondered if these units would ever be built. Diana answered that she thought many second home owners would be happy to have a . caretaker unit to watch their house. The Commission's attention turned to rental rates. Jill Kammerer expressed that it would be difficult to set specific rates, as construction costs would have to be taken into consideration. Diana Donovan objected to that logic, and suggested that long- term rates be set as a range. Jim Shearer asked that a cap be placed on the range, so that the units would be rentable, and not just used as guest rooms. Jill suggested that Valley -wide costs per square foot could be monitored to determine acceptable costs. Ludwig indicated that these rates were readily available, and postulated that a responsible developer and builder could build a unit for approximately $50 per square foot. He suggested the rental rates not be tied to construction costs, but serve as guidelines to income and rental level. Kathy Langenwalter stated that there could be higher - income employee units, but Jim Shearer rebutted by saying that the units should be reasonably rentable. Kristan said that a tie -in to median income levels is common among housing projects. Jim Shearer agreed, saying that it would force employers to pay a reasonable wage. He did, however, still want a maximum rental cap on the units. Kristan said that the levels could be re- examined each year, and that since construction costs were often tied to the economy, a balance should be reachable. In concluding the discussion, Diana Donovan asked that the GRFA • language be re- worded. Staff agreed. 11. A royal of minutes fromfebruary 11 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved the minutes from the February 11, 1991 meeting be approved as written. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4 -0 -1, with Chuck Crist abstaining. 12. Approval of minutes from Februar 25 1991 meetin Jim Shearer moved the February 25, 1991 minutes be accepted as written. Kathy Langenwalter seconded. The vote was 3 -0 -1 in favor, with Diana Donovan abstaining. A date for the PEC workshop /dinner was established as April 1, 1991 at 5:30PM, to take place at the Vail Golf Course clubhouse. Upcoming joint meetings between the PEC and Town Council were discussed. Specifically, the March 12 Master Transportation Plan and March 19, 1991 Streetscape Plan were discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05PM by Diana Donovan. 17 • • M$MORP 1�T UM_ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department Staff DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Notification of PEC of staff approval of Minor Amendment to SDD #6 - Vail Village Inn to allow for the installation of a satellite dish in a setback. The staff recently approved a request for a minor amendment to the Vail Village, Inn Special Development District #6, to allow i for the installation of a satellite dish n a side setback on the east end of the property. The setbacks in Vail Village Inn are actually the existing building footprints. Any structure that is not within the building footprint is considered an encroachment into the setback. For this reason, a minor amendment to the SDD for the encroachment into the setback on the east side of the Vail Village Inn development is necessary. The top of the dish will be 8 feet above grade and 7 1/2 feet in diameter. The dish will be brown, perforated metal. A wood screen fence painted brown to match the building trim will be installed, additional evergreens will also be placed adjacent to the fence. Please see site plan. Under Section 18.40.020(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 approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet to approved setbacks and /or building footprints; changes to that do not adversely impact landscape or site plans 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 nonresidential floor area." The staff finds that with the proposed landscaping and screening, the proposed satellite dish will not alter the basic intent and character of the approved Special Development District, and is consistent with the design criteria of this chapter. c :\pec \memos \satelite.311 �> \� /%� � � � � /� . I rl- -F!': 1: . 4������ �\ ( \���:f:�\ � »� \� \ y < ƒ/ , \ %��� ' < VA L; _ _ ,�� ■ l .. ���� 'TM`s �F� .x . IX i� vow 1 Fo' � � � \\ , `^ __--_ __�--_'--_--. \\ � \/ J �� C • • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail Since the PEC work session on February 11, 1991, staff has rephotographed the Gore Range and identified the view corridor more clearly. Attached to this memo are two photographs taken from a 5' -2" height that show alternative ways to set the boundary of the corridor. The first is staff's recommendation, which runs the boundary along the roofs of the existing Red Lion and Christiania buildings. The second reflects PEC's discussion during the work session, which runs the boundary directly between two balcony railings on either side of the corridor. The vertical boundaries which frame the two sides of the corridor are the same on both alternatives since there was general agreement on that issue. The 5' -2" height is consistent with the height staff used to photograph other view corridors in the past. Staff believes this is a typical eye level height for pedestrians. Two other photographs are attached to this memo which were used at the work session, which were taken from a 3' -10" height. A potential Christiania expansion has been identified on one of the photographs by Paul Johnston's architect. Regarding the text of the proposed ordinance, staff has changed it so that it is clearly understood that existing encroachments which are focal points (like the Clock Tower) are intended to remain. During the PEC work session, it was mentioned by Jay Peterson that the Council, when discussing the proposed changes to the Red Lion, had said that view corridor number one was to exclude the Red Lion chimney. Staff has included the chimney as part of view corridor number 4. Staff could find no portion of Town Council minutes stating that the Red Lion chimney should be excluded from the view corridor. Staff understands from individuals involved with the original definition of this view corridor that the boundary was placed around the chimney, excluding it. Staff would like to enable pedestrians to see as much of the Gore Range • as possible, and as a result, staff recommends including it within the boundary. By including it, staff would encourage the Red Lion to remove a portion of the chimney if and when the Red Lion applies for a major remodel. Even though the original discussions may have excluded it, staff believes that corridors in general should be defined with building roofs and walls, not architectural projections like chimneys. Before this view corridor is established, it must be considered by Town Council twice and adopted as an ordinance. Staff believes that this addition to the code should be treated similarly to other code changes. There should be some kind of "grace period" for developers to pull building permits for projects designed under the current regulations. Staff proposes to use the same process that was used for the recent code change limiting the number of woodburning fireplaces. Once adopted by the Town Council, staff proposes that there be a six week period for individuals to submit a complete DRB application for projects that would otherwise encroach into View Corridor #4. Approval of the project by DRB, or any other board, is not needed. A complete application submittal is all that would be necessary. The staff memo from the February 11, 1991 PEC work session is attached to this cover memo. It has been modified to reflect the concerns the PEC expressed, including the discussion of the chimney and clarifying the language regarding focal points like the Clock Tower. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND The primary purpose of this request is to add another view corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5 and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many view corridors as possible. The view that is under consideration with this proposal is number four from that is list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current view corridor ordinance. Il. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR The proposed view corridor will read as follows: "View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is 8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view was established by setting a camera five feet two inches above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range." III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE The current ordinance is attached to this memo for reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed are marked with an asterisk in the margin. • A. The first change is to delete the following sentence: . "Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appropriate approvals from the Community Development Department are obtained." Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with: "any modifications to the roofs or structures which are proposed to be located above the line of the view corridor may be permitted if approved by the PEC and Town Council." B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph: "As circumstances affecting views chan4 rezonings, variances and height or new view corridors will be reviewed and if revised. If a conflict exists between height allowed and the view corridors, restrictive regulation will apply." je, such as buildings, the necessary the maximum the more Instead of the above, staff proposes the following language be added: "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the view corridor shall apply." C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the ordinance reads as follows: $'Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line, even if it is proposed to be built below, behind or in front of an existing structure that is in a view corridor (a chimney.or other architectural feature for example) shall not be allowed.,, There are three reasons why staff would like to add this section. First, it clarifies the existing wording of the ordinance which is presently interpreted in this manner. Secondly, it will prevent new buildings from competing with existing focal points like the Clock Tower. Third, it will help keep corridors open so that, eventually, when existing encroachments are removed, corridors will be completely clear. Hypothetically, new construction could impact existing view corridors in the following ways: View 1: (From the parking structure looking out to the ski mountain.) • Potential applicants may want to construct additions above the view corridor line, which would not exceed the height of the Gold Peak 0 House. This is the situation that occurred with the Red Lion. A thorough review of the encroachment shall be required, which staff believes is appropriate. View 6: (From Gore Creek Drive looking east over Gorsuch to the Gore Range.) Additions to buildings could be done in such a way that the mountain views are preserved. However, staff believes the prominence of the Clock Tower should not be reduced with any other construction that would exceed the height defined by the view corridor. View 4: (Proposed new view from Frivolous Sals looking east to the Gore Range.) Expansions to the Red Lion or Mill Creek Court Building could be located behind the Red Lion chimney. This should not be allowed as the existing chimney blocks part of the Gore Range from view which, ideally, should be removed. The reason staff would like to add this to the ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively determined by existing buildings but instead are determined by the view corridor line. This clarification is needed to make the point that no new construction above the view corridor line is allowed. D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to the ordinance is that: "Some view corridors include portions of existing structures that currently encroach into the corridor. Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. For example, decks which extend out into a corridor will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli- cants requesting changes to buildings within view corridors should be aware that any existing encroach- ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view corridor as part of any major building modification. Encroachments like the Clock Tower and Bell Tower, which are focal points identified in the View corridors described in the View Ordinance, are excluded from this policy." IV. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the clarifications will make the development review process simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future. Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use pedestrian area of Vail Village. • • h t; 1 •.I �? / P' AYR �, S i � 1 �, . • i:` .. - - _- — doe. -,. d �a �m r (e II IL ,x 1: _ ,.g ���'. r' � Jam^ >< ..,�5:•- -• �xr � _ ; , '7f 52" height ear ; Ilill lens .. +r .. F yr. ,ry 'M•f _. -. �' rP- 7. t, Nor f. I., AM Ad JN k -10 . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion • PEC discussio n 2!- 91 4r- from • worksession • 5'2" height 50 mm lens x �i • 1 .w -'. ww rrvt� fir . , r,: 33 +Y Christi ,v {gl e w w rf � Y , JJJJ ■ �� y`mot K" � !f ^� j J1 e n Fey. 3 of t 3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: VIEW SECTION AND VIEW CORRIDOR MAP TO RETA CE THE N L: IBE R G1~' :1AJ 011 V I ..W Coral [ UORS AND TO ELIMINATE MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. if WHEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design Guide Plan - Design Considerations and the View Corridor Map has been under study by staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council for a considerable time.peri,od; and i WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that'preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to.the character of Vail as a mountain resort; and WHEREAS, the preservation of such views will.protect the municipalities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore, enhance and protect its economic vitality. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom- mended adoption of the nine view corridors, one focal point and amendments to the language in the view section to the Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY,THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: A Section 1 Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is hereby amended to read as follows: G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its '.,_- identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, ,:• etc. are constan�tremod�ationhreferencenpointsonmCertain�building "_...;,.repeated visibility, eatures are also important character features, orientation refer - �: ences and visual focal points. ;..:' rs t� The most significant obvious wod CVailhVillagenUrbangDesign on the View Corridor Map C an element of the Framework Plan) and photographically documented (.photos on file in ,:. However, the view corridors. �. ;•;..the Community Development Department ,Y.". { .•,����: depicted on the maps and in the photographs should not be considered • --- -��_.� ms,o, -ter obviously many-other important views too_ rs �_� -2- . The official photographs and field surveys of the view corridors and focal point contain the area to be protected. No encroachment will be allowed above the top of the black and white line on the photographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field <' surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of; Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants ;j ". 1': in determining the specific dimensional restrictions produced by the view corridors. Minor modifications to the roofs or structures• (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appro- priate approvals from the Community Development Department are ''Y:i;:' ' obtained. i To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the*;.'. form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch -ups, models, or other simulation.techniques. A means of demonstrating i in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required by the zoning administrator. As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and, if necessary', revised. If a conflict exists between the maximum height allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulation The following is a listing and verbal description of the adopted will view corridors and focal point: apply . NO. DESCRIPTION 1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center. L� 2 This is a significant view because,it allows one to see the ski slopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the ticket and lift facilities in the Village. 5 This i-s a view of the Gore Range'from Hanson-Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and west of the Mill Creek Court B1 6 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view. . Section 2 • ' U _3_ If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,onentence, clause '.3- or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any or sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. � i Section 3 {' ' The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and , welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this cr� _ day of , 1983. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the o? /.a. day of 1983 at the regular meeting of the Town Council of..th ,Town of Vail, Colorado, in The Municipal Building of the Town. Rodney E. lif r, M or ATTEST:. , 62 Lk Pamela A Erandmeye Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this OLI-a/ day of 1983. (/� r 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the existing Vail Mountain School facility, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School I. DESCRIPTION OF 1989 APPROVAL On February 8, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a three phase expansion program for the Vail Mountain School. Phase I (10,318 sq. ft.) has been completed, which included the gymnasium, locker rooms and a stage. The Town issued the building permit for this construction on May 25, 1989. Phases II and III are unbuilt, but were approved under the February 8, 1989 approval. Phase II is the 3240 square foot addition of a third floor within the primary building to create classroom • space. Phase III will include a lobby, restrooms, kitchenette and a gym office. These rooms will be built south of the existing gymnasium under the existing covered entry. II. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT REQUEST At this time, the applicant has applied for a conditional use to re-activate only the approval for Phase II. The reason the applicant needs to return to the PEC for a new conditional use approval for Phase II is because the 1989 conditional use approval has lapsed. The zoning code language in Section 18.60.080 states that: "The zoning administrator shall issue a conditional use permit when action of the Planning Commission becomes final, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Commission. The permit shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within one year." • 1 If the PEC approves this request, the applicant will have one year to pull a building permit for this construction. . The applicant must return later to the PEC for reapproval of Phase III. Conditional use approval for that phase has already lapsed, and this request does not include that phase. The reason the applicant has not requested Phase III approval is because the specific plan for the proposed rooms has not been designed. At this time, it is not clear if another site coverage variance is needed. The applicant will wait until funds for Phase III are available, do the design work, and then apply for a site coverage variance (if needed) at that time. II. BACKGROUND OF THE VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL The Vail Mountain School received approval to construct a new school in Booth Creek in 1978. The applicant requested a conditional use approval for a private school of approximately 9,000 square feet for a maximum of 100 students. Conditions of approval were as follows: 1. The maximum floor area for the Vail Mountain School building is not to exceed 10,000 square feet. 2. The Vail Mountain School is to be used only by the Vail • Mountain School for school functions. 3. Additional parking shall be provided by the Vail Mountain School if the proposed parking is found by the Planning and Environmental Commission to be inadequate. 4. The location of the school building and its activities are restricted to the area designated on the plans approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at the October 24, 1978 meeting, which are on file in the Community Development Department. A deed restriction from Vail Associates will limit the amount of land to be used by the school on this designated area. The balance of the seven acre parcel is to be restricted as green belt. 5. The cabin currently on the property is to be preserved and restored either in its existing location or in another location restricted to the eastern part of the site as shown, as shown on the submitted plans. In November, 1979, the Vail Mountain School received expansion approval to construct a lunch room, indoor recreational area, and a dark room. Conditional use approval was given in October, 1981 to remove the • 2 restriction limiting the number of students at Vail Mountain . School. In August, 1983, the school received conditional use approval to accommodate a sodded soccer field. In 1984, the school received approval to add approximately 3,096 square feet. The proposal provided space for a print room, computer room, language lab, two classrooms, one meeting room, and one kindergarten room. A parking /hard space /play area of approximately 4,000 square feet was located on the existing parking area. During this conditional use review, a rock fall barrier was also proposed on the north hillside above the school. At this time, the Vail Mountain School has a total gross square footage of 18,571 square feet. On January 25, 1988, a work session was held on the Vail Mountain School to discuss the gymnasium and classroom expansion as well as the vacation of the deed restriction. The Planning and Environmental Commission determined that it would be appropriate for the deed restriction to be voided. Representatives from the Vail Mountain School, Marsha Sage, President of the Board of Directors and Mr. Peter Abuissi, Headmaster, indicated that there would not be a major increase in development after this expansion. Since that PEC meeting, the deed restriction has been voided. On February 8, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a three phase expansion approval described in the first section of this memo. The first phase of that has been constructed, which had 10,318 square feet. After the 3,240 square foot expansion of Phase II is built, the total floor area of the school will be 32,129 square feet. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The development objectives of the Town listed in the purpose section of the Open Space and Agricultural District section of the zoning code state that "parks, schools, and certain types of private recreation facilities and institutions ... are suitable uses in the agriculture and open 0 3 space district, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open." Staff believes . that the site is predominantly open, and that the use complies with the purpose of the Section as stated above. The school currently covers 7.930 of the 6.122 acre site. Though this may appear to the PEC as a very small amount of site coverage, the code limitation for this zone district is only 5 %. The additional 2.93% of site coverage was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on February 13, 1989 in a site coverage variance. Staff continues to believe, however, that a site that is 92.07% open meets the intent of the purpose section. Construction of Phase II will not increase the site coverage. 2. The effect of the use on light--and air distribution of-population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public-facilities needs. Since the expansion is not intended to increase the number of students, the current level of impact will not change. . 3. Effect upon. congestion, convenience maneuverabi street and traffic with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and traffic flow and control access Lity, and removal of snow from the narking areas. The applicant does not propose to change the parking layout or the access plan. There are currently 84 parking spaces on the site. The parking lot is accessed from Katsos Ranch Road, with a one -way traffic flow, exiting onto Booth Fall Road. There is no direct access onto the Frontage Road. This is the design which staff and PEC reviewed and supported in 1989 when the applicant was requesting the three phase expansion to the school. If the applicant were to propose expansions other than those listed in the 1989 proposal, staff believes it would be necessary to reevaluate the parking demand and possibly require additional spaces. However, because the existing design and parking supply were determined to be appropriate for the construction outlined in the 1989 review, 0 4 and because this request does not involve any floor area that was not described in that request, • staff believes that the comprehensive site design does not need to be changed. As it has turned out in the past year since the parking lot has been constructed, the 84 spaces are more than enough for the demands of the school. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The new windows and dormers proposed for the third floor classroom expansion will actually help break up the mass of the existing building on the north and south elevations. As a result, the building will appear less bulky. As part of the earlier approval, the applicant intended to landscape the area north of the school to create a buffer between this use and the residential neighborhood north of the site. As this has not been done yet, staff is recommending that the applicant plant a buffer in this area prior to the issuance of building permits for this • construction as a condition of approval. Because the landscaping requirements are part of the Phase I approval, staff will not issue a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the construction until the planting is installed. However, even though the Town has this condition on the final C.O., staff believes it is more appropriate for the applicant to complete this landscaping before starting Phase II or at minimum, to provide a letter of credit for these improvements before any additional building permits are issued. Landscaping shown on the original approval south of the site was designed to screen the parking lot from the Frontage Road. This was particularly important to the Town, since part of the parking lot encroaches into the 20 foot front yard setback. A variance was approved for the parking in this location with the understanding that the applicant would screen it with landscaping. The applicant has planted about half of the 30 trees shown on the plans, but several have died because the irrigation system failed. Once the irrigation system is fixed, the applicant will replace the ID 5 • dead trees and plant the rest of the trees called for on the original landscape plan. Completing the.landscaping in this area should be another condition of approval for this request. Public works staff has identified a drainage problem, created when the parking lot was expanded, which should also be corrected at this time. IV. Such Other Factors and Criteria as the Commission Deems Applicable to the Proposed Use. Attached to this memo is a letter from the Town to the Booth Creek neighborhood regarding the rock fall mitigation ditch. The concept of this mitigation is one that provides the best protection to the school as it not only protects the buildings, but also the play fields. As the letter indicates, the Town has written commitment from the contractor to rebuild the berm in accordance with the engineering compaction specifications. The Town hopes to have the berm rebuilt during the summer of 1991. