Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1992 PEC 0113 thru 0323
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 13, 1992 AGENDA 12:30 P.M. Site Visits 1:30 P.M. Work Session 2:00 P.M. Public Hearing Site Visits WORK SESSION 5. 1. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing, Applicant: Rod Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer PUBLIC HEARING 2. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for a modular office trailer at 846 Forest Road /Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District Planner: Shelly Mello 1. 2. A request for a density variance in order to allow an addition to an existing non- conforming structure at 864 Spruce Courtla part of Lot 12, Vail Village 9th Filing. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Broughton /Steve Shanley Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3. 3. A request for a side setback variance at 586 Forest Road /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: William Sheppard Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4. 4. A request for a variance from the maximum allowable driveway grade at 16 Forest Road /Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne /Jay Peterson Staff: Greg Half /Jill Kammerer 5. A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code regarding minor exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II, Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, and Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO JANUARY 27, 1992 "- ,, 6. 6. A request for a major amendment to Phase IV -A of Special . Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive /Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica 7. An update on the redevelopment status of the exterior alteration request for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch .Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 8. A request to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase 11. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc. /Steve Gensler Planners: Andy Knudtsen /Kristan Pritz TABLED TO JANUARY 27, 1992