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting_a conditional .use __.'Permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Staff believes that the current request meets Findings A, B, and C as it is in accordance with the purposes of this zone 0 6 0 district, it will be operated in a way which is not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, and that the request is in general compliance with the zoning code. Staff believes that the proposal is along the lines of what has previously been approved, does not increase the impacts of the school use at this site, and will be architecturally beneficial to the existing building. As stated in the 1989 memo, however, Town staff does believe that with the construction of Phases I, II and III as outlined in the first section of this memo, the Vail Mountain School will have reached the development potential of this site. Staff would recommend that any further requests to expand the school be looked at very closely in order to maintain the intent of the agricultural open space zone district. The Community Development Department recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: Prior to issuance for building permits for this project, the applicant shall: A. Submit revised drawings for review and approval by the DRB that show what landscaping will be planted north of the school to buffer the project from the residential neighborhood, and what landscaping will be planted south of the parking lot to screen the parking from the Frontage Road. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, this landscaping shall be installed, or a letter of credit for 100% of the cost for the landscaping shall be provided to the Town. Applicant shall secure CDOH approval for any improvements in the right -of -way, if necessary. B. Submit for the review and approval of the Town Engineer a design which will solve the existing drainage problem. This work shall be completed prior to issuance of a TCO for the third floor classrooms. • 7 • February 14, 1991 To All Property Owners in the Booth Falls Local Group and District Dear Property Owner: I am writing to update you on the status of the Booth Falls Rockfall Mitigation Berm. As you are presently aware, the berm which was constructed in the summer and fail of 1989 did not meet the compaction specifications of the engineer who designed t e tructure. Although the engineer has certified to us in writing the berm is safe and is effective in stopping rocks at the present time, the engineer's concern is that because the compaction specifications have not been met there is a possibility that the berm will slowly sluff and thereafter lose its ability to work effectively to stop falling rocks. The Town of Vail has been sued by the contractor who built the berm for funds which we have refused to pay because of what we consider to be a substantial default in the contractor's performance. The Town has counterclaimed against the contractor and the legal action is ongoing. The Town now has a written commitment from the contractor to rebuild the berm in accordance with the compaction specifications of the engineer beginning as soon as possible at the beginning of the 1991 building season. The Town is hopeful that the berm can be rebuilt in the fashion required by the engineer prior to the 1991/1992 ski season. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Larry . Eskwith Town Attorney LAE /jc xc: Town Council Rondall V. Phillips n � �Z r r I n S r r r bezaumu« s10+ VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL Snowdon and HopMn64Achl%ch CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE 11 1 VAIL, COLORADO • • • ri WINNER bezaumu« s10+ VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL Snowdon and HopMn64Achl%ch CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE 11 1 VAIL, COLORADO • • • 0 m m C a 1p z m m C . z 1 NUmn.: 9101 VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL &mwdon and Ho*- S•ArcMlecb 2126/91' CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE II VAIL, COLORADO �J • • a a r m r �m C a 0 "z a �Nu.tw 8191 VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL ^�°^'^° m'"ch' '° CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE 11` � , VAIL, COLORADO I- �J • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for site coverage, and setback variances and an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier I. BACKGROUND The PEC reviewed this item at a worksession on January 28, 1991. At that time, the following staff concerns were discussed: 1. The hipped roof at the entry to the Banner Sports 2. commercial space. Landscaping issues. 3. Pitch of the roof. 4. Connection of the addition's roof to the existing structure. 5. Roofing material (cedar shakes were proposed). 6. Roof overhang. 7. Transparency of the facade. 8. Setback variance to address the Peddle Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST As a result of this discussion, the applicant has submitted revised architectural plans, copies of which are attached. The revised plans have moved away from the previously proposed "tyrolean" flavor of architecture and a more contemporary architectural approach is proposed. Staff believes the architecture as proposed better relates the addition to the existing structure. The applicant proposes to construct a one -story addition to the Lifthouse Lodge. The addition will extend out from the existing facade. This one -story addition wraps around the 40 1 north and west facades of the Banner Sports and Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces, and the entrance to the Lifthouse Condominiums. The Banner Sports entrance has been relocated to the very northwest corner of the building. The structure currently encroaches 1' -6" into the required setback on the south and 1' -3" into the required setback on the west. Setback variances are required in order to allow the addition to encroach 10' into the required 10' setback on the west which results in a zero setback situation. On the south, the expansion encroaches 9 feet into the required 10 foot setback, which results in a one foot setback. Because of the impact the previously- proposed redevelopment would have on the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space, and on the Lifthouse Condominiums entrance, the Commission and the staff encouraged the applicant to address these areas in conjunction with the Banner Sports redevelopment proposal; the understanding being a site coverage variance would likely be required. Under this revised proposal, the applicant has addressed the design of the commercial space and condo entrance, a site coverage variance will be required. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD The following sub -area concepts relate to the proposed do redevelopment see attached map for reference number location: GONDOLA PLAZA 25. Commercial expansion (1 story) to emphasize pedestrian scale and attractive facades for improved commercial use, aided by fountain as pedestrian draw. At north end, commercial expansion (1 -2 stories) to create a third activity edge to plaza, with opportunities for 2nd level sun -- pocket dining terraces. This urban design consideration recommends the Lifthouse Condominium Building be expanded in the same areas proposed to be expanded under this redevelopment proposal. In fact the Guide Plan recommends the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech facade encroach even further to the west onto Town of Vail owned land. 22. Existing mature vegetation preserved for green, color, and scale. Supplement with portable summer -time planters for additional color and more intimate scale for plaza. is 2 21. Tall sculpture feature at highest - visibility point as viewed from either end of the mail. • IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD A. Height and Massing: The proposal calls for construction of a one -story addition to the south and west facades of the Lifthouse Condominium Building, adjacent to the Banner Sports, Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance. The Lionshead Design considerations encourage the creation of well- defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis areas, and one -story building expansions. B. Roof s: Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are encouraged. The previously submitted development proposal called for construction of a gable roof over the Banner Sports commercial space entrance. The balance of the addition roof was proposed to be a shed roof. The Design Considerations expressly recommend against using gable roof forms in Lionshead because gable roofs are a more . traditional roof form and are out of context in Lionshead. Under the current proposal, the applicant proposes a peaked roof over the commercial space and condominium entrances. The balance of the roof will slope back to a point where it intersects with the floor level of the existing second story decks. In those areas where the vertical plane of the facade extends back further than the vertical plane of the deck, the roof will slope back to a point where it would intersect with the front face of the vertical plane of the deck (if one existed), it then becomes a flat roof and continues back to the point where it intersects with the facade of the building. From the mall level the entire roof will appear to be sloping. The initial proposal called for the use of cedar shakes on the roof of the addition. The revised proposal calls for a metal roof. The applicant investigated matching the roof pitch on the addition to the Montauk Restaurant roof pitch. Because of the differences in the amount these facades project into the mall, the applicant concluded that matching the two roof pitches does not work. 0 3 Under the Lionshead Design Considerations, roof overhangs are limited to 3 inches to 36 inches. The • proposed roof overhang ranges from 6 inches to 7 1/2 feet. The connection of the addition's roof to the existing building is an important design element. Respecting strong architectural lines is critical to successfully integrating an addition with an existing structure. Staff's concerns regarding the proposed addition roof /existing building connection points have been addressed under this revised proposal. The applicant proposes to connect the addition to the existing building at the floor level of the second story decks. In addition to making this connection at a more visually pleasing point, this connection point will eliminate the cantilevered appearance of these decks. C. Facades - Walls /Structures: The materials to be used in construction have remained unchanged. These materials (wood, glass and stucco) are encouraged under the Lionshead Design Considerations. The stucco texture and color will match the stucco on the existing structure and the window and door trim color will match the color of the • window trim on the existing structure. Unpainted wood surfaces will be stained to match the color of the wood pillars on the interior of the Banner Sports commercial space. This color is quite light. The Design Considerations recommend wood be stained to a medium range or to match the main building. The stucco color on the main building is light. The applicant proposes to use smooth log pillars to mark the commercial space entrances. In response to concerns raised at the January 28th work session regarding the impact of the addition on the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and on the Lifthouse Condominium entrance, the applicant has brought the facade of both of these spaces out to the property line. Under this development scheme the applicant proposes to face the entire base of both the west and south facades (not just a portion as under the initial proposal) with stone to match the stone which faces planters in the area. 0 4 D. Facades - Transparency: Ground floor display window sills are located 18 inches above the walk level in keeping with the L. H. Design Considerations. The transparency of the windows on the northern facade and of those windows adjacent to the commercial space entrance is in keeping with the L.H. Design Considerations. Under the current proposal, the applicant has removed some of the stucco panels along this western facade and replaced them with windows of the same size as the northern facade display windows. The transparency of the west facade will now meet the recommended 1170% of the surface area of the ground floor" facade transparency guidelines. This situation creates an interesting and inviting experience for the pedestrian thereby meeting one of the major goals of the Urban Design plan for Lionshead - to "develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale ". There are a number of transom type windows proposed over entrance ways. The window pane sizes vary from one transom to another. Staff has recommended the applicant modify these transom window pane sizes so that they are a unified size. • Staff questions whether the addition as proposed will increase visibility to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space. Windows to be installed will match the color (clear) of the existing windows. The commercial space entrance way is recessed 4 feet and is highly transparent in keeping with the L. H. Guidelines. E. Decks and Patios: No decks and patios are proposed. F. Accent Elements: All accents will match existing building accents. G. Landscaping: Under the initial development proposal no new landscaping was proposed. 0 5 To date, the architect, town landscape architect and members of the Public Works, Community Development and . Fire Department staffs, as well as members of the Lionshead Merchants Association, have met on several occasions to develop a landscaping plan for the plaza area west of the Lifthouse Lodge which will accommodate everyone's desires. No consensus on the landscaping issue has been developed. The Fire and Public Works Departments have expressed concern regarding the ability of snow removal and fire equipment to access the Gondola Plaza. These departments believe the space between the western facade of the new addition and the existing planter west of the addition may be inadequate to accommodate their equipment. On two occasions members of the Fire, Public Works and Community Development departments and the project architect have met on the site with a pumper truck in hopes of resolving site access issues prior to this PEC meeting. The applicant proposes to construct 4 to 5 foot wide rock faced planters along the west facade of the addition on town owned land. These planters would match planters located adjacent to Montauk's Restaurant and in the Gondola Plaza. Another planter is proposed to be installed adjacent to the entrance to the Lifthouse Condominiums. The construction of a planter along the western facade may further constrict site access to the northern end of the Gondola Plaza area west of the building. Through the relocation of a light fixture located on the west side of the existing plaza /flag planter, Fire and Public Work Department vehicles can access the northern end of the Gondola Plaza from the far side of the planter. However, accessing the northern plaza area at this location will require the Public Works Department park and operate their snow removal equipment at the bottom of the stairway leading out of the plaza and up to the parking lot located north of the Landmark Condominium Building. This machinery /pedestrian conflict area is of concern to the Public Works Department. They are concerned with the safety of those individual who access the Gondola Plaza from the stairway. The goals of the various landscaping proposals debated include: Creating a sense of enclosure for the northern plaza area. 0 6 - Creating shade for the northern plaza area. The Lionshead merchants have indicated that this area • of the plaza is without shade in the summer months and consequently is quite inhospitable. Softening the starkness of the plaza area through the strategic placement of additional plant material or a water feature. The elements of the various landscaping proposals debated include: The installation of 3 to 4 shade trees in grated adjacent to an the western facade of the Lifthouse Condominium Building. The installation of a water feature or a very large evergreen (the Lionshead Christmas tree) in the center of the circular patterned paving area located southwest of the Lifthouse. - The removal of the existing planter located west of the Lifthouse and the construction of new planters to the west of the Lifthouse and to the east of the bottom of the stairs to enclose the northern plaza area. These planters would be capable of accommodating shade trees. • H. Service and Delivery: This addition will not have any impact on existing loading and delivery service. V. Items for Discussion: On the whole staff is supportive of the proposal as presented. The applicant has made many substantial modifications to the initial proposal in response to staff and the board member's comments. Issues which still warrant discussion are: -- Setback: 10 and 9 foot encroachments into the required 10 foot setback; Facade and Site Coverage: Addition as it relates to the visibility of the entrances to Lifthouse Condominiums and the Pedal Power / Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces; Landscaping 0 7 • 10 4 8 i I� EeQ a� i`US • �tt 7 ��aT fit tI 2 all r fill; .2 4 8 i I� EeQ a� i`US • �tt 7 ��aT • • C fl M 4\5X di ii K 1 0 !7 7 LODGE mists Jill N 0 Iii N. WE5T-WIND IiRl! AT VAIL K 1 0 !7 7 LODGE mists Jill N 0 Iii raD-2S—v l YUE 12: �26 Ack--s I cxt-scl • • Limvo�ro tome 8y's�wl !Ntoml (4 40� � L. P. 0 i:b(.bqAop lr*ole - 1 ►, • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a front residence, located at 7, Vail Village First Applicant: Ross Pero Department setback variance for the Perot 64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 31, Block Filing. t I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is proposing a front setback variance in order to expand a ground level entry, into the residence which is presently under construction. The variance request, if approved, would allow for the entry to encroach a maximum of 6 feet into the required 20' front setback area. The expanded entry vestibule, as proposed, would be located west of the current garage. The proposed entry vestibule would be located approximately 6 feet back from the north face of the garage as it parallels Beaver Dam Road. It should be noted that the existing 3 -car garage is permitted to be located in the front setback area, as the average grade on the site exceeds the required minimum of 30 %, which allows garages to be constructed in the front setback. Architecturally, the design of this new, expanded entry vestibule would match the structure presently under construction. The entry vestibule would be enclosed on all sides. However, the applicant is proposing an open, iron gate as the front door. Because the front of the entry vestibule would be "open," this proposed vestibule does not constitute site coverage, nor does it count as Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). It should be noted for the record that the Perot residence was given final DRB approval and was issued a building permit in August of 1990, which was prior to the amendment to the Town of Vail zoning regulations, which modified the definitions of site coverage and GRFA. The Perot residence will be reviewed under the "old" regulations until a TCO is issued on the structure. • II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY •April 23 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 6 -0, denied the applicant's appeal of a decision of the zoning administrator, regarding the definition of "site coverage." May 14. 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 7 -0, unanimously approved a site coverage variance request for this site. The request was for 21% site coverage, which the staff supported. However, this was modified during the PEC hearing and the PEC subsequently approved a 22.1% site coverage variance. The request was for an addition to the existing structure, which included an attached 3 -car garage. The PEC found that the existing structure and the steep slopes on the lot created a physical hardship. May 16,1990 - The Design Review Board, by a vote of 4 -0 -1, granted final design approval for the Perot residence, and also approved a request for an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA. The request was approved with conditions. July 23 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 7 -0, unanimously approved the applicant's request for a site coverage variance. This variance request included the demolition of the existing single family home and called for the construction of a new single family home, with an attached 3 -car garage on the site. The applicant's request was for . 20% site coverage, (the zoning code allowed a maximum site coverage of 15 %). August 15, 1990 - The Design Review Board, by a vote of 4 -0, unanimously approved the applicant's request to .demolish the existing single family residence and to construct a new residence with an attached 3 -car garage on the site. The applicant's request included the use of the 250 ordinance. August 16, 1990 - The Town of Vail Community Development Department issued a building permit to allow for the construction of a new single family residence on the lot. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Total site area - 15,682 sq. ft. Allowable site coverage - 2,352 sq. ft., or 15% Existing site coverage - 1,154 sq. ft., or 70 Proposed site coverage - 3,159 sq. ft., or 20% Allowable GRFA - 3,818 sq. ft. Additional re uest - 250 s . ft. Total allowable GRFA - 4,068 sq. ft. Constructed GRFA - 4,068 sq. ft. • IV. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS • A. Relationship to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff's opinion is that the proposed front setback variance request, if approved, would have no significant impact upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. No existing or proposed landscaping would need to be modified in order to allow for the expanded entry vestibule to be constructed as proposed in the front setback. B. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the ob'ectives of this title. In order to ensure uniformity of treatment of sites in the general vicinity, it is the staff opinion that the setback variance request should not be approved. We believe that the applicant has taken full advantage of the development standards for this site, such as GRFA and site coverage, as well as the allowance for the garage to be placed in the front setback area. We are unable to identify any special circumstances or unique situations which exist solely on this property, and which would allow us to support the applicant's request for the front setback variance. The staff is of the opinion that approval of this requested variance would be a grant of special privilege, and we believe that the setback variance request does not warrant relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code. C. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities utilities schools, parks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities The staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant negative effect upon any of the above considerations. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same is district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or . materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . The staff recommendation on the applicant's request for a front setback variance is for a denial. Staff has been unable to identify a physical hardship, and we are of the opinion that there are no unique or unusual circumstances that exist on this lot that are not found on other lots in the general vicinity and within the P/S zone district. The staff also believes that, given the extent of this demolition /rebuild construction project, the applicant could have designed this entry vestibule without requesting a front setback variance. We believe that access from the garage into the main residence could have been designed in a manner that would have allowed an entry vestibule to be constructed without the need for a setback variance. The staff does not find that the requested variance meets any of the findings as listed in Section IV of this memorandum. • u GW i1- •, r f 5l�� y Is i •x k: f "l M SAY t fw k .s � a ��s Hey f i /• �.a Y ' �f f + ul r 5l�� y Is i •x k: f "l M SAY t fw k .s � a ��s Hey f i /• �.a Y ' L Ofl Existing gate /will location --- ti Setback line Proposed location I IT PROPOSED SECURITY GATE REVISION ti additional 56-25 sq. ft. ii • n F c•1 I � + 7_ C _ CL I -I- if: : i Ult bA �h 4 •5 u� � U 4 IS 1 I L41 of ulfv jL •, _I , _ I n 11 o , JJJ _ - i i- �►� -�Ir�- Dow W I I } It QL • _... y1 21 r ra 4 1 \ - . y i' i p TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable housing unit; and A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single- Family District, 18.12 - Two -- Family Residential District and 18.13 - Primary /Secondary Residential zone district to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use; and A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster District, 18.16 - Low Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple 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, 18.36 - Public Use District, and 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation District to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use; and . A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development /zoning standards for affordable housing units. Applicant: of Vail :...:....::: ...........................:..: ::::::::....:,.::.... ...........................::.: T. Background and History Beginning in January of 1990, the Town of Vail, assisted by the consulting firm of Rosall, Remmen, Cares (RRC), 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 local residents, both year -round and seasonal. The Town Council immediately appointed a Housing Task Force, which included representation from the Council, the PEC and community members at large. Following many months of study, work sessions and public hearings with the Council and the PEC, the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study was unanimously approved (by a vote of 6 -0) by the Town Council on November 20, 1990. 0 1 TT. Descri tion of the Re gists • Following completion and adoption of the Affordable Housing Study, the planning staff is now proposing to implement the Phase I recommendations as outlined in the housing study. The Phase I recommendations consist of the following: A. Provision for one deed - restricted, affordable housing unit in the Single Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Primary /secondary Residential zone districts. The purpose of this amendment is to allow for the addition of one deed - restricted, affordable housing unit per Single Family, Duplex, or Primary /Secondary lot in the low density neighborhoods of the Town, while continuing to maintain the existing character of the low density residential areas. The affordable housing unit would be listed as a Conditional Use in each of the above named zone districts. B. The provision for deed - restricted affordable housing units to be located in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Use . District and Ski Base /Recreation zone districts. As similarly stated in paragraph A above, the purpose of this amendment is to allow for the addition of a deed- - restricted, affordable housing unit in the above -named zone districts, while continuing to maintain the character of each specific zone district. The affordable housing unit would be listed as a Conditional Use in each of the zone districts. C. The creation of a new definition, of "affordable housing unite. The specific purpose of this amendment is to encourage the provision of affordable housing units in a manner which would be cost effective, and at the same time provide a quality living environment for its occupants, in a manner that is sensitive to the neighborhood's scale, density and overall design. Affordable Housing Units will be classified into three categories; Type I, Type II, and Type III, as more specifically defined below. It should be clearly pointed out that with the creation of an "affordable housing unit ", all other development /zoning standards within each specific zone district will be required to be met. do 2 • III. Staff Recommendation 0 in order to implement the Phase I recommendations of the Housing Study, as outlined in Section II of this memorandum, the staff is proposing the following zoning code amendments: A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family District, 18.12 Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary Residential District shall be amended to allow one Affordable Housing Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit - Type I, as further provided by Section 18.58.330." B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density Multiple Family, 18.18 Medium Density Multiple Family, 18.22 Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I, 18.26 Commercial Core II, 18.27 Commercial Core III, 18.28 Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial Business District, 18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/ Recreation Zone Districts shall be amended to allow for Affordable Housing Units, Types - II and III, as a Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as further provided by Section 18.58.330 ". "Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as further provided by Section 18.58.330 ". C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be amended to include a new definition as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable Housing Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a restricted floor area, that shall be used for long -term rentals, or ownership, by local employees in the Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas) for the specific purpose of housing. 0 3 D. The addition of a new Section 18.58.330, within the Supplemental Regulations of the Town of Vail Zoning • Code, to provide the specific development /zoning standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types I, II and III. The specific language shall be as follows: 1) 1118.58.330 Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) -� Type I The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft., and shall include a bath. Full kitchen facilities shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not exceed 2 persons. The unit shall be located within or attached to the existing unit or units, according to Section 18.54.050,(11)(1,2) of the Town of Vail zoning code. When an existing detached garage is located on the property, the Type I AFU may be incorporated into the garage, so long as all the existing, enclosed parking remains. The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary use of the property as a single family, primary /secondary or duplex residence. . - The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as a long term rental to local residents, according to Section 18.13.080(B) of the Town of Vail zoning code. One additional paved parking space is required per unit, and the addition of enclosed parking is strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and berming. If the property is undeveloped, or if the existing structure is proposed to be demolished and replaced, one enclosed parking space shall be required for the Type I AFU. The architectural design, materials and colors of the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with the existing structures on the site. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of adjacent uses or structures. All development /zoning standards, listed in each specific zone distract, shall be met and, in addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to double its capacity for 0 4 handling trash and storage. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. - The Type I AFU shall be calculated as 0.5 dwelling units for density purposes. Any project proposing Type I AFUs will not be allowed to exceed the maximum allowable GRFA for the zone district if the 0.5 density standard is used. -- The 11250 Ordinance" may be used to provide square footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. If the 250 Ordinance is used for the Type I AFU in new construction, the 250 sq. ft. may not be used in the future for any further additions to the residence. The two owners of a duplex or primary /secondary residence may combine their 250 square foot allotment to create a 500 square foot Type I AFU, if the property meets all the requirements of the 250 Ordinance. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 2) 1118.58.330 Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type II • - The Type II AFU shall range in size from 450 square feet to 900 square feet, and shall include a bath. Full kitchen facilities shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type II AFU shall not exceed two persons per bedroom. The parking requirements shall be one parking space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking requirement shall be two spaces. All required parking shall be paved, and all surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and berming. - Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line or the provision of a shuttle service shall be required. - The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed restricted as an affordable, long term rental according to Section 18.13.080(B). - All development /zoning standards, listed in each specific zone district, shall be met and, in addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the • 5 site has the ability to handle the added capacity for trash and storage. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. The Type II AFU shall be calculated as 0.5 dwelling units for density purposes. Any project proposing Type II AFUs will not be allowed to exceed the maximum allowable GRFA for the zone district if the 0.5 density standard is used. All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 3) 1118.58.330 Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type III The Type III AFU shall range in size from 200 square feet to 300 square feet, including a bath and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall consist of, as a minimum, a sink, small refrigerator and microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities and a lounge area shall be required for each five, Type III AFUs in each building. Storage lockers and laundry facilities shall also be provided. . - A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs shall be allowed per building. one paved parking space per Type III AFU shall be required. All surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and berming. - Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line or the provision of a shuttle service shall be required. - The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be one person per unit. Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated at 0.333 of one dwelling unit. Any project proposing to utilize the Type III AFU shall not be allowed to exceed the allowable GRFA of the zone district, if the 0.333 density standard is utilized. All development /zoning standards, listed in each specific zone district, shall be met and, in addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to handle the added capacity for trash and storage. All trash facilities shall 0 6 be required to be enclosed. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 of the Town of Vaal Municipal Code." IV. ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED A) Should the Town of Vail control, monitor or set rental rates? B) Should the Town proceed with the Type III AFU? The Type III AFU received a cool reception by the public during the public review process. • 0 7 . PETER COSGRIFF JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. TIMOTHY H. BERRY ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUB LAW OFFICES COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SUITE 300 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WE5T VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TELEPHONE: (303) 476 -7552 TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 7 February 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 IN LEADVILLE; C05GRIFF, DUNN & BERRY A O. BOX II LEADVILLE,COLORADO 80461 (710) 486 -Ia95 RE; Christiania Lodge Density Variance Hearing This office has, for the past several months, represented Mill Creek Court Condominium Association in association with several proceedings which were represented to be associated with applications of the owners of the Christiania Lodge for various approvals and variances required for the addition of a new floor containing two residential condominiums on top of the existing Christiania Lodge. Since the time of our • earlier appearance before the Town of Vail, we also have been engaged to oppose the Christiania Lodge project by Mr. and Mrs. Jack Baylin, owners of a unit within the Chateau Christian Condominiums which will be adversely affected by the variance(s) under consideration and by the proposed expansion of the Christiania Lodge. Mr. and Mrs. Baylin's late participation in this proceeding was the result of the fact that the Christiania remodeling proposal was first represented to Mr. Baylin as a modification which would increase the roof line by approximately 3 -1/2 feet. His discovery that the new root line would be between 14 and 16 feet higher than the existing eave over which he enjoys a view of much of Vail prompted his opposition to the redevelopment proposal as a whole. our first involvement in the Christiania Lodge project was in association with and opposition to what were then identified as variances from the density, setback, and parking requirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. After those questions were abandoned upon our first client's objection, we learned that the Design Review Board would consider a significantly modified development plan. We raised objections before the Design Review Board based upon what we believed to be the non - compliance of the proposal with certain prerequisites contained in the Vail Municipal Code. Upon examination, the Town Attorney agreed with our position that consideration of the revised proposal was in violation of the prohibitions relating to • expansion of nonconforming uses, and design review consideration THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP, P.C.IN VAIL. of the proposal was deemed improper. Following the determination that Design Review Board consideration of the revised Christiania Lodge proposal was in violation of the Vail Municipal Code, we learned that the question of the Christiania Lodge expansion had been set for a hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission on the 11th of February, 1991, for the purposes of considering a variance on a question of density. It is in association with that hearing that this letter is being directed to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. you may note that I have made no reference to any "application" which is under consideration by the Town of Vail. Upon and on several occasions since our involvement in this proceeding, I requested the opportunity to review the application and files related to the proceeding. Although I was permitted to review a file in November, 1990, prior to a hearing scheduled for three variance requests on the 26th of November, and to review several conflicting sets of plats subsequent to that time, the Department of Community Development denied that any file existed until the Town Attorney intervened and I was permitted to review two files related to the project on the afternoon of the 5th of February, six days before the hearing now scheduled for the 11th • of February. An initial examination of the files seemed to indicate that there had never been an application made to the Town of Vail for any density, setback, or parking variance scheduled for the 26th of November, 1990, or the density variance scheduled for consideration on the 11th of February, 1991, despite the fact that those variance questions had been processed by the Town of Vail as early as October, 1990. In fact, the only application ever filed with the Town of Vail was a Design Review Board review application filed on or about the 3rd of September, 1990, which was apparently summarily denied processing because of the obvious conflicts between the application and applicable code requirements. Upon a thorough review of the two files represented to be in existence on the 6th of February, I was able to confirm that, in fact, there have been no applications for density, setback, or parking variances filed with the Town of Vail through that date. The response of the Department of Community Development representative was that she would contact counsel for the Christiania Lodge owners and request that an application be filed. For more than two months, there has been some difficulty identifying exactly what relief the owners of the Christiania Lodge were applying for. The reason for that difficulty has become apparent. No relief has been applied for. Apparently there has been under discussion and consideration within the Town of Vail Department of Community Development a desire on the part • of the owners of the Christiania Lodge to engage in a X • redevelopment project, and that desire has been molded by the owners and the staff in an effort to identify a method by which a redevelopment program may meet the standards and criteria imposed by the Vail Municipal Code, without ever reducing a proposal to the form_ of an application which can be reviewed by concerned parties`or considered by a reviewing Commission or Council. Such a process is not authorized by the Municipal Code, and makes it impossible for any interested person with legitimate objections to analyze a proposal and provide the Town of Vail with a critique. At any given time, criticisms may be made of a specific set of plans, and a different set of plans surfaces. The Vail Municipal Code requires, at Section 18.62.020, that an [a]pplication for a variance shall be made on a form provided by the zoning administrator. According to the records which have been made available, no application has ever been filed, either in the case of this variance consideration or that which was before the Town of Vail in October and November, 1990. As a matter of note, neither is there any evidence in the files that the fee directed to be paid by Section 18.62.030 has been paid to the Town of Vail. A public hearing may not be scheduled in anticipation of or in the absence of an application for a density variance. The Vail Municipal Code provides, at Section 18.62.040, as . follows: Upon receipt of a variance application, the planning commission shall set a date for hearing in accordance with Section 18.62.070. There exists no authority to schedule a hearing upon or otherwise consider a variance for which no application has been made. An application for a density variance, when filed, is required to contain considerable information, among that is [a] statement of the precise nature of the variance requested, the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title that. would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. Section 18.62.020. Because of the absence of any application, the required information has never been supplied or identified. In fact, there is not so much as a letter requesting any relief in the nature of the variance, a written communication of any type from the owners of the Christiania, or any memoranda by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission suggesting that a request was made of the Town of Vail verbally requesting any identifiable relief. Granted, there are various conflicting plats in the possession of the Town of Vail which . seem to indicate that a number of redevelopment plans have been considered and reviewed by the planning staff. The most recent plans exhibit "paste--ups" where the Town of Vail staff has apparently attempted to modify plats which have been provided on previous occasions by affixing drawings or portions of revised . plats supplied by the Christiania owners or their representatives. None of this material constitutes an application or an identification of any proposed variance or its justification. it is apparent, based upon the foregoing circumstances, that consideration of density, setbacks, or parking variances are not only premature, but that the questions are not properly before the Town of Vail. Even if the applicant were to file proper applications and identify the relief which is sought, it is impossible for any interested parties to adequately review an application filed two or three weeks after a notice of a public hearing is published and circulated. There being no application for a density variance or any other variance, relief, or approval, before the Town of Vail, other than a Design Review application which was recognized for its inadequacy at an early date, the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing regarding a density variance for the Christiania proposal should be canceled until such time as the • proponents can and do file an application identifying the relief sought and justifying that relief in accordance with the Vail Municipal Code. At that time, and not before, the Planning and Environmental Commission may have something before it to consider. Until that time, there is serious question whether the Planning and Environmental Commission has jurisdiction over the matter scheduled for hearing. if, despite the foregoing, the Planning and Environmental Commission decides to consider the question of whether a density variance should be granted to the Christiania project, the following comments should be considered regarding whether the owners of the Christiania are entitled to a density variance: 1. It is the burden of the Christiania owners to satisfy certain specific criteria, in order to be granted a variance under the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Those standards are not particularly different from any other variance. The Planning Commission should consider several specific factors set forth in Section 18.62.060.A. of the Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to the relationship of the requested variance to other uses in the vicinity, the effect of the requested variance on light and air, transportation and traffic facilities, and such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable. A person desiring a variance must establish the aexistence of several specific fact situations identified at Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. Among these are the fact that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, that the granting will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the variance is to be granted either because strict or literal interpretation of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, or that there exist exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site which do not generally apply to other properties, or that strict or literal enforcement would deprive the owners of privileges enjoyed by others. None of these requirements are or can be satisfied. 2. Despite the fact that it is necessary that owners requesting a variance have the burden of proof it must demonstrate that they are entitled to the relief requested, it must be noted that, in the absence of any application or any document whatsoever which might have generated the scheduled hearing, the owners have neither identified the basis for their assertion that they are entitled to relief, nor suggested there is any justification whatsoever for any relief being granted. Absent such an application which provides to the Planning and Environmental Commission and interested parties, notice of the subject matter, scope, and basis of the relief which apparently is at issue before the hearing, neither the Planning Commission . nor interested parties are able to prepare for or address matters which may be under consideration. 3. Based upon the various staff reports contained in the two files whose examination was permitted, a general idea of the proposal which has been developed by the planning staff and /or the owner apparently may be described as the elimination and /or consolidation of accommodation units in a way which reduces the density of the Christiania Lodge (but not to conform with applicable zoning requirements) and attempts to shift a portion of the existing density from existing accommodation units into two new dwelling units which will occupy a newly constructed fourth floor of the structure. As nearly as can be determined from viewing the files and various plans, one dwelling unit will be converted to an accommodation unit by elimination of cooking facilities, two accommodation units would be rendered unusable as independent units because of new construction, and four . accommodation units would be consolidated into two accommodation units but would remain independently accessible and usable if their use were not monitored by the Town of Vail. Apparently the control of these latter units is to be achieved by some commitment on the owner not to rent separately the existing but to- be- consolidated lodge rooms through some covenant with the Town, and the subsequent enforcement of that covenant. The net result is a reduction of dwelling units (or dwelling unit equivalents including calculations for accommodation units) from 27 accommodation units (13 -1/2 dwelling units) to 22 accommodation units (equivalent to 11 dwelling units). As recently as the consideration of the Sonnenalp redevelopment proposal, the Town of Vail has placed considerable emphasis on the maintenance and expansion of its inventory lodge rooms available for rental. The Christiania Lodge variance and associated remodeling would operate to defeat that stated goal. 4. The Town of Vail has under consideration or has been urged to consider view corridors both from the area west of Bridge Street easterly to the Gore Range looking over the Christiania Lodge, and from Gore Creek Drive southerly to Vail Mountain, again looking over the Christiania Lodge. Both of these possible view corridors would be defeated by granting a variance to the Christiania Lodge and by the proposed redevelopment. 5. The Town of Vail Department of Community Development has agreed with our office that the parking presently being used by the Christiania Lodge occupies land over which the owners of Christiania have no record interest. That land is partly owned by Vail Associates, Inc., and is partly a dedicated (but unconstructed) public street. Christiania was granted a parking easement over a different piece of land substantially . smaller than that presently occupied, but, based upon the information available, that land seems never to have been used by Christiania Lodge. It is now used in part for parking by Vail Associates, Inc., and in part by the Town of Vail as a street connecting Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. The Department of Community Development advised the owners of Christiania Lodge, by letter dated the 31st of January, which was discovered by the undersigned yesterday, that the Christiania proposal could not proceed unless it was established that "the property meets parking requirements" and further requiring the owners of the Christiania Lodge to provide written confirmation that V.A. will continue to accommodate the Christiania's parking needs on V.A. -owned property. Vail Associates, Inc., by a letter dated the 4th of February, stated that Christiania Lodge could not be granted any further rights, but that it would be permitted to use the land it is now using "until the present issues, presently being studied, are resolved among VA, Christiania and Town of Vail." Vail Associates has not made any commitment regarding a long -term right for Christiania to use its land, and, in fact, has denied that request. Several things would be accomplished by the approval of a density variance for the Christiania Lodge and the redevelopment plan which apparently has most recently been . developed. None of those possible accomplishments are desirable. First, the Town of Vail looses one - quarter of the lodge rooms presently available in the Christiania Lodge. Second, the Town of Vail assumes the difficult, if not impossible, burden of monitoring whether or not adjacent rooms which are eminently suitable for and have been used separately as Lodge rooms for more than 20 years will no longer be used as separate accommodation units. Third, the owners of the Christiania Lodge will obtain a dispensation which they will be permitted to construct two large residential condominiums, which, by their nature and price, are extremely unlikely to join any rental program. Fourth, the residents of and visitors to the Town of Vail will lose a significant part of their views of the Gore Range from the south end of Bridge Street. Fifth, the density of the Christiania Lodge will remain essentially unchanged, in violation of applicable Vail Municipal Code standards. Finally, a parking situation under which the Christiania Lodge uses (a) a tract of land to which it has no right and (b) a dedicated (but unconstructed) public street will remain tenuous and inadequate support for a lodge operation. It should be observed that some argument has been made to the Town of Vail that a 1968 agreement to engage in some property exchanges and street vacations is binding upon the Town of Vail, Vail Associates, Inc., and the owners of Christiania Lodge. "Such an assertion is difficult to take seriously. Based upon the information available, it seems that the street which has long been maintained on the east side of the Mill Creek Court Building has existed and been a part of the Town of Vail street system since the time the Town was established. Since it clearly has existed for almost 30 years, there can be little question that the Town has adverse possession of that street and it cannot be evicted. At the same time, the Town of Vail owns a dedicated street through the center of the property presently occupied by Vail Associates and Christiania Lodge parking facilities. There is apparently some desire on the part of various owners of property in the east Village that the area between the Mill Creek Court building and Villa Valhalla be developed for underground parking and that a public area be created on the surface. The Town of Vail, through its ownership of at least one - third, and probably closer to one -half, of the affected land, has the ownership rights to make that happen. However, achieving that end is not consistent with the approval of a density variance for the Christiania Lodge which would rely upon, and thereby possibly estop the Town of Vail from objecting to, Christiania Lodge's occupancy and use, as a parking area, of approximately one -half of the property owned by the Town of Vail. Legal title to the area between the Mill Creek Court building and Villa Valhalla is, even now, so tangled that the cooperative development of that property, or even the identification of the . various rights and interests, would be a significant challenge. ., I • • The suggestion that the Town should place itself at a further disadvantage in any such negotiations or determinations is truly injurious to the Town's interests. It certainly ignores the desires of the residents and owners of properties in the neighborhood that something logical happen to the property presently used without authority by Christiania Lodge but owned by the Town of Vail and by Vail Associates, Inc. In summary, there is no application properly before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for consideration on the 11th of February. If an application is filed prior to the hearing, that application will not have been filed as required by the Municipal Code and both the notice and any hearing based upon such a tardy application would be invalid. At such time as the owners of the Christiania Lodge file an application for a density variance (or any other relief permitted under the Municipal Code), the Town of Vail may then have a question before it to consider. That has not yet occurred. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to consider the question of the density variance for the Christiania without an application, or even with a tardy application, the information available clearly establishes that a density variance would be inappropriate, in violation of the Vail Municipal Code, and counter - productive to the Town's stated position that lodge rooms should be increased and not diminished, as is inherent in the Christiania redevelopment program. The hearing scheduled for consideration of a possible density variance for the Christiania Lodge should be canceled, and, if the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to hold such a hearing, any suggestion that a variance should be granted should be denied. AAA;3 xc: Jay Peterson Mill Creek Court Jack Baylin Larry Eskwith arc \v\TOVPLNGA 40 Condominium Association PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION , March 25, 1991 AGENDA NOV �� I 1:30 Site Visits 2:15 Air Quality - PEC update on road sanding practices in the Town of Vail. Susan Scanlan /Pete Burnett 3:00 Public Hearing Site Visits 3. 1. A request for a conditional use permit in order to have a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 16, Vail Village 11th Filing, 2910 Aspen Court. Applicant: Patricia D. Funk 2. A request to rezone the following parcels from Hillside Residential Zoning Section 18.09 to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zoning 18.38 within a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an �- approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Tract A: Beginning at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron post with a 3" diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range; thence, along the southerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, S89 46137 11W 900.07 ft, to an existing #4 rebar with an aluminum cap (PLS 16827) marking the intersection of said southerly line and the existing ROW fenceline for I -70; thence, along said ROW fenceline, N73 52116 11W 215.13 ft to an existing 2" x 2" angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in said ROW fenceline; thence, continuing along said ROW fenceline N66 52157 11W 240.74 ft, to an existing 1/2" diameter steel pin with 1 1/2" diameter BLM brass cap marking the intersection of said ROW fenceline and the westerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence, departing said ROW fenceline and along said westerly line N00 21128 11W 63.50 ft; thence, departing said westerly line, 141.00 ft along . the arc of a curve to the left, having a . , radius of 85.00 ft, a central angle of 95 02 "4711, and a chord which bears NOa 21128 11W 125.38 ft to another point on said westerly line, thence N00 21'28 1'W 108.14 ft, along said westerly line; thence, departing said westerly line, 64.81 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 125.00 ft, a central angle of 29 42'2111, and a chord which bears S61 40122 11E 64.09 ft; thence S76 31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence 62.73 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 2975.00 ft, a central angle of 01 1212911, and a chord which bears S75 551'18 11E 62.73 ft; thence S75 19103 11E 376.12 ft; thence 159.14 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1025.00 ft, a central angle of 08 5314411, and a chord which bears S79 45155 11E 158.98 ft; thence S84 12147 11E 344.03 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence SOO 11'12 "E 160.08 ft, along said easterly line, to the point of beginning, containing 7.742 acres, more or less. Tract B: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron post with a 3' diameter BIM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said . Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range; thence N37 12119 11W 1077.36 ft to the True Point of Beginning; thence 58.12 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 245.00 ft, a central angle of 13 3513511, and a chord which bears N59 42159 11W 57.99 ft; thence N66 30146 11W 44.39 ft; thence 84.47 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central angle of 193 3513511, and a chord which bears N30 17101 11E 49.65 ft; thence S52 55'12 11E 106.60 ft; thence S37 04148 11W 32.00 ft to the True Point of Beginning, containing 0.1183 acres, more or less. Tract C: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron post with a 3" diameter BIM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range; thence, along the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, N00 11'12 "W 210.36 ft, to the True Point of Beginning; thence, departing said easterly line, N84 12147 11W 338.80 ft; thence 151.37 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 975.00 ft, a central angle of 08 5314411, and a chord which bears N79 45155 11W 151.22 ft; thence N14 4015711E 50.00 ft; thence N88 . 16129 11E 257.20 ft; thence N12 58117 11E 50.00 ft; thence S77 01143 11E 122.32 ft; thence 69.23 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 125.00 ft, a central angle of 31 4410311, and a chord which bears S61 09142 11E 68.35 ft; thence S45 17141 11E 35.99 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence S00 11112 "E 80.12 ft, along said easterly line, to the True Point of Beginning, containing 1.085 acres, more or less. Tract A, B, and C are referenced per the approved subdivision Final Plat for Spraddle Creek. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. 1. 3. A request for setback and wall height variances for the Neuswanger Residence, 2642 Cortina Lane, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger 2. 4. A request for setback and site coverage variances and an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead ist Filing Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier 5. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable housing unit. Applicant: Town of Vail Housing Authority Representatives will attend the PEC meeting to discuss the following worksession items: 6. A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single- Family District, 18.12 - Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 - Primary/ Secondary Residential District to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster District, 18.16 - Low Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple 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 - . r . Commercial Service Center District, 18.29 - Arterial. Business District and 18.36 - Public Use District, 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation District; to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 8. A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal. Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development /zoning standards for affordable housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail 9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991 meeting. 10.-" Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design Review Board for April, May and June • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION i March 25, 1991 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Jim Shearer Gena Whitten Staff Jill Kammerer Shelly Mello Susan Scanlan Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 2:50PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. Worksession - PEC update on road sanding practices in the Town of Vail The road sanding update was presented by Susan Scanlan, Environmental Health Officer, and Pete Burnett, Acting Director of Public Works. As a part of the presentation on the Town's road sanding practices, Pete presented samples of the sanding . material used by Public Works. The Town uses volcanic cinders on all of the Town roads with the exception of the streets in the Village core. The core area is "sanded" with 3/8" granite chips. Pete presented samples of the clean cinders prior to use and samples of the cinders after the material is swept from the road surface. Pete explained that to recycle the material they sweep from the streets would probably not be cost effective, as the material would have to be washed and screened to prevent the re- application of fine, dirty material. The cinders are relatively soft and tend to break down easily, which creates a certain amount of fine dust. Pete further explained that while the granite chips used in the core area are a cleaner sanding material and do not have the tendency to break down, they are too heavy when loaded into the Unimogs. A load of the granite chips in the Unimog would exceed the axle weight for the vehicle. There would also be a greater problem with broken and cracked windshields when hit with the granite chips because of the hardness of the material. Pete presented a sample of the material used for sanding by the Colorado Department of Highways. The material is a combination of granite chips, sand and salt. He explained that there is no measuring done by CDOH when these materials are applied to the road surface. They are simply applied indiscriminately during periods of snowfall or anticipated icing of the roads. 1 . Pete said that it is his policy to sweep the roads when they are dry between snow storms and when weather conditions permit. Pete indicated that it takes roughly four days to clean up the sanding material used at the 4 -way intersection for one period of snowfall. The Town sweeper cleans the residential streets in Town and the South Frontage Road from the Blue Cow Chute to the Lionshead bus turnaround. When asked what was the cleanest sanding material available, Susan Scanlan related that the EPA is currently doing a study on the durability and cleanliness of various sanding materials. The study is expected to be completed within the next 8 weeks, and the information will be relayed to the PEC. Susan also stated that Steamboat Springs has submitted samples of their sanding material for this study. This material is the same material used by the Town of Vail. It is expected that the EPA will develop guidelines for acceptable sanding materials based on the results of this study. Jim Shearer wondered if there is a machine which could both sweep and vacuum. Pete answered that you can get them, but they are very expensive. Discussion followed concerning how much of the Town is sanded. Pete said that many streets are sanded which may not normally need sanding. He would like to be able to only do streets with a certain slope and intersections with stop signs. He would like some direction from the Town Council that Public Works could reduce their sanding in this manner. Pete hated to do more graveling than necessary, because he said that gradually the gravel will take over a yard. He does tell people that if they rake their yards to the edge of the road, the Town will pick up the gravel at the road edge. Pete estimated that they only sweep up about half the total amount of sand or gravel that is put down. Tom Steinberg felt that the biggest problem was the Highway Department. He felt that if the Highway Department would spend more money and listen to Pete, they would change their method of sanding. Tom stated that the Highway Department supervisors meet with the Board once a year, and suggested that perhaps Pete could make a 15 minute presentation. The person who makes the decision is the one who writes the checks. Pete suggested it should be a joint venture between the Highway Department and the Town. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Town could do the on and off ramps. Pete replied that the Town is only budgeted to do 32 miles of Town because of the cost of the sweeper and salary to pay the workers. Pete explained that continuing to sweep larger areas of CDOH roads will lead to budget overruns and shortened life expectancy of the sweeper. The CDOH policy with regard to iq • • • sw6opinj is to sweep once in May and once in October to permit road striping to occur. Diana Donovan felt that the Commission did not have enough information to make a recommendation, and Tom Steinberg indicated that after more information was obtained, the Commission would receive that information. One of the Commission members asked who sanded the.Frontage Road. Pete replied that the state and the Town both did. This past year, the Town had done more than in the past, because they kept getting calls from the Police Department to sand the road. Pete's concern about using chemicals in combination with sanding material was that it would affect the water quality. He was concerned that the Highway Department was considering the use of calcium magnesium. Pete was asked where he stored the sand which had been swept up. He said they stockpile it and give it to people who need it for fill. The remainder is hauled to the dump. The Commission felt it was vital to deal with the Highway Department as well as the Town of Vail roads, and asked for more information. Pete and Susan agreed to come back with more information at a later date. At 3:26PM, the public hearing was called to order. 1. A request for a conditional use permit in order_ to have a_ bed and breakfast operation on Lot 16, Vail _Village 11th Filing, 2910 Aspen Court. Applicant: Patricia D. Funk Betsy Rosolack explained the request for the conditional use permit. Betsy reviewed the criteria and findings and the requirements for a bed and breakfast. She stated that staff recommended approval, because they felt all applicable review criteria and findings had been satisfactorily met. Betsy then read a letter from Frank Wimer opposing the bed and breakfast. Pat Funk, the applicant, responded to each part of the letter. In response to the paragraph about the bed and breakfast being a commercial operation, Pat said this is a home stay operation. She did not feel it was commercial. Mr. Wimer stated he felt the Council was not highly focused when the bed and breakfast proposal was considered. Pat's response was that the Council was highly focused, the review was very extensive and lasted many months. Another part of the letter from Mr. Wimer stated that he felt the owner of the other half of the duplex would probably not want to 3 have a B &B. Betsy replied that the owner of the other half of the duplex had been notified, as had the other adjacent property owners. Pat Funk also mentioned that Mr. Wimer had been up last weekend, and she was home, but he did not come over and talk with her about this. Diana Donovan mentioned that this was the first bed and breakfast anyone had opposed. She stated that since this was a conditional use, any problems which might arise could be dealt with. There could also be conditions in the approval. Chuck pointed out that the level of a bed and breakfast is not very different from a short term rental. Diana reminded him that in a bed and breakfast the owner has to be in residence. Shelly Mello mentioned that.she had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Wimer, and he felt strongly that the bed and breakfast was a commercial use in a neighborhood, and would have an adverse affect on the property values. Connie Knight moved to approve the bed and breakfast per the staff memo, and according to the findings under which conditional uses were to be approved. Specifically, those conditions are: . 1. 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. 2. 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. n U 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. Chuck Crist seconded the motion, and the vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. A request to rezone the following parcels from Hillside Residential Zoning Section 18.09 to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zoning 18.38 within a parcel commonly referred to as S raddle Creek an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Tract A: Beginning at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron ost with a 3" diameter BLM brass ca marking the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range; thence, along the southerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, S89 4 • • 46137 11W 900.07 ft, to an existingr #4 rebar with an aluminum_ ca j2 (PLS 16827 marking the intersection of said southerly line and the existing ROW fenceline for I -701 thence, along said ROW fenceline N73 52116 11W 215.13 ft to an existing 2" x 2" angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in said ROW_ fenceline; thence, continuing along said ROW fenceline N66 52157 11W 240.74 ft, to an existing 1/2" diameter steel pin with 1 1/2" diameter BLM brass cap marking the intersection of said ROW fenceline and the westerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence, departing said ROW fenceline and along said westerly line N00 21128 "W 63.50 ft; thence, departing said westerly line 141.00 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 85.00 ft, a central angle of 95 02147" and a chord which bears N00 21128 "W 125.38 ft to another point on said westerly line thence N00 21128 11W 108.14 ft aloncr said westerly line; thence departing said westerly line, 64.81 ft along the arc of _a curve to the left havincT a radius of 125.00 ft a central angle of 29 4212111, and a chord which bears S61 40122 "E 64.09 ftr_.thence S76 31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence 62.73 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 2975.00 ft, a central_ anale of 01 12129 ", and a chord which bears S75 55118 11E 62.73 ft; thence S75 19'03 11E 376.12 ft along the arc of a curve to the left ha 1025.00 ft, a central angle of 08 53144" bears S79 45'55 "E 158.98 ft; thence S84 the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; 160.08 ft, along said easterly line, to hPrfinnina. containina 7.742 acres, more Commencina at an f and a chord whic 14711E 344.03 ft hence S00 11'12" e point of " diameter iron post with a 3' diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8_of said Township and Range; thence N37 12119 11W 1077.36 ft to the True Point of Beginning; thence 58.12 ft along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 245.00 ft a central angle of 13 35135" and a chord which bears N59 42159 11W 57.99 ft; thence N66 30146 11W 44.39 ft; thence 84.47 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central_ angle of 193 35135" and a chord which bears N30 17101 "E 49.65 -ft; thence S52 55112 11E 106.60 ft; thence S37 04148 11W 32.00 ft to the True Point of Beginning, containing 0.1183_ acres more or less. . Commencina at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron " diameter BLM brass c of said SPrtinn 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Ranae; thence, along the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, NU.O 11'12 "W 210.36 ft to the True Point of Beginning; thence departing said easterly line, N84 12'47"W 338.80 ft; thence 151.37 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 975.00 ft a central angle of 08 53144" and a 5 chord which bears N79 45155 "W 151.22 ft; thence N14 _40_'5731E 50.00 ft; thence N88 16129 "E 257.20 ft; thence N12 58117 "E 50.00 ft; thence S77 01143 "E 122.32 ft; thence_ 69.23 ft aloncr the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 125.00 ft, a central angle of 31 44103 ", and a chord which bears S61 09142 "E 68.35 ft; thence S45 17141 "E 35.99 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence S00 11'12 "E 80.12 ft, along said easterly line, to the True Point of Beginning,containing 1.085 acres more or less. Tract A B and C are referenced per the approved subdivision Final Plat for Spraddle Creek. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. Shelly Mello explained the request to rezone certain parcels Greenbelt and Natural Open Space from Hillside Residential. According to the memo, on February 11, 1991, the final plat for a major subdivision for Spraddle Creek was approved with several conditions. One of the conditions was that after final plat recording, and before any building permits were released for site improvements or residences, the rezoning of the open tracts would be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone for the open tracts was Natural Greenbelt and Open Space. The applicant chose to proceed with the rezoning prior to the recording of the final plat. The staff will not proceed with the second reading of the rezoning at the Council level until the final plat has actually been recorded. This was to ensure that the legal descriptions for the open space tracts match exactly the open space tracts listed on the subdivision plat. Shelly then read the evaluation of the zone change request with regard to suitability of the existing zoning, the amendment preventing a convenient working relationship with land uses, whether the rezoning provided for the growth of an orderly, viable community, and the fact that the land use plan designated this area as Hillside Residential and the Greenbelt Natural Open Space district was intended to keep the sites in the natural state. She stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning, and that the request was carrying out a condition of approval per the Planning and Environmental Commission's conditions of approval for the final plat. Joe Macy and Shelly also showed road, grading and slope easements on the site plan. The proposed I -70 interchange would not be on the Spraddle Creek property, but grading may be necessary on Spraddle Creek property. Shelly stated that if the new exit from 1 -70 is put in place, the Planning Commission would probably review the plan. Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval per the staff memo, with the notation that the southwest corner of Tract A provide a slope easement for regrading should the Highway Department need to use 6 0 it in order to provide a new I -70 exit_. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 -2, with Chuck Crist and Ludwig Kurz abstaining due to conflict of interest. 3. A request for a setback and wall height variances for Neuswanger Residence 2642 Cortina Lane Lot 6 Block Vail Ridge__._ Applicant: Chris Neuswanger Jill Kammerer reviewed the request for a front yard setback and wall height variances for the Neuswanger residence. Staff recommended approval of the front setback variance, and denial of the wall height variance. The applicant, Chris Neuswanger, explained there would be backfill on the north side of the wall to create drainage away from the proposed residence. Therefore, the walls on the north side would hardly be visible from the north (Cortina Lane). The requested wall height variances on the south side could be reduced approximately two feet. With this reduction, the south side of the eastern retaining wall would be 10 feet above grade rather than 13 feet and the south side of the western wall would be a maximum of 8 feet above grade. Ludwig Kurz inquired as to whether or not the wall height variance was directly related to wanting the flat area near the home. Chris replied that they were. He proposed to make a flat area of 4,500 sq. ft., in an area he thought was a logical placement. He also felt the walls created a natural break. Kathy Langenwalter asked about the distance of the pavement of Cortina Lane to the garage door, and was told that it was 19 feet. She asked that it be 20, as that was what Public Works would ask for in order to avoid the possibility of having cars parked on the drive project into the street. Regarding the GRFA under the garage, she felt she could support it because it was underneath the garage, and if not used as GRFA, this dead space would just be fill. She felt putting the GRFA under the garage did tend to reduce the total bulk of the building. However, Kathy could not support a wall height variance of any kind. She felt it violated use of the hillside. She did not feel it was appropriate to create a flat space on a hillside. She also believed that the hardship for the wall had been created by the applicant and there were other areas on the site where this flat area could be created without the need for high walls. Kathy mentioned to Mr. Neuswanger that he would not get much sun on the east side in the afternoon. Chris indicated that his personal preference was to have his hot tub on the east side. He had previous east facing decks he felt had gotten quite a bit of 7 use. He felt a hot tub on the east side of this residence would be more private, better sheltered, and more aesthetically pleasing. Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy. Ludwig Kurz disagreed with Kathy. He felt that he could support the wall height variance with the height reduction which had been presented. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a front yard setback, subject to the applicant providing a minimum of 20 feet of driveway from the face of the garage to the edge of paving on Cortina Lane. She also moved to deny the wall height variances. Kathy indicated the motion for approval of the front setback variance was supported by Findings A, B and C(1 -3) as set forth in the staff memo. Additionally, Kathy could support the front setback variance because the GRFA was below the grade of the road which would reduce the appearance of the height of the building from Cortina Lane. Regarding the denial of the wall height variance, Kathy felt approving the wall height variance would be a grant of special privilege, and the need for a wall height variance was a self - imposed hardship. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -2 in favor of the motion, with Chuck Crist and Gena Whitten in opposition. Chuck felt the wall height variance should be allowed because the steep lot was a hardship, i.e., the hardship was not self imposed. Gena stated that she would like to see Mr. Neuswanger re -work the plan rather than simply vote against it. 4. A request for setback and site coverage variances and an Jill Kammerer described the request for setback and site coverage variances, as well as the exterior alteration request. Diana Donovan mentioned that the Commission had heard this proposal two or three times previously, and would like to simply discuss the changes. Jill replied that one of the concerns raised by the Commissioners at the March 11 worksession, which has been addressed under this plan, is the point at which the addition's roof intersects the second floor balconies above. The gray metal roof will slope continuously, and intersect with the existing building at the base of the floor level of the second floor balconies. Jill also explained that, on other presentations, there had been no resolution of the landscaping. A few months previously, on February 18, 1991, members of the Town staff had met with a couple of members of the Lionshead Merchants Association in order to get direction on what the merchants may want to see in terms of landscaping in the area adjacent to the Lifthouse Condominium Building. Those merchants present expressed a desire to have additional landscaping • installed in this area in order to increase shade and create a sense of enclosure. In response to merchants concerns, the current proposal calls for the installation of six shade trees adjacent to the existing Lifthouse. Four of these trees would be installed along the west facade and two on the south facade. In addition, staff has requested the applicant install a planter with a large evergreen in the middle of the circular paving area north of the Gondola Cafe. This tree could serve as a landmark for the Lionshead area. In conjunction with the installation of the trees and evergreen, the applicant has proposed to eliminate a 50 square foot corner of the existing flagpole planter. Jill explained the proposal for the expansion of the Lodge and the landscaping met the Lionshead Urban Design plan criteria. Galen Aasland, project architect, showed the changes in the elevations which have occurred since the last meeting. These changes included: elimination of the small commercial space storefront which projected out from the rest of the facade; changing the entrance to Pedal Power from an angled configuration to a flush entrance; modifying the connection point of the roof of the addition to the existing building; moving the entrance to the Lifthouse Condominiums forward approximately 2 feet so it is flush with the rest of the building facade; modifying the roof over the entrance to the condominiums to a gabled form; modifying the columns in front of the other commercial spaces to 1 sq. ft. square columns while retaining the log look only in front of Banner Sports. The Commission discussed these modifications, including the use of circular logs adjacent to Banner Sports and the use of rectangular logs, painted the same color as the trim, on the rest of the building addition. Diana asked if the roof overhung the property line. Galen said it did not. With regard to the six inch setback, Kathy asked what was six inches from the property line. Galen replied that some of the stone, roof overhang and front facia band were six inches from the property line. Diana wanted to know the extent to which the mall would be disturbed in constructing the foundations for the addition. Jill indicated the foundations for the addition are already in place. Bob Lazier, the property owner, verified that this was in fact the case. In response to questions from Diana and Kathy, Galen indicated the roof slope would be 2 :12 and that gutters would be concealed behind the facia band. Kathy was not comfortable with the long facia band. She stated she had opposed it at other meetings. She believes the band should undulate as the building facade does, and not go straight across. She was also uncomfortable with the roof form at the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech entrance, and felt the columns made the space too tight. 9 • Chuck Crist asked the architect to explain the color scheme £o37 the addition. Galen indicated the stucco would be the same color as the existing stucco, the facia band would be blue, the circular (log) and square columns will be light gray and the roof will be anthracite gray. Bob Lazier indicated he had tried to create a separate identity for the Pedal Power commercial space through this addition. Bob asked Kathy what form she would like to see at this location. Kathy answered she liked the angled form better, and felt something smaller should be done there. Bob indicated there would be a shelf for display of merchandise behind the high transom windows. Jim Shearer felt the planters (tree grates) should be against the building, and the facia board should undulate in and out as Kathy suggested. Jill indicated that, in order to install trees adjacent to he building, the trees needed to be eight feet from the face of the building to allow for branch growth. Public comment was next. Dan Mulrooney, president of the Lionshead Merchant's Association, spoke. He requested the Commission vote on the building and make a decision on the landscaping plan after construction on the building was completed. . Bill Orr, manager of Colorado Insight, opposed the circular planter with the evergreen. He thought such a planter would completely block the view of his store. Bill supported Mr. Mulrooney's idea of waiting to do the landscaping until construction on the building was completed. Kathy asked Bill what landscaping he would support. Bill felt the problems inherent in Lionshead were programmatic and not related to the design or landscaping of the mall. He would support activity, and would like to see the stage utilized. Diana asked Bill how he would reply to the statement that some of the merchants had given the staff with regard to the fact that the plaza was hot in the summer and people did not want to be there because the area lacked shade. Bill disagreed, repeating that the proposed evergreen tree would be a physical barrier to his store, would block visibility of 50% of his store and some of the other stores at the far end of the mall, and would therefore impact his livelihood. He was also concerned with the impact the tree would have on the visibility to his store when the tree grows. Bill favored low plantings which would not have as much visible impact. He also felt the fire truck issue had not been resolved. Jill explained the fire truck had been out to the site on two occasions, and staff believed, with the modifications to the previously proposed planter, and the removal of one light pole, the fire truck could maneuver. 0 10 Chuck Crist asked Bill if he would oppose placing aspen troop in • the circular planter. Bill said he did not, but felt art at this location might be even better. He would like to see a plan everyone could agree with. Gary Haubert, of the Lionshead Bar and Grill, was concerned about the view corridor. He presented photos showing the pedestrian activity in the area for the Commission to review, and presented a petition against the construction of the circular planter which had 18 signatures. He gave a little history on the west end of Lionshead, stating that years ago, the Landmark Building had been allowed to slide out into the mall. He was concerned with the circular planter's impact on sight corridors to the west. He felt there was no pedestrian link between the major Lionshead bed -base and the Mall. He also felt there was no continuation of a walkway to the west end. When the Sunbird was vacant, people would get to the circular planter area and turn back. He added that, for about a year, he had been working with the Town to improve Lionshead, and would like to have had some input. He believed there needed to be a coordinated plan. He felt many mistakes had been made in Lionshead. He agreed with Dan Mulrooney and would like to wait until the building was completed to decide the landscaping issue. He did not oppose the proposed addition. Once the Lifthouse Condominium addition was completed, Gary thought the landscaping could be coordinated using Lionshead Merchant and Lazier project funds. 40 Jill asked Gary if the Lionshead merchants would be willing to commit Lionshead Merchant's funds to landscaping. Gary replied that he was not opposed to using some of those funds, but the merchants wanted input as to what landscaping was going to be installed. He felt the traffic pattern was different from what the staff had indicated. Jill repeated that the staff had met with some of the Merchant's Association members in February, and had responded to what staff thought were Association concerns. She felt that Lionshead needed a focal point to draw people. She did not believe that the traffic pattern of pedestrians would be disrupted. In addition, she theorized that people needed something to draw them further into the mall. Discussion followed as to how to do the landscaping later, and how to specify the amount of money to be put into the landscaping. Diana asked the audience for a show of hands of who was against the evergreen. Most of the people indicated their opposition. By a further show of hands, those present indicated their opposition to a grove of aspen in the same location, and their support of a water feature or the placement of art. Bob Lazier said it sounded to him if the tree were moved back, there would not be opposition to it. Connie asked Bob if he 0 11 would be agreeable to placing money aside for landscaping and . going ahead with the building. Bob replied he was amenable to proceeding in th`s fashion. He wanted to obtain a building permit before the parking fee was raised from $5,000 to $8,000 per space. He would escrow funds for the landscaping work. He also said that he felt the Lionshead merchants should have a say in the landscaping. Dan Mulrooney wanted Mr. Lazier to start construction as soon as possible, so construction would not disrupt the summer program. Diana believed all considerations must be balanced for the good of all involved. Dave Reiker, a building contractor, pointed out that if the landscaping were delayed through summer, it could be installed in the fall. Chuck asked if the planters could be built later. Galen replied they could. Jill Kammerer then explained $30,000 was the estimated cost to do the proposed landscaping, to remove and relocate two light fixtures, to construct the circular planter as well as the other planters, and to totally remove the existing flag planter (which had been considered under a previous design). Geoff Wright, manager of the Landmark, felt Jill had done a pretty good job so far. He thought the tree was a good idea, but also felt there was a need to listen to all of the Lionshead merchants. He reminded the Commission the applicant was asking for a setback into the mall. This addition would require the removal of pavers which had been paid for by all of the Lionshead owners. Galen reminded Geoff that Mr. Lazier had also helped to pay for the pavers. Martin Soloman, one of the owners of the Concert Hall Plaza, felt the improvements on the Lifthouse Lodge would be very positive. With regard to the landscape, he reflected that if there were several low planted areas with seating, he would support that. Jill suggested Mr. Lazier consider escrowing $30,000. If additional funds were necessary, the Lionshead merchants could contribute to the fund. Dan Mulrooney felt comfortable with that arrangement. Bob Lazier had no objection to that escrow amount. Diana Donovan felt it was critical the Planning Commission address the landscaping, and wanted to make it clear the $30,000 was to lessen the impact of the Lifthouse Lodge addition. Bob Lazier indicated each process he had gone through had improved the building. He did not think the building negatively impacted the area. Diana responded that the $30,000 for landscaping was partially to mitigate the impact of the variances being given to the Lifthouse. 40 12 Kathy wanted to keep the two trees adjacent to the entry to tho • Lifthouse Lodge Condominiums to as part of the addition construction. She stated planting in this area would be on Lifthouse property. Kathy wondered if a motion could be made without the landscaping. Chuck Crist stated he thought there could be a motion made on the building without addressing the landscaping. Diana thought the landscaping should come back to the Planning Commission for review after the merchants had worked on it, to see if the Commission's concerns had been addressed. Kathy was more comfortable with the variances than with the exterior alteration. Diana felt confident that if the breaks were made in the facia band, and the Design Review Board knew the PEC's concerns about the design of the Pedal Power commercial space roof lines, the exterior alteration could be approved. The landscaping would have to be dealt with later, but not three years from now. She suggested the Lionshead Merchants Association come back to the PEC with a landscaping proposal in late August so that it could be addressed by the PEC the second meeting in September (September 23, 1991). She also felt that no Certificate of Occupancy should be approved without the landscaping. The applicant felt he would not be occupying the building until the landscaping was completed. Galen wanted an agreement to be made. Jill's concern was everyone agree to the solution. . Dan Mulrooney stated the Lionshead merchants would contribute money for any agreed -to landscaping which exceeded the $30,000 of escrowed Lazier funds. Jill asked Dan if they would also contribute money for design work. Dan replied they would. Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval of the site coverage and setback variances and exterior alteration with the following conditions: 1. The landscaping off of_the Lifthouse Lodge property be worked out with the Lionshead Merchant's Association and coordinated with the Community Development Department staff and presented for review at the September 23, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. 2. In lieu of a landscaping plan at this time, the applicant will place $30,000 in escrow for landscape improvements. 3. The planter on the applicant's property in front of the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium entrance be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the addition. 4. The facia band on the west wall undulate with the facade of the building. is 13 4 S. The columns near the Pedal Pawnr /Vail Ski Tnch entrance be • removed. 6. The entrance to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech space be carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board. 7. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board to carefully look at how the detailing of the logs /columns will relate to the proposed facade. 8. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board review how the planter can better tie into the building. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The vote was a unanimous 7 -0 in favor of the motion. 5. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable_ housing unit Applicant: Town of Vail 6. A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single- Family District, 18.12 - Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 -- Primary/ Secondary Residential District to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. request for a worksession_ to amend Chapters 18.14 - _A Residential Cluster District 18.16 - Low Density Multi le Family District 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple 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 and 18.36 - Public Use District 18.39 - Ski Base Recreation District• to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. Applicant: Town of Vail 8. A request for a worksession to amend Chester 18.58 of the Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development/zoning development/zoning standards for affordable housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Peggy Osterfoss from the Housing Authority met with the Planning Commission in response to questions the Commission had brought up during the March 11, 1991 meeting. Peggy explained that the Authority had been meeting twice a week in order to become familiar with funding, legal restrictions and terms. With regard to restrictions, enforcement and rental issues, Peggy felt the • 14 I Authority was not yet ready to deal with those issues. • The Commission's concern was passing the changes to the zoning code without the restrictions and enforcement being in place. They were especially concerned about regulating the amount of rent that could be charged. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, felt it was appropriate to set guideline criteria and require that the criteria be set by the Town Council or their designee. One concern was how would the rents and restrictions be enforced and monitored. Diana Donovan was concerned that the restrictions be run as long as the building stands, rather than a certain number of years. Peggy replied that the guidelines -would be determined, and she suggested a joint session between the Housing Authority and the Planning Commission. Diana stressed that the Housing Authority must have the ability to address the problems without passing another ordinance. After more discussion, Diana moved to recommend the zoning changes to the Town Council as set forth in the staff memo. These are, specifically, A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family Distract, 18.12 Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary Residential District shall be amended to allow one Affordable Housing Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit -- Type I, as defined under Section 18 .58.330 (A) . " B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density Multiple Family, 18.18,medium Density Multiple Family, 18.22 Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I, 18.26 Commercial Core II, 18.27 Commercial Core III, 18.28 Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial Business District, 18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/ Recreation Zone Districts shall be amended to allow for Affordable Housing Units, Types - II and III, as a Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as defined under Section 18.58.330(B) ". "Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as defined under Section 18.58.330(C) ". C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be amended 0 15 0 • to include a now definition as follows! "Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable Housing Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a restricted floor area, that shall be used for long -term rentals, or ownership, by employees in the Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail, Avon and their surrounding areas) ". D. The addition of a new Section 18.58.330, within the Supplemental Regulations section of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, to set forth the specific development and zoning standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types I, II and III. The specific language shall be as follows: 1) 1118.58.330(A) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) -_Type _I - The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft. A bath and full kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not exceed 2 persons. The unit shall be located within or attached to the existing unit or units, according to Section 18.54.050 (I) - Duplex and Primary /Secondary Development, of the Town of Vail zoning code. The Type I AFU may be incorporated into a detached, or attached, garage provided the garage is located within the required setbacks, and provided all existing, enclosed parking remains. The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary use of the property as a single family, primary /secondary or duplex residence. - The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as a long -term rental to local residents, according to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control, of the Town of Vail zoning code. - One paved parking space is required for the Type I AFU, and the addition of enclosed parking is strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type I AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on- -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be 0 16 eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. It the property is undeveloped, or if the existing structure is proposed to be demolished and replaced, a minimum of one enclosed parking space shall be required on the site. - The architectural design, materials and colors of the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with the existing structures on the site. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of adjacent uses or structures. All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, height, parking and landscaping), as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code.- In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to double its capacity for handling trash and storage. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. - Only lots which meet, or exceed, the minimum lot size requirement of the zone district shall be eligible for a Type I AFU. Based on the assumption that the current "250 Ordinance" will be deleted from the Town's zoning code, the staff is proposing the 250 continue to be allowed only for the provision of square footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. Each lot, as opposed to each dwelling unit, would be allowed an additional 250 square feet of GRFA, only if this additional 250 square feet is used specifically for the construction of a Type I AFU. Requests for the 250 allowance will be processed by the Town on a first -come, first -serve basis. Properties which have already received the 250 allowance, under the "old" 250 Ordinance, will not be eligible to receive additional GRFA under this provision. All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 0 17 2) 1118.58.330(B) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Typo II - The Type II AFU shall range in size From 450 square feet to 900 square feet. A bath and full kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type II AFU shall not exceed two persons per bedroom. - The parking requirements shall be one parking space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking requirement shall be increased to two spaces. All required parking shall meet the parking standards of the underlying zone district and all surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type II AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within • reasonable walking distance) or the provision of • private van /shuttle service shall be required. . The intent of this requirement is to discourage the use of private automobiles and to encourage the use of the public bus system within the Town. The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed restricted as an affordable, long -term rental housing unit according to Section 18.13.080(B) -- Density Control. - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, height, parking and landscaping) as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to handle additional trash and storage demands. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. -- All existing, platted lots which are less than the required minimum lot size of the zone district, shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit for Type II AFU's. 0 18 The Type II AFU shall be calculated as 0.5 dwelling units for density purposes. All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 3) "18.58.330(C) Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type-III - The Type III AFU shall range in size-from 200 square feet to 300 square feet, and shall include • bath and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall, as • minimum, consist of: a sink, small refrigerator and microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities and a lounge area shall be required for every five, Type III AFUs in each building. Common storage lockers and laundry facilities shall also be provided in each building. - A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs per building is recommended. However, with proper justification this number can be exceeded. It must be clearly proven by the applicant that an increase in the recommended maximum number of AFU's per building . will have no negative impacts on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity. one parking space per Type III AFU shall be required. All required parking shall meet the parking standards of the underlying zone district and all surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type III AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. - Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within • reasonable walking distance) or the provision of • private van /shuttle service shall be required. The intent of this requirement is to discourage the use of private automobiles and to encourage the use of the public bus system within the Town. - The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be one person per unit. is 19 - Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated at 0.333 of one dwelling unit. - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to handle additional trash and storage demands. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. All existing, platted lots which are less than the required minimum lot size of the zone district, shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit for Type III AFU's. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." In addition, Diana felt that the rent management would be handled by an entity appointed by the Town Council. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Gena so Whitten having left the meeting. 9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Grist seconded to approve the minutes as written. The vote was 6 -0. • 10. Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design Review Board for April, May and June Jim Shearer agreed to be on the Design Review Board for the month of April. At that point, the Commission would determine if Gena would be willing to serve during May and June. Chuck Crist volunteered to serve during July- September. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM. 20 Kathy wanted to keep the two trees adjacent to the entry to the Lifthouse Lodge Condominiums to as part of the addition construction. She stated planting in this area would be on Lifthouse property. Kathy wondered if a motion could be made without the landscaping. Chuck Crist stated he thought there could be a motion made on the building without addressing the landscaping. Diana thought the landscaping should come back to the Planning Commission for review after the merchants had worked on it, to see if the Commission's concerns had been addressed. Kathy was more comfortable with the variances than with the exterior alteration. Diana felt confident that if the breaks were made in the facia band, and the Design Review Board knew the PEC's concerns about the design of the Pedal Power commercial space roof lines, the exterior alteration could be approved. The landscaping would have to be dealt with later, but not three years from now. She suggested the Lionshead Merchants Association come back to the PEC with a landscaping proposal in late August so that it could be addressed by the PEC the second meeting in September (September 23, 1991). She also felt that no Certificate of Occupancy should be approved without the landscaping. The applicant felt he would not be occupying the building until the landscaping was completed. Galen wanted an agreement to be made. Jill's concern was everyone agree to the solution. . Dan Mulrooney stated the Lionshead merchants would contribute money for any agreed -to landscaping which exceeded the $30,000 of escrowed Lazier funds. Jill asked Dan if they would also contribute money for design work. Dan replied they would. Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval of the site coverage and setback variances and exterior alteration with the following conditions: 1. The landscaping off of the Lifthouse Lodge property be worked out with the Lionshead Merchant's Association and coordinated with the Community Development Department staff and presented for review at the September 23, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. 2. In lieu of a landscaping plan at this time, the applicant will place $30,000 in escrow for landscape improvements. 3. The planter on the applicant's property in front of the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium entrance be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the addition. 4. The facia band on the west wall undulate with the facade of the building. • 13 .7 • • use. He felt a hot tub on the east side of this residence would be more private, better sheltered, and more aesthetically pleasing. Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy. Ludwig Kurz disagreed with Kathy. He felt that he could support the wall height variance with the height reduction which had been presented. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a front yard setback, subject to the applicant providing a minimum of 24 feet of driveway from the face of the garage to the edge of paving on Cortina Lane. She also moved to deny the wall height variances. Kathy indicated the motion for approval of the front setback variance was supported by Findings A, B and C(1 -3) as set forth in the staff memo. Additionally, Kathy could support the front setback variance because the GRFA was below the grade of the road which would reduce the appearance of the height of the building from Cortina Lane. Regarding the denial of the wall height variance, Kathy felt approving the wall height variance would be a grant of special privilege, and the need for a wall height variance was a self- imposed hardship. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -2 in favor of the motion, with Chuck Crist and Gena Whitten in opposition. Chuck felt the wall height variance should be allowed because the steep lot was a hardship, i.e., the hardship was not self imposed. Gena stated that she would like to see Mr. Neuswanger re -work the plan rather than simply vote against it. 4. A request for setback and site coverage variances and an Jill Kammerer described the request for setback and site coverage variances, as well as the exterior alteration request. Diana Donovan mentioned that the Commission had heard this proposal two or three times previously, and would like to simply discuss the changes. Jill replied that one of the concerns raised by the Commissioners at the March 11 worksession, which has been addressed under this plan, is the point at which the addition's roof intersects the second floor balconies above. The gray metal roof will slope continuously, and intersect with the existing building at the base of the floor level of the second floor balconies. Jill also explained that, on other presentations, there had been no resolution of the landscaping. A few months previously, on February 18, 1991, members of the Town staff had met with a couple of members of the Lionshead Merchants Association in order to get direction on what the merchants may want to see in terms of landscaping in the area adjacent to the Lifthouse Condominium Building. Those merchants present expressed a desire to have additional landscaping is 5. The columns near the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech entrance be removed. 6. The entrance to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech space be carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board. 7. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board to carefully look at how the detailing of the logs /columns will relate to the proposed facade. 8. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board review how the planter can better tie into the building. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The vote was a unanimous 7 -0 in favor of the motion. 5. 6. 7. go Applicant: Town of Vail A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.10 - Sin le -Famil District 18.12 - Two-Family Residential District and 18.13 - Primary/ Secondary Residential District to allow affordable housina units as a Conditional Use_. licant: A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster District 18.16 - Low Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple 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 and 18.36 - Public Use District, 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation District; to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use. A licant: Town of Vail units. Applicant: Town of Vail Peggy Osterfoss from the Housing Authority met with the Planning Commission in response to questions the Commission had brought up during the March 11, 1991 meeting. Peggy explained that the Authority had been meeting twice a week in order to become familiar with funding, legal restrictions and terms. with regard to restrictions, enforcement and rental issues, Peggy felt the 14 • it in order to provide a new 1 -70 exit.. Gena Whitten nneondod the motion. The vote was 5 -0 -2, with Chuck Crist and Ludwig Kurz abstaining due to conflict of interest. 3. A request for a setback and wall height variances for the Neuswanger Residence, 2642 Cortina Lane, Lot . 6. :._ Block B, Vail Ridge_. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger Jill Kammerer reviewed the request for a front yard setback and wall height variances for the Neuswanger residence. Staff recommended approval of the front setback variance, and denial of the wall height variance. The applicant, Chris Neuswanger, explained there would be backfill on the north side of the wall to create drainage away from the proposed residence. Therefore, the walls on the north side would hardly be visible from the north (Cortina Lane). The requested wall height variances on the south side could be reduced approximately two feet. With this reduction, the south side of the eastern retaining wall would be 10 feet above grade rather than 13 feet and the south side of the western wall would be a maximum of 8 feet above grade. Ludwig Kurz inquired as to whether or not the wall height variance was directly related to wanting the flat area near the home. Chris replied that they were. He proposed to make a flat area of 4,500 sq. ft., in an area he thought was a logical placement. He also felt the walls created a natural break. Kathy Langenwalter asked about the distance of the pavement of Cortina Lane to the garage door, and was told that it was 19 feet. She asked that it be 20, as that was what Public Works would ask for in order to avoid the possibility of having cars parked on the drive project into the street. Regarding the GRFA under the garage, she felt she could support it because it was underneath the garage, and if not used as GRFA, this dead space would just be fill. She felt putting the GRFA under the garage did tend to reduce the total bulk of the building. However, Kathy could not support a wall height variance of any kind. She felt it violated use of the hillside. She did not feel it was appropriate to create a flat space on a hillside. She also believed that the hardship for the wall had been created by the applicant and there were other areas on the site where this flat area could be created without the need for high walls. Kathy mentioned to Mr. Neuswanger that he would not get much sun on the east side in the afternoon. Chris indicated that his personal preference was to have his hot tub on the east side. He had previous east facing decks he felt had gotten quite a bit of 7 Authority was not yet ready to deal with those issues. The Commission's concern was passing the changes to the zoning code without the restrictions and enforcement being in place. They were especially concerned about regulating the amount of rent that could be charged. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, felt it was appropriate to set guideline criteria and require that the criteria be set by the Town Council or their designee. One concern was how would the rents and restrictions be enforced and monitored. Diana Donovan was concerned that the restrictions be run as long as the building stands, rather than a certain number of years. Peggy replied that the guidelines would be determined, and she suggested a joint session between the Housing Authority and the Planning Commission. Diana stressed that the Housing Authority must have the ability to address the problems without passing another ordinance. After more discussion, Diana moved to recommend the zoning changes to the Town Council as set forth in the staff memo. These are, specifically, A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family District, 18.12 Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary Residential District shall be amended to allow one Affordable Housing Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit - Type I, as defined under Section 18.58.330(A)." B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density Multiple Family, 18.18 Medium Density Multiple Family, 18.22 Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I, 18.26 Commercial Core II, 18.27 Commercial Core III, 18.28 Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial Business District, 18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/ Recreation Zone Districts shall be amended to allow for Affordable Housing Units, Types - II and III, as a Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as defined under Section 18 .58 .330 (B) "Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as defined under Section 18.58.330(C) ". • C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be amended 15 • 50.00 ft; thence N88 16'29 "E 257.20 50.00 ft: thence S77 01143 "E 122.32 along the arc of a curve to the right, having a of 125.00 ft, a central angle of 31 44'03_ ", and a chord which bears S61 09142 11E 68.35 ft; thence S45 17141 11E 35.99 ft to Tract A, B, and Care referenced per the approved subdivision Final Plat-for S raddle Creek. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. Shelly Mello explained the request to rezone certain parcels Greenbelt and Natural Open Space from Hillside Residential. According to the memo, on February 11, 1991, . the final plat for a major subdivision for Spraddle Creek was approved with several conditions. One of the conditions was that after final plat recording, and before any building permits were released for site improvements or residences, the rezoning of the open tracts would be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone for the open tracts was Natural Greenbelt and Open Space. The applicant chose to proceed with the rezoning prior to the recording of the final plat. The staff will not proceed with the second reading of the rezoning at the Council level until the final plat has . actually been recorded. This was to ensure that the legal descriptions for the open space tracts match exactly the open space tracts listed on the subdivision plat. Shelly then read the evaluation of the zone change request with regard to suitability of the existing zoning, the amendment preventing a convenient working relationship with land uses, whether the rezoning provided for the growth of an orderly, viable community, and the fact that the .land use plan designated this area as Hillside Residential and the Greenbelt Natural Open Space district was intended to keep the sites in the natural state. She stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning, and that the request was carrying out a condition of approval per the Planning and Environmental Commission's conditions of approval for the final plat. Joe Macy and Shelly also showed road, grading and slope easements on the site plan. The proposed I -70 interchange would not be on the Spraddle Creek property, but grading may be necessary on Spraddle Creek property. Shelly stated that if the new exit from 1 -70 is put in place, the Planning Commission would probably review the plan. Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval per the staff memo, with the notation that the southwest corner of Tract A provide a slope easement for regrading should the Highway Department need to use • 6 • C7 U to include a new definition as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable Housing Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a restricted floor area, that shall be used for long -term rentals, or ownership, by employees in the Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail, Avon and their surrounding areas) ". D. The addition of a new Section 18.58.330, within the Supplemental Regulations section of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, to set forth the specific development and zoning standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types I, II and III. The specific language shall be as follows: 1) 1118.58.330(A) Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type I -- The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft. A bath and full kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not exceed 2 persons. The unit shall be located within or attached to the existing unit or units, according to Section 18.54.050 (I) - Duplex and Primary /Secondary Development, of the Town of Vail zoning code. The Type I AFU may be incorporated into a detached, or attached, garage provided the garage is located within the required setbacks, and provided all existing, enclosed parking remains. -- The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary use of the property as a single family, primary /secondary or duplex residence. - The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as a long -term rental to local residents, according to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control, of the Town of Vail zoning code. - One paved parking space is required for the Type I AFU, and the addition of enclosed parking is strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type I AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be WA.- 46'3711W 900. 07 ft, to an oxistiho -r #4 rebar with an aluminum . ca PLS 16827 marking the intersection of said southerly line and the existing ROW fenceline for 1 -70; thence, along said ROW fenceline, N73 52116 11W 215.13 ft to an existing 2" x 2" angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in said ROW fenceline; thence continuing alonq said ROW fenceline N66 52157 11W 240.74 ft, to an existing 1/2" diameter steel ]2in with 1 1 2" diameter BLM brass cap marking the intersection of said ROW fenceline and the westerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence, departing said ROW fenceline and along said westerly-line N00 21128 "W 63.50 ft; thence de artin said westerly line, 141.00 ft along the arc of a_curve to the left having a radius of 85.00 ft a central angle of 95 02'4711, and a chord which bears N00 .21_'_28 "W 125.38 ft to another point on said westerly line, thence N00 21_128 11W 108.14 ft, along said westerly line; thence, departing said westerly line, 64.81 ft along the__arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 125.00 ft a central angle of 29 42'2111, and a chord which bears S61 401_22 11E 64.09 ft; thence S76 31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence_ 62.73 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 2975.00 ft a central angle of 01 12129 ", and a chord which bears S75 55118 11E 62.73 ft; thence S75 19103 11E 376.12 ft; thence 159.14 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, havinga radius of 1025.00 ft, a central angle of 08.53'44 ", and a _chord which bears S79 45155 11E 158.98 ft; thence S84 12147 "E 344.03 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4i thence S00 11112 "E . 160.08 ft, along said easterly line, to the point of beginning, containing 7.742 acres more or less. Tract B: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron nost with a 3' diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range;_ thence N37 12119 "W 1077.36 ft to the True Point of Beginning; thence 58.12 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 245.00_ft, a central angle of 13 35135" and a chord which bears N59 4259 "W 57.99 ft; thence N66 30146 11W 44.39 ft; thence 84.47 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central angle of 193 35135" and a chord which bears.N30 17101 "E 49.65 ft; thence S52 55112 11E 106.60 ft,- thence S37 04148 "W 32.00 ft to the True Point of Beginning, containing 0.1183 acres, more or less. Tract C: Commencing at an existing 2 l 2" diameter iron post -with a 3" diameter BLM brass ca markin the 1/4 co of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Ran hence, al 11'12 "W 210.36 ft, to the True_ Point of.Beginning; thence, departing said easterly line N84 12147 "W.338.80 ft; thence 151.37 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, h_avinq_a radius of 975.00 ft, a central angle of 08 53'44", and _a. P-.� ■ eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. If the property is undeveloped, or if the existing structure is proposed to be demolished and replaced, a minimum of one enclosed parking space shall be required on the site. - The architectural design, materials and colors of the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with the existing structures on the site. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of adjacent uses or structures. - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, height, parking and landscaping), as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to double its capacity for handling trash and storage. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. - Only lots which meet, or exceed, the minimum lot size requirement of the zone district shall be eligible for a Type I AFU. - Based on the assumption that the current "250 Ordinance" will be deleted from the Town's zoning code, the staff is proposing the 250 continue to be allowed only for the provision of square footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. Each lot, as opposed to each dwelling unit, would be allowed an additional 250 square feet of GRFA, only if this additional 250 square feet is used specifically for the construction of a Type I AFU. Requests for the 250 allowance will be processed by the Town on a first -come, first -serve basis. Properties which have already received the 250 allowance, under the "old" 250 Ordinance, will not be eligible to receive additional GRFA under this provision. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 17 2) "18.58.330 (B) Affordable Housin Vnit APU - T e TT �- The Type II AFU shall range in size from 450 square feet to 900 square feet. A bath and full kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type II AFU shall not exceed two persons per bedroom. - The parking requirements shall be one parking space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking requirement shall be increased to two spaces. All required parking shall meet the parking standards of the underlying zone district and all surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type II AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within • reasonable walking distance) or the provision of • private van /shuttle service shall be required. The intent of this requirement is to discourage the use of private automobiles and to encourage the use of the public bus system within the Town. -- The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed restricted as an affordable, long -term rental housing unit according to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control. - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, height, parking and landscaping) as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to handle additional trash and storage demands. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. All existing, platted lots which are less than the required minimum lot size of the zone district, shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit for Type II AFU's. is 19 - Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated at 0.333 of one dwelling unit. - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to handle additional trash and storage demands. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. All existing, platted lots which are less than the required minimum lot size of the zone district, shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit for Type III AFU's. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." In addition, Diana felt that the rent management would be handled by an entity appointed by the Town Council. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Gena so Whitten having left the meeting. 9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Grist seconded to approve the minutes as written. The vote was 6 -0. • 10. Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design Review Board for April, May and June Jim Shearer agreed to be on the Design Review Board for the month of April. At that point, the Commission would determine if Gena would be willing to serve during May and June. Chuck Crist volunteered to serve during July- September. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM. 20 - The Type TT AFU shall be calculated as 0.5 dwelling units for density purposes. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 3) 1118.58.330(C) Affordable Housin Unit AFU - Type III The Type III AFU shall range in size from 200 square feet to 300 square feet, and shall include • bath and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall, as • minimum, consist of: a sink, small refrigerator and microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities and a lounge area shall be required for every five, Type III AFUs in each building. Common storage lockers and laundry facilities shall also be provided in each building. - A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs per building is recommended. However, with proper justification this number can be exceeded. It must be clearly proven by the applicant that an increase in the recommended maximum number of AFU's per building will have no negative impacts on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity. - One parking space per Type III AFU shall be required. All required parking shall meet the parking standards of the underlying zone district and all surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type III AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within • reasonable walking distance) or the provision of • private van /shuttle service shall be required. The intent of this requirement is to discourage the use of private automobiles and to encourage the use of the public bus system within the Town. The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be one person per unit. 20 . PAte said that it is his policy to nwnnn the roads wh4?n they are • dry between snow storms and when weather conditions permit. Pete indicated that it takes roughly four days to clean up the sanding material used at the 4--way intersection for one period of snowfall. The Town sweeper cleans the residential streets in Town and the South Frontage Road from the Blue Cow Chute to the Lionshead bus turnaround. When asked what was the cleanest sanding material available, Susan Scanlan related that the EPA is currently doing a study on the durability and cleanliness of various sanding materials. The study is expected to be completed within the next 8 weeks, and the information will be relayed to the PEC. Susan also stated that Steamboat Springs has submitted samples of their sanding material for this study. This material is the same material used by the Town of Vail. It is expected that the EPA will develop guidelines for acceptable sanding materials based on the results of this study. Jim Shearer wondered if there is a machine which could both sweep and vacuum. Pete answered that you can get them, but they are very expensive. Discussion followed concerning how much of the Town is sanded. Pete said that many streets are sanded which may not normally need sanding. He would like to be able to only do streets with a • certain slope and intersections with stop signs. He would like some direction from the Town Council that Public Works could reduce their sanding in this manner. Pete hated to do more graveling than necessary, because he said that gradually the gravel will take over a yard. He does tell people that if they rake their yards to the edge of the road, the Town will pick up the gravel at the road edge. Pete estimated that they only sweep up about half the total amount of sand or gravel that is put down. Tom Steinberg felt that the biggest problem was the Highway Department. He felt that if the Highway Department would spend more money and listen to Pete, they would change their method of sanding. Tom stated that the Highway Department supervisors meet with the Board once a year, and suggested that perhaps Pete could make a 15 minute presentation. The person who makes the decision is the one who writes the checks. Pete suggested it should be a joint venture between the Highway Department and the Town. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Town could do the on and off ramps. Pete replied that the Town is only budgeted to do 32 miles of Town because of the cost of the sweeper and salary to pay the workers. Pete explained that continuing to sweep larger areas of CDOH roads will lead to budget overruns and shortened life expectancy of the sweeper. The CDOH policy with regard to 0 2 — Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated at 0.333 of one dwelling unit. - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to handle additional trash and storage demands. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. All existing, platted lots which are less than the required minimum lot size of the zone district, shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit for Type III AFU's. All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." In addition, Diana felt that the rent management would be handled by an entity appointed by the Town Council. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Gena Whitten having left the meeting. 9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Crist seconded to approve the minutes as written. The vote was 6 -0. 10. Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design Review Board for April, May and June Jim Shearer agreed to be on the Design Review Board for the month of April. At that point, the Commission would determine if Gena would be willing to serve during May and June. Chuck Crist volunteered to serve during July - September. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM. 21 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • March 25, 1991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Jill Kammerer Diana Donovan Shelly Mello Connie Knight Susan Scanlan Ludwig Kurz Betsy Rosolack Kathy Langenwalter Jim Shearer Gena Whitten The meeting was called to order at 2:50PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. Worksession - PEC update on'road sanding ractices in the Town of Vail. The road sanding update was presented by Susan Scanlan, Environmental Health Officer, and Pete Burnett, Acting Director of Public Works. As a part of the presentation on the Town's road sanding practices, Pete presented samples of the sanding material used by Public Works. The Town uses volcanic cinders on all of the Town roads with the exception of the streets in the Village core. The core area is "sanded" with 3/8" granite chips. Pete presented samples of the clean cinders prior to use and samples of the cinders after the material is swept from the road surface. Pete explained that to recycle the material they sweep from the streets would probably not be cost effective, as the material would have to be washed and screened to prevent the re- application of fine, dirty material. The cinders are relatively soft and tend to break down easily, which creates a certain amount of fine dust. Pete further explained that while the granite chips used in the core area are a cleaner sanding material and do not have the tendency to break down, they are too heavy when loaded into the Unimogs. A load of the granite chips in the Unimog would exceed the axle weight for the vehicle. There would also be a greater problem with broken and cracked windshields when hit with the granite chips because of the hardness of the material. Pete presented a sample of the material used for sanding by the Colorado Department of Highways. The material is a combination of granite chips, sand and salt. He explained that there is no measuring done by CDOH when these materials are applied to the road surface. They are simply applied indiscriminately during periods of snowfall or anticipated icing of the roads. 1 • �J 49 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 25, 1991 RE: A request for a conditional use in order to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast business on Lot 16, Vail Village 11th Filing, 2910 Aspen Court. Applicant: Patricia D. Funk I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfast operations in the Town of Vail with certain criteria. The definition of a Bed and Breakfast given in that ordinance states that: "A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use." A Bed and Breakfast may short term rent separately up to 3 bedrooms or a maximum of 900 square feet of the dwelling unit, whichever is the most restrictive. Ms. Funk has applied for a conditional use permit to allow her to use three bedrooms in her home for Bed and Breakfast rental. Her property is one half of a duplex in a Two Family Residential zone district. The bedrooms and baths contain a total of approximately 600 square feet. Two guests could stay in each bedroom for a total of 6 guests. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town_ The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vaal as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. � • F � r -- All of the development /2oninq standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to handle additional trash and storage demands. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. - All existing, platted lots which are less than the required minimum lot size of the zone district, shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit for Type III AFU's. All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." E. The staff recommendation is for approval of the proposed modifications to the Town's zoning code. The staff acknowledges that some of the above listed development standards are repetitive, in that they are listed elsewhere in the zoning code. However, it is our intent to specifically reiterate said development standards so that applicants can simply, and quickly, review the affordable housing sections of the code and obtain a clear understanding of the Town's requirements. This is not to say that other development standards, such as the design guidelines, do not apply, but to simply list what we believe to be some of the more important standards. 0 8 2. The effect of the use and air, distribution of population, transportation • recreationfacilities, e and other. public and -- - facilities, is facilities needs. • Two guests in each bedroom can be accommodated at one time, and it is unlikely that there would be more than three guest vehicles. There is a bus stop not more than 200 yards from the home. It is felt that the impact on the use of parks and recreation facilities and on transportation facilities would be minimal. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. It is likely there would be at most, three additional vehicles driving to the Funk residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast operations may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast operations shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Off- street designated parking shall be required as follows: One space for the owner/proprietor_plus one space for the first bedroom rented plus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom rented. The Funk property 0 2 contains more than the • `J is 3) 1118.58.330(C) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Type III The Type III AFU shall range in size from 200 square feet to 300 square feet, and shall include • bath and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall, as • minimum, consist of: a sink, small refrigerator and microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities and a lounge area shall be required for every five, Type III AFUs in each building. Common storage lockers and laundry facilities shall also be provided in each building. A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs per building is recommended. However, with proper justification this number can be exceeded. It must be clearly proven by the applicant that an increase in the recommended maximum number of AFU's per building will have no negative impacts on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity. - One parking space per Type III AFU shall be required. All required parking shall meet the parking standards of the underlying zone district and all surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type III AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on- site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. - Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within • reasonable walking distance) or the provision of • private van /shuttle service shall be required. The intent of this requirement is to discourage the use of private automobiles and to encourage the use of the public bus system within the Town. - The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be one person per unit. Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated at 0.333 of one dwelling unit. 7 required three parking spaces. There is a one car garage and room for 4 or more additional . cars to park in front of the garage. b. Enclosed trash, facilities and regular garbage removal service shall--be--provided. Ms. Funk has covered garbage cans in the garage and regular garbage removal service. C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged. There will be no removal of landscaping, d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name plate sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code. e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use property jointly with other property owners, such asparkina spaces or a driveway in duplex subdivisions by wad of example and _ not limitation, the written approval of the other Property owner, owners, or applicable owners! association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a conditional use permit. • Ms. Funk's driveway and parking spaces are entirely on her own property. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. 0 3 V - The parking requirements shall be ane parking space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking requirement shall be increased to two spaces. All required parking shall meet the parking standards of the underlying zone district and all surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type II AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. -- Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within • reasonable walking distance) or the provision of • private van /shuttle service shall be required. The intent of this requirement is to discourage the use of private automobiles and to encourage the use of the public bus system within the Town. The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed restricted as an affordable, long -term rental housing unit according to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control. . - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, height, parking and landscaping) as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to handle additional trash and storage demands. All trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed. All existing, platted lots which are less than the required minimum lot size of the zone district, shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit for Type II AFU's. The Type II AFU shall be calculated as 0.5 dwelling units for density purposes. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 0 6 40 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development staff recommends approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met. c:b &bcu 0 4 M The architectural design, materials and colors of the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with the existing structures on the site. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of adjacent uses or structures. All of the development /zoning standards, set forth in each specific zone district, shall be met (density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, height, parking and landscaping), as well as all of the other applicable provisions of the Town's zoning code. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to double its capacity for handling trash and storage. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. Only lots which meet, or exceed, the minimum lot size requirement of the zone district shall be eligible for a Type I AFU. Based on the assumption that the current 11250 ordinance" will be deleted from the Town's zoning code, the staff is proposing the 250 continue to be allowed only for the provision of square footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. Each lot, as opposed to each dwelling unit, would be allowed an additional 250 square feet of GRFA, only if this additional 250 square feet is used specifically for the construction of a Type I AFU. Requests for the 250 allowance will be processed by the Town on a first -come, first -serve basis. Properties which have already received the 250 allowance, under the "old" 250 Ordinance, will not be eligible to receive additional GRFA under this provision. - All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional Use permit application. Adjacent property owners shall be notified of the public hearing, per Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code." 2) 1118.58.330(B) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Type II The Type II AFU shall range in size from 450 square feet to 900 square feet. A bath and full kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type II AFU shall not exceed two persons per bedroom. 0 5 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 25, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to rezone the following parcels from Hillside Residential Zoning Section 18.09 to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zoning 18.38 within a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Tract A: Beginning at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron post with a 3" diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range; thence, along the southerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, S89 46137 11W 900.07 ft, to an existing #4 rebar with an aluminum cap (PLS 16827) marking the intersection of said southerly line and the existing ROW fenceline for 1 -70; thence, along said ROW fenceline, N73 52'16 "W 215.13 ft to an existing 2" x 2" angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in said ROW fenceline; thence, continuing along said ROW fenceline . N66 52157 11W 240.74 ft, to an existing 1/2" diameter steel pin with 1 1/2" diameter BLM brass cap marking the intersection of said ROW fenceline and the westerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence, departing said ROW fenceline and along said westerly line N00 21128 11W 63.50 ft; thence, departing said westerly line, 141.00 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 85.00 ft, a central angle of 95 0214711, and a chord which bears N00 21'28 "W 125.38 ft to another point on said westerly line, thence N00 21128 11W 108.14 ft, along said westerly line; thence, departing said westerly line, 64.81 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 125.00 ft, a central angle of 29 4212111, and a chord which bears S61 40122 11E 64.09 ft; thence S76 31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence 62.73 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 2975.00 ft, a central angle of 01 1212911, and a chord which bears S75 55118 11E 62.73 ft; thence S75 191103 11E 376.12 ft; thence 159.14 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1025.00 ft, a central angle of 08 5314411, and a chord which bears S79 45155 11E 158.98 ft; thence S84 12147 11E 344.03 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence S00 11'12 "E 160.08 ft, along said easterly line, to the point of beginning, containing 7.742 acres, more or less. • 1 „r D. The addition of a now Section 18.58.330, within th& Supplemental Regulations section of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, to set forth the specific development and zoning standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types I, II and III. The specific language shall be as follows: 1) 1118.58.330(A) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Type I The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft. A bath and full kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not exceed 2 persons. -- The unit shall be located within or attached to the existing unit or units, according to Section 18.54.050 (I) - Duplex and Primary /Secondary Development, of the Town of Vail zoning code. The Type I AFU may be incorporated into a detached, or attached, garage provided the garage is located within the required setbacks, and provided all existing, enclosed parking remains. The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary . use of the property as a single family, primary /secondary or duplex residence. The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as a long -term rental to local residents, according to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control, of the Town of Vail zoning code. One paved parking space is required for the Type I AFU, and the addition'of enclosed parking is strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be screened by a combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a Type I AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town's current parking standards are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required under the Town's current parking standards. If the property is undeveloped, or if the existing structure is proposed to be demolished and replaced, a minimum of one enclosed parking space shall be required on the site. 0 4 Tract B: Commencing at an existing 2 1/211 diameter • iron post with a 3' diameter BLM brass cap ma king the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range; thence N37 12119 11W 1077.3 ft to the True Point of Beginning; thence 58.12 ft long the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius o 245.00 ft, a central angle of 13 3513511, and a chard which bears N59 42'59 "W 57.99 ft; thence N66 30'46" 44.39 ft; thence 84.47 ft along the arc of a curve o the right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central -angle of 193 3513511, and a chord which bears N30 17'01 "E 49.65 ft; thence S52 55112 11E 106.60 ft; thence S37 04148 11W 32.00 ft to the True Point of Beginning, containing 0.1183 acres, more or less. Tract C: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron post with a 3" diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range; thence, along the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, N00 111112 "W 210.36 ft, to the True Point of Beginning; thence, departing said easterly line, N84 12147 11W 338.80 ft; thence 151.37 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 975.00 ft, a central angle of 08 53'4411, and a chord which bears N79 45155 11W 151.22 ft; thence N14 40157 11E 50.00 ft; thence N88 16129 11E 257.20 ft; thence N12 58117 11E 50.00 ft; thence S77 01143 11E 122.32 ft; thence 69.23 ft • along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 125.00 ft, a central angle of 31 4410311, and a chord which bears S61 09142 11E 68.35 ft; thence S45 17141 11E 35.99 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence S00 11'12 "E 80.12 ft, along said easterly line, to the True Point of Beginning, containing 1.085 acres, more or less. Tract A, B, and C are referenced per the approved subdivision Final Plat for Spraddle Creek. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. I. INTRODUCTION On February 11, 1991, the final plat for a major subdivision for Spraddle Creek was approved with conditions by the Planning and Environmental Commission. One of the conditions stated that: 0 2 • III. Staff Recommendation In order to implement the Phase I recommendations of the Housing Study, as outlined in Section 11 of this memorandum, the staff is proposing the following zoning code amendments: A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family District, 18.12 Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary Residential District shall be amended to allow one Affordable Housing Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit - Type I, as defined under Section 18.58.330(A)." B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density Multiple Family, 18.18 Medium Density Multiple Family, 18.22 Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I, 18.26 Commercial Core 11, 18.27 Commercial Core III, 18.28 Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial Business District, 18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/ Recreation Zone Districts shall be amended to allow for Affordable Housing Units, Types - II and III, as a • Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as defined under Section 18.58.330(B)". 0 "Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as defined under Section 18.58.330(C)". C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be amended to include a new definition as follows: "Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable Housing Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a restricted floor area, that shall be used for long -term rentals, or ownership, by employees in the Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail, Avon and their surrounding areas) ". "After final plat recording and before any building permits • are released for site improvements or individual residences, the following conditions must be met: 1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone designation shall be Natural Green Belt /Open Space. This condition shall also be listed in the subdivision agreement before the final plat is recorded." The applicant agrees to this condition. However, instead of waiting until after the final plat is recorded, the applicant would like to begin the process of rezoning the open space tracts so that, in the event that all the other conditions of approval are addressed, a building permit may be received as soon as possible. Staff will not proceed with second reading of the rezoning ordinance at the Council level until the final plat has actually been recorded. The reason for waiting until the final plat is recorded before the rezoning is finalized is to make sure that the legal descriptions for the open space tracts will match exactly the open space tracts listed on the subdivision plat. At this time, the staff has metes and bounds descriptions that match the parcels identified on the plat as open space. Staff and the applicant are delaying the second reading of the Council action 40 on the rezoning in order to ensure that there are no discrepancies between the legal description and the plat. 11. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT TO GREENBELT/NATURAL OPEN SPACE A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The staff and Planning and Environmental Commission have determined that it is appropriate to rezone the open space tracts to Greenbelt /Natural Open Space Zoning. The Greenbelt /Natural Open Space Zoning states, in Section 18.38.010: "The Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature, should be protected from encroachment by any man made structure other than picnic grills and tables; and is necessary to achieve the purposes proscribed in Section 18.02.020. The Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural, undisturbed state. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of weeds, deadfall or similar compatible improvements. . . " ID 3 . TI. Description of the Requests Following completion and adoption of the Affordable Housing Study, the planning staff is now proposing to implement the Housing Study's Phase I recommendations. Phase I recommendations consist of the following: A. Provision for one deed - restricted, affordable housing unit in the Single Family Residential, Two- Family Residential, and Primary /Secondary Residential zone districts. The purpose of this amendment is to allow for the addition of one permanently deed - restricted, affordable housing unit per Single Family, Duplex, or Primary /Secondary lot in the low density neighborhoods of the Town, while continuing to maintain the existing character of the low density residential areas. The affordable housing unit would be listed as a Conditional Use in each of the above named zone districts. B. The provision for deed - restricted affordable housing units to be located in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Use District and Ski Base /Recreation zone districts. As similarly stated in paragraph A above, the purpose of this amendment is to allow for the addition of permanently deed - restricted, affordable housing units in the above -named zone districts, while continuing to maintain the character of each specific zone district. The affordable housing unit would be listed as a Conditional Use in each of the zone districts. C. The creation of a new definition, for an 11affordable housing unite. The specific purpose of this amendment is to encourage the provision of affordable housing units in a manner which would be cost effective, and at the same time provide a quality living environment for its occupants, in a manner that is sensitive to the neighborhood's scale, density and overall design. Affordable Housing Units will be classified into three categories; Type I, Type II, and Type III, as more specifically defined below. It should be clearly pointed out that all of the development /zoning standards within each specific zone district will still be required to be met, when an "affordable housing unit" is constructed on a lot. 0 2 N Staff believes that by rezoning these parcels to Greenbelt/ • Natural Open Space, the intent that they remain as open space will be fulfilled. B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable Relationship with Land Uses Consistent_ With Municipal Objectives? The rezoning effort is consistent with municipal objectives to maintain these areas as open space within the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly, Viable Community? The rezoning supports the effort to provide for orderly growth while also maintaining important open space areas within the new subdivision. D. Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan designates this area as Hillside Residential. The Greenbelt /Natural Open Space Zone District is intended to keep these sites in their natural state. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the rezoning. This request is carrying out a condition of approval per the Planning and Environmental Commission's conditions of approval for the final plat for the major subdivision. A condition of staff approval is that the final plat be recorded, at the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, before the second reading of the rezoning ordinance at the Town Council level. c: \pec \spraddle \tracts.325 is 4 M • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 25, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable housing unit; and A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single- Family District, 18.12 - Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 -- Primary /Secondary Residential zone district to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use; and A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster District, 18.16 - Low Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple 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, 18.36 - Public Use District, and 18.39 -- Ski Base /Recreation District to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use; and A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development /zoning standards for affordable housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail I. Background and History In January, 1990, the Town of Vail, assisted by the consulting firm of Rosall, Remmen, 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 Planning & 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 Housing Study was unanimously approved (by a vote of 6-°0) by the Town Council on November 20, 1990. 0 1 N .d. ' 4 o ci 0 �j1- o ..- W cn Lo J "`"— 00 C) m D V) W W U N W J 0 LO M � CL ■ q O t-�.1 • • • Page 36 — Vail Dally Friday, March 22, 1991 We Don't Need The of h e r Trees o all Right Smack in the Middle of Lionshead Mall. Paid for by the Committee For an Open Mall 0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 25, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for front yard setback and wall height variances for the Neuswanger residence, located within the Primary /Secondary Zone District, 2642 Cortina Lane/ Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: Chris Neuswanger I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED A. Front Setback Variance: Under Section 18.69.050 of the zoning code, there is no front setback requirement for garages, on lots where the average slope of the site beneath a proposed structure and parking area exceeds 30% (except as may be required by the Design Review Board). The Neuswanger lot is accessed from the north off of Cortina Lane. The subject site slopes down to the south from the high point on the north side of the lot adjacent to Cortina Lane. The low point of the site is located along the southern property line. The majority of the slopes on the site exceed 30 %. In fact, adjacent to Cortina Lane, in the area where the new residence is proposed to be located, the average slope is 450. The applicant is requesting approval of a front setback variance in order to construct a residence in conjunction with an attached garage, in the front setback, 5' -0" from the front (north) property line. This 15 -foot encroachment into the front setback would result in a 5' -0" front setback. Therefore a 15 foot front setback variance is required. The proposed residence is 3 stories tall. From Cortina Lane the residence will appear to be 1 story tall. Two stories of GRFA are proposed to be constructed beneath the garage in the front setback. The garage will be accessed by an expanded steel mesh grate driveway platform. The floor of the garage will be at roughly the same elevation as the elevation of Cortina Lane. The applicant is requesting to construct GRFA in the front yard in conjunction with the garage, in order to eliminate the need for a excessive fill to be added below the garage. 0 1 fowl 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 479 -2138 (303) 479 -2139 March 20, 1991 office of community development Dear Member of the Lionshead Merchants Association, Enclosed is a courtesy notice of the March 25, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Agenda. Please note that in conjunction with the Lifthouse Lodge addition (Item No. 4), the Community Development Department planning staff is recommending the applicant provide additional landscaping in the Gondola Plaza. The proposed landscaping includes the construction of an approximately 21 to 25 foot wide circular planter in the middle of the circular paving area north of the Gondola Cafe. The planter will be identical in material (rock faced) and height (1811) . to the planter in front of Banner Sport's entrance. A large specimen evergreen is proposed to be placed in the center of the planter in addition to low ground cover and flowering bulbs. Electrical service will be provided to this planter in order to provide for the lighting of the " Lionshead Christmas Tree ". Photographs illustrating the location of the proposed planter and the planter's potential impact on the mall are available for review at the office of the Community Development Department. Please feel free to stop by our office to review these photographs. The PEC meeting on Monday, March 25th is a public meeting and you are welcome to attend this meeting in order to make your opinion regarding the landscaping and proposed redevelopment known. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Jill Kammerer at the Community Development Department, 479 -2138 or Dan Mulrooney at 476 - -2754. Sincerely, J'11 Kamm r7e- enior an enc. • B. Wall Height Variances: In addition to the front setback variance, the applicant is requesting approval of wall height variances. Under Section 18.58.020 (C) of the zoning code, walls may not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback and may not exceed six feet in height on any other portion of the site. The two walls for which variances are requested are located on the east and west sides of the residence within the required front setback. The purpose of these walls is to create fairly level side yards. On the east, the applicant proposes to construct an at -grade deck which will be accessible from the lower level master suite. A small, sodded side yard is proposed; to be located adjacent to this at grade deck. The north side of the eastern retaining wall will be a maximum of 7 feet above grade. The south side of this same wall will be a maximum of 13 feet above grade. The north side of the western retaining will be 7 feet above grade and the south side of the wall will be a maximum of 15 feet above grade. please see attached drawing to understand the wall heights and locations. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. This lot is located within the Primary /Secondary Zone . District. B. All of the adjacent properties are zoned Primary /Secondary. Adjacent lots to the north, south, east and west are vacant and undeveloped at this time. 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 front setback variance and denial of the requested wall height variances based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. a. Front Setback Variance The requested setback variance, if approved, would not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties. By concentrating the 40 2 0 ^ 0 COLOnADO INSIGHT TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING -AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ATT:CHRISTAN PRITZ ��/0�T AT Al MEETING OF THE LION9HEAD MERCHANTS AS8OCIATlON ON MARCH 12TH, A F?EVIEW OF THE EXPANSION OF- THE LIFT HOUSE LOD8E AT THE BANNER SPORTS LOCATION WAS DI�CUSSED. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSED EXPANSION. HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME, IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS EXPANSION THAT THE PLANTER AND THE FLAGS THAT PRESENTLY EXIST IN THE CENTER OF THE MALL BE REMOVED. IN THEIR PLACE WOULD B� A MUCH LARGER PLANTER, A SEATING AREA AND A LARGE PINE TREE. WE ARE ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO ANY SUCH ADDITION SINCE IT WOULD OBSCURE THE WEST END OF THE MALL FOR THOSE PEOPLE WALKING IN FROM THE EAST END OF THE MALL. THIS WOULD FURTHER SEGMENT THE MALL INSTEAD OF CREATING A CENTER FOCAL AREA FOR A GATHERING SPACE. THE PRESENT CONFIGURATION OF THE MALL PILLOWS FOR EASE OF SNOW REMOVAL AND GOOD VISIBILITY FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER. VERY TFe#LY YOURS, 5AArrT-'. L A D D RKETING DIRECTOR 3/15/91 CC:RICHARD BROWN JAN WEZWICK 492ELKJN$HEAD CIRCLE mxAIL, COLORADO 81657 THREE LOCATIONS mVAIL21 BLDG, 303~A76-3689m LANDMARK 303'476*4875 m LODGE 808'476'4$65 U� 0 development on the northern portion of the lot adjacent to Cortina Lane, less site disturbance will occur in constructing this single family residence. Allowing additional GRFA to be included in the front setback beneath the garage level eliminates the need for retaining walls and fill in an area where living space can be constructed. If the applicant were to construct the same amount of GRFA, but not locate any of the GRFA in the front setback, the living area of the simply be located further down the southern slope, thereby creating greater and unnecessary site disturbance. b. Wall Height Variances Staff believes the proposed wall heights will negatively impact adjacent property owners. Both the eastern and western retaining walls will be visible from properties located below this lot. Individuals on the south who look up hill, will see 13 and 15 foot tall retaining walls. Since the retaining walls seem unnecessary for the construction of the residence, and are proposed in order to create a flat yard for the applicant, we believe the request to be inappropriate, espec- ially given the potential impacts the walls would create for the neighborhood residents. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. a. Front Yard Setback Variance Because of the steepness of the lots in this subdivision, there are several properties in the area which have taken advantage of the section of the zoning code which allows the construction of garages to occur in the front yard. Although these homes do not have GRFA in the front yard associated with the garages, staff believes the fact that allowing GRFA in the front yard will minimize site disturbance, warrants relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of this provision of the code. Further, staff believes allowing the construction of GRFA in the front setback on this lot will not 0 3 F 1'ufil K11.- MHC1:1) fi. G3;i?!,ili rx -r (u tar , Sr_, i-�-1y u= 1W r-11A r-U.L fi MA 13 'q,; 11�c�� LrAkl 0 F'I�.�SUZTC 307 VAIL- �:O. ____ _ - ._d� . - • - - - - - P.c /Z JAY K. PMRSON I 1 �9WTE 467 VAI6 NATi NAL 6ANK f$01"C MCp iXbg, 476,4092 1 ]dz) SOU`iH FAONTAGF RQAD W&F6T 11AX LINA J�? K. I'MRON MAYLCOiOWU*LW? _ , 05wi +k7D•6487 I f MEMORANDUM TO: RIQHaD BROWN (VIA PACSIMILE NO, 758- 5270*) JAY X. pSM96N TE; UGH 15, 1991 P"E . LUTHOUSE EXPANSION ear Richard: 't 18 my understanding that you conzont tb the expansion of the rtifthouse Commercial area, as currently proposed by Bob Lazier. It y Further understanditg, ht'awov6r, that you do no agree with tha qurrent� proposal for the lan6bcaping in that a large Christmas Tree he proposed aroa would black vil ;ibility to the LandNiark Commercihl shape glong with ether shop at that end of Lionshead. It is my 4nderstanding that you would prefer the relocation or elimination of he Christmas Tree in order that it does not blook the commercial rear. :F. you have any quastions please contact ne at my oifice. ince3rely t erson CONTSEAI�' I The undersigned as general partner F�roperties hereby consents to and agrees II NDWI< COMMERMAL PROMMS i� By: char &(., arUwn, a Gotneral i)artno-�,r I I of LandMark Commercial with the above memorandam. is In be a grant of special privilege. 0 b. Wall Height Variances Access to this lot is extremely difficult due to the fact that the average slope is approximately 45 %. The slopes of the site are such that the construction of the retaining walls as proposed allows the applicant to create a side yard. on the east, this side yard would be accessible from the lower level master suite. Staff believes the creation of such a side yard, given the slope of the lot, is unnatural and artificial and does not warrant the granting of wall height variances. Staff would encourage the applicant to relocate the desired lawn /deck area to the south side of the structure. A lawn /deck area at this location would work with the existing slope of the lot. The slope in this area is not as steep and further, the lawn /deck area would still be accessible from the master suite. In lieu of relocating the lawn /deck area to the south, staff suggests the applicant consider taking up the necessary grade through the use of a series of 3 foot high, stepped retaining walls. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. a. Front Setback and Wall Height Variances Staff finds the requested variance will have no significant impact upon any of the above considerations. Public works has reviewed the proposal and approves of the garage location in the setback. Snow plowing can be accommodated. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental_ Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or is 4 /EAVF� Vail Associates, Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek"' Resorts March 22, 1991 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Application for Expansion within the Lifthouse Lodge Condominiums Dear Members of the Commission and Staff: This letter is written in response to a concern expressed by Bob Lazier, applicant for the proposed expansion referenced above, concerning a line delineating a 10 foot set back contained on the plat map for Vail /Lionshead Filing No. 1 relating to Lot 3, Block 1, with respect to which Vail Associates, Inc., as a signer of such plat map and the accompanying covenants and restrictions, at one time may have had an interest in enforcing. Specifically, Vail Associates, Inc. has been requested to review the proposed expansion and remodeling of the first or ground floor level of the Lifthouse Lodge involving the entry to the Lifthouse Lodge condominiums from the Lionshead Pedestrian Mall, and retail /commercial space on the south and west elevations, in accordance with the architectural renderings of Galen A. Aasland dated March 19, 1991. Members of my staff and I have reviewed such plans and Vail Associates would not object to the site location as defined in the above - referenced architectural renderings. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the position of Vail Associates, Inc. relating to the application of Robert T. Lazier for his property located in the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium building, please feel free to contact the undersigned. . LL:ga Very truly yours, VAIL SSOCIATES, INC. Larry !ichlito� Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 0 USA - (303) 476 -5601 materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Front Setback Variance Staff recommends approval of the front setback variance. Staff does not believe approval of the request would be a grant of special privilege and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The topographic conditions of the site have created unique development considerations for this site. The planning staff believes a hardship would be imposed on the applicant if the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. Further, the strict interpretation of the front setback requirements would result in an inferior building design in that a greater area of the site would need to be disturbed in constructing the residence. Findings supporting the variance are A, B, C -2. B. Wall Height Variance Staff recommends denial of the requested wall height variance. Staff does not believe the requested variance meets the criteria or findings necessary to justify a variance. Although the existing slopes on the site in the area where the home and the walls are to be constructed average 45 %, staff does not believe this creates a situation where the applicant would be unable to construct a series of stepped retaining walls and still achieve the desired goal of creating a side yard for his residence. Staff further believes the applicant's goal of creating a side yard is an 0 5 I II f o grouse I � CONDOMINIUMS 555 East Lionshead Circle I i Vail, Colorado 81657 I 303- 476 -2340 • 800 -654 -0635 FAX 476 -9303 3 I I i i To the Town of Vail: I The Lifthouse Board of Directors has approved the j • current plans for the Lifthouse commercial expansion. s I ely, s i I Doug Walk General Manager DW /vb i unnatural manipulation of the existing site. The provision of a formal, at grade, yard is possible on the southern side . of the residence. A yard at this location would still be accessible from the master suite, would create less site disturbance and can be achieved with lower retaining walls. If the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that the granting of wall height variances to allow the construction of these retaining walls is warranted, staff would recommend the applicant be required to soften the impact of these retaining walls through the provision of landscaping. c: \pec \memos \neuswngr.325 Pi 0 ro _�,� ,� l • r -1 LA • W :- . I 1f wco n � u 0 E 0 H c n m a 0 • JI I Flu G w 0 Q Q OC !L Q OC O O u S u Q li 0 H O OL CL A W O J N . 1 f �1S jjI � II � 1� '� .: F � � � I � � � � I • • J J , t y J / t \ , \ J \I \fy lyl t `F fAJ \ \14 \ l \• 'y /yl yJ f \ y \ \ 4 AJ`Jyl \Ry. yl ylyF f tJ\ \ y \ \ \ t t \ y� /yfy /A ItI`J AI t \ \ \i i ryft 77 0 W __J W co Oh{ E IlAS�{rp �f A � i� d • b- [V J W W J LC W CL CL C� limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for variances on the southern and western setback, and a site coverage variance based on findings A, B, and C -2. The project also meets the exterior alteration criteria. Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration as the request generally meets all of the criteria set forth under Sections III and IV of the memo. c: \pec \memos \{azier.325 0 11 • • • ..0 1 .6 A 371 kl 00 LV .j redevelopment of Banner Sports is to insure all of the facades are designed in a compatible manner and to . increase the visibility of these spaces.. The proposed addition will create much needed pedestrian level interest along the west facade of the building adjacent to the northern end of the Gondola Plaza. Both the proposed landscaping and the addition will bring the building down to a comfortable human scale. Staff believes the granting of the site coverage variance will have a positive impact on existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. However, as previously stated, there are members of the Lionshead Merchants Association who believe the installation of the proposed circular planter in the area north of the Gondola Cafe will impede pedestrian flow to those shops at the western end of the mall. B. The strict literal_ interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the ob'ectives of this title. I. Setback and Site Coverage variances. Staff believes the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan takes precedence over the Zoning Code in guiding the staff's position on this matter. The Guide Plan specifically calls for the addition and landscaping improvements proposed under this application. C. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities_, . schools arks and recreation facilities and other public facilities needs. 1. Setback and Site Coverage variances. The staff finds that the requested variance will have no negative effect upon any of the above considerations. In fact, staff believes the proposed addition and landscaping will improve the Gondola Plaza pedestrian /gathering experience, while not impeding snow removal or safety access to the mall and building. VI. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the 10 • • r` J W W J u • V. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS FOR SETBACK AND SITE COVERAGE . VARIANCES A. Relationship to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity.. I. Setback Staff believes the proposed front setback variance request, if approved, would not negatively impact other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Sub -Area Concept No. 25 of the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead specifically calls for a 1 -story commercial expansion with an attractive facade, as is proposed, in order to emphasize pedestrian scale and to create an activity edge for the plaza. Under Sub -Area Concept No. 22, the Guide Plan calls for the provision of additional portable summer -time landscaping in the area where the applicant proposes to install 4 deciduous trees. Although the proposed trees are not portable, staff believes these trees will meet the Sub -Area goal of providing additional color and creating a more intimate scale for the plaza. is Staff believes the installation of a tall evergreen in the middle of a circular planter will meet the goal of Sub -Area Concept No. 21, which calls for the installation of a "tall sculpture feature at (the) highest- visibility point as viewed from either end of the mall." Staff does not believe the proposed Lifthouse addition or landscaping will negatively impact the function of or pedestrian flow through the Gondola Plaza. In summary, the expansion will have a positive impact on surrounding properties and pedestrian areas while insuring that maintenance and safety functions can still occur. 2. Site coverage variance As previously stated, Sub -Area Concept No. 25 of the Urban Guide Plan for Lionshead specifically calls for a one -story commercial addition in the area where this addition is proposed. At staff and PEC members' request, the applicant has addressed the facades of the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and the Lifthouse Lodge condominium entrance. The objective of addressing these spaces in conjunction with the 0 9 • C �. j 5 V c1 1 Q _ � v co LL J 1 s / U • ice.. ��. 1Xlt!}} w J J W i s LLUJ co LL a i� < LU -` UJ —1 �L? W 73 IOL SV'W� v,rA. W tt J W f � gIMR�•l� 1' ^'MwSW W JyS'�y.''.54�•.:1 The applicant proposes to install 4 deciduous the west facade of Banner Sports on Town owned 19 deciduous trees along the south facade of the the entrance to the Lifthouse Condominiums. • • trees along land and two addition near All of these trees will be installed in groups of 2, in 51x 10' planting areas which are protected by a 4 to 6 inch curbs. To date, the architect, Town landscape architect and members of the Public Works, Community Development and Fire Department staffs, as well as members of the Lionshead Merchants Association (LHMA), have met on several occasions to develop a landscaping plan for the plaza area west of the Lifthouse Lodge which will accommodate everyone's desires. Although the Town staff and the project architect are generally in agreement with the attached landscaping proposal, the Lionshead Merchants Association have not reached a consensus on the landscaping issue. The merchants will not be meeting to take a formal position on the proposed landscaping prior to the March 25, 1991 PEC meeting. In order to ensure that all of the members of the LHMA have been informed of the upcoming meeting, the attached notice was mailed to members of the merchants' group. To date, the staff has obtained feedback both pro and con on the proposed circular planter in the plaza. Some individuals who have businesses located west of the point where the circular planter is proposed to be located believe the planter will impede pedestrian traffic to and visibility of their stores. Fire and Public Works Department's vehicles can access the northern end of the Gondola Plaza from the west side of the existing flag planter. However, accessing the northern plaza area at this location will require the Public Works Department to park and operate their snow removal equipment at the bottom of the stairway leading out of the plaza and up to the parking lot located north of the Landmark Condominium Building. This machinery /pedestrian conflict area remains a concern to the Public Works Department. They are concerned with the safety of pedestrians using the stairway during times of snow removal. A representative of the Public Works Department may be present at the PEC meeting to present the Department's views on the building redevelopment and landscaping proposal. Staff is supportive of the landscaping plan as proposed. H. service and Delivery: This addition will not have any impact on the existing loading and delivery services for the building. This activity occurs on the north side of the building. 8 . i ■ t!1 W N (n a ce ca LLI a z I a W Ix Q in Lil m . OC J W a ZB LLI 3 W a t m w f e There are a number of transom type windows proposed over . entrance ways. Under the redevelopment proposal, which was reviewed by the PEC on March 11, 1991, the window pane sizes varied from one transom to another. The applicant has modified these transom window panes so they now are a unified size. In response to staff and PEC members' concerns regarding whether or not the proposed addition would increase visibility to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space, and concerns regarding the resulting "tightness" of the pedestrian space, the applicant has pulled back the facade of the small commercial space south of the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space so that it is flush with the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech facade. The commercial space entrance ways are recessed 3 -1/2 to 4 -1/2 feet and are highly transparent in keeping with the Lionshead Guidelines. In staff's opinion, the proposal meets concerns relating to the Facade Transparency design guideline. E. Decks and Patios: No decks or patios are proposed. F. Accent Elements: The only accent element proposed is exterior lighting on both the west and north facades. G. Landscaping: Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposes to install 6 deciduous trees adjacent to the expansion, to construct a 21 to 25 foot diameter circular planter in the middle of the circular paving area north of the Gondola Cafe and to decrease the size of the existing flag planter which is located west of the Banner Sports entrance by 50 sq. ft. Two existing light fixtures, which are generally located at the western and southern ends of the "flag planter" will be relocated to the west of Banner Sports' west facade, depending on the lighting needs of the area. A large specimen evergreen is proposed to be placed in the center of the planter in addition to low ground cover plants and flowering bulbs. Electrical service will be provided to the planter in order to provide for the lighting of the "Lions -head Christmas Tree." Staff believes the construction of this planter and the installation of the large evergreen will help create a sense of enclosure, create shade, and soften the starkness of the plaza area. • 1 0 0 ss LU u z L1J O LU LU cD z 4 m ]G i O � L � O oc u �N �C ko } N C. Facades - Walls /Structures: The materials proposed to be used in construction (wood, glass and stucco) are encouraged under the Lionshead Design Considerations. The stucco texture and color will match the stucco on the existing structure and the window and door trim color will match the color of the window trim on the existing structure. Unpainted wood surfaces will be stained to match the color of the wood pillars on the interior of the Banner Sports commercial space. This color is quite light. The Design Considerations recommend wood be stained to a medium range or to match the main building. The stucco color on the main building is light. The applicant proposes to use smooth log pillars to mark the Banner Sports commercial space. These log pillars will be used to divide the expanse of glass in the windows of the Banner Sports facade. The facades of both the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance have been brought out to the property line. The entire 18" base of both the west and south facades will be faced with stone. All of the colors and materials to be used in the addition are generally encouraged under the Lionshead Design Guidelines, and will relate well to the existing structure. Through the use of these materials and colors, the addition will avoid having a "tacked on" appearance. D. Facades - Transparency: Ground floor display window sills are located 18- inches above the walk level in keeping with the Lionshead Design Considerations. Display windows will be 6 -feet tall. Windows to be installed will match the color (clear) of the existing windows. The transparency of the windows on the southern and western facades and of those windows adjacent to the commercial space entrances are in keeping with the Lionshead Design Considerations. The transparency of the south and west facades will meet the recommended 1170% of the surface area of the ground floor" facade transparency guidelines. This situation creates an interesting and inviting experience for the pedestrian thereby meeting one of the major goals of the Urban Design Plan for Lionshead - to "develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale ". On the west facade, 4 deciduous trees will be planted in front of ground level stuccoed areas. is 6 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department HATE: March 25, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for site coverage and setback variances and an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST A. Setback Variance The applicant proposes to construct a 2,114 sq. ft. one - story addition to the Lifthouse Lodge building. The addition will extend 31-5" to 23' -9" out from the existing building facade. This one -story addition wraps around the north and west facades of the Banner Sports and Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces, and the entrance to the Lifthouse Condominiums. The Banner Sports entrance is proposed to be relocated to the very southwest corner of the building. The structure currently encroaches 1' -6" into the required setback on the south and 1' -3" into the required ten foot setback on the west. Setback variances are required in order to allow the addition to encroach 10' into the required 10' setback on the west, resulting in a zero setback situation. On the south, the expansion encroaches 91-6" into the required 10 foot setback, which results in a 6 -inch setback. This 2,114 sq. ft. addition will increase the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium lobby by 162 s.q ft., the Banner Sports retail space by 1,401 sq. ft., the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech retail space by 241 sq. ft., and will create a new retail space of 97 sq. ft. between Pedal Power and Banner Sports. B. Site Coveraae Variance Because of the potential impact an addition which just addressed the Banner Sports Commercial Space would have on the visibility of the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space, and on the visibility of the Lifthouse Condominiums 0 1 B. Roofs: Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are encouraged. A peaked roof is proposed over the commercial space and condominium entrances. The proposal calls for a metal roof which will be gray in color. The Lionshead Design Considerations set forth metal as an acceptable roofing material provided it is ribbed or standing seam and a dark color. Therefore, the proposed roof material and color are acceptable. In front of the second story balconies, the roof will slope back to a point where it intersects with the floor level of the existing second story decks. In those areas where the vertical plane of the facade extends back further than the vertical plane of the deck, the roof will maintain the same slope and slope back to the point where it intersects with the facade of the building. The applicant investigated matching the roof pitch on the addition to the adjacent Montauk Restaurant roof pitch. Because of the differences in the amount these facades project into the mall, the applicant concluded that matching the two roof pitches was not appropriate. The Lionshead Design Considerations recommend that roof overhangs range from 3- inches to 36- inches. The proposed roof overhang will range from 6- inches to 4 -1/2 feet. The distance the facade projects out from the building varies, while the distance the roof line projects out from the building, remains constant. Consequently, the roof overhang varies. The area of greatest overhang occurs at the entrance to the commercial spaces. The Lionshead Design Considerations suggest roofs that extend beyond 36- inches are acceptable when used to create covered walkways. In this situation, the large roof overhangs provide sheltered entrances to commercial spaces. Previous staff concerns regarding the proposed addition roof /existing building connection points have been addressed under this proposal. The addition's connection to the existing building at the floor level of the second story decks is visually pleasing and will eliminate the cantilevered appearance of the second story decks. The connection of the addition's roof to the existing building is an important design element. Respecting strong architectural lines is critical to successfully integrating an addition with an existing structure. 0 5 entrance, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the staff encouraged the applicant to address these areas in conjunction with the Banner Sports redevelopment proposal; the understanding being a site coverage variance would likely be required. Under this proposal, the applicant has addressed the design of the commercial space and condo entrance. Consequently, a site coverage variance will be required to allow the addition, as proposed, to occur. Under the CCII zone district, the maximum site coverage allowed for this lot is 14,231 sq. £t. (70 %). Under this redevelopment proposal, the site coverage proposed is 15,114 sq. ft. (74 %). The site coverage will exceed the allowable by 883 sq. ft. (4 %). Therefore a site coverage variance is required to allow the site coverage to exceed the allowable_ site cov_erage_by4 5t_._ C. Exterior Alteration Request This project is located in Commercial Core II, which requires that any exterior expansion be reviewed by the PEC using the exterior alteration criteria. The total square footage for the commercial and common area expansion is 2,114 square feet. D. Landscaping No plant material will be removed, however, approximately 2,114 sq. ft. of hardscape (pavers) will be removed under this proposal. The site landscaping will exceed the landscaping requirement for the CCII zone district. Landscaping standards require a certain percentage of hardscape (pavers) to softscape (plant material) landscaping on a site. The site does not currently meet zone district softscape landscape requirements. Through the removal of hardscape in conjunction with the redevelopment, and the addition of 39 sq. ft. of softscape, the project will come closer to conforming to landscape standards. The 39 sq. ft. of plant material to be provided on -site is in the form of a portion of a 50 sq. ft. at -grade planted area. A total of three of these 50 sq. ft. planted areas are proposed. Each of these 50 sq. ft. planted areas will contain two deciduous trees and ground cover. Two of these 51x 10' planted areas will be located along the west facade of the building on Town of Vail owned land. The third planted area will be located along the south facade of the Lifthouse Lodge building, in part on Town of Vail owned land (11 sq. ft.) and in part on Lifthouse owned land (39 sq. ft). Additionally, 457 to 602 sq. ft. of plant material is proposed to be added off --site on Town of Vail land in the form of a 21 to 25 foot diameter circular planter. This 0 2 • Proposed Off -Site Softscape 457 to 602 sq. ft. (Varies because diameter' of circular planter has not been finalized. Diameter will be between 21 and 25 feet.) III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD The following sub -area concepts relate to the proposed redevelopment (see attached map for reference number location): GONDOLA PLAZA 25. Commercial expansion (1 story) to emphasize pedestrian scale and attractive facades for improved commercial use, aided by fountain as pedestrian draw. At north end, commercial expansion (1 -2 stories) to create a third activity edge to plaza, with opportunities for 2nd level sun- pocket dining terraces. This urban design consideration recommends the Lifthouse Condominium Building be expanded in the same areas proposed to be expanded under this redevelopment proposal. In fact the Guide Plan recommends the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech facade encroach even further to the west onto Town of Vail owned land. 22. Existing mature vegetation preserved for green, color, and scale. Supplement with portable summer -time planters for additional color and more intimate scale for plaza. 21. Tall sculpture feature at highest - visibility point as viewed from either end of the mall. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD A. Height and Massing: The proposal calls for construction of a one -story addition to the south and west facades of the Lifthouse Condominium Building, adjacent to the Banner Sports, and Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance. The Lionshead Design Considerations encourage the creation of well- defined ground floor commercial /pedestrian areas, and one -story building expansions. 0 4 planter is proposed to be located in the center of the circular paving pattern area north of the Gondola Cafe. The planter would contain one large specimen evergreen tree, low ground cover plants and flowering bulbs. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the relationship of the redevelopment proposal to CCII zone district development standards: 1. Zone District: Commercial Core II 2. Lot Area: 20,334 sq. ft./ .4668 acres 3. Site Coverage: Allowed 14,231 sq. ft. (.70 of site area) Existing 13,000 sq. ft. Proposed 159114 sq. ft. (74%) Site Coverage Overage 883 sq. ft. ( 4 %)* * Variance required 4. Setbacks: The East and North setbacks will remain unchanged under this proposal. South: Required: 10 feet 40 Proposed: 6 inches* West: Required: 10 feet Proposed: 0 feet* • * Variance required 5. Parking - The provision of 5.79 additional parking spaces is required. The applicant must pay into the Town's Parking Fund per the Pay in Lieu Program. (Please note the current fee of $3,000 per space is to be increased to $8,000 per space.) 6. Height - The 15' -6" maximum height of the addition will not impact the maximum height of the existing structure. 7. Landscaping (20% of site area) Required: 4,066 sq. ft. Existing: 6,100 Hardscape (Paving /Decks) 460 Softscane (Planting) 6,560 Gross (32 %) Proposed: 3,986 Hardscape (Paving /Decks) 499 Softscape (Planting) 4,485 Gross (22 %) .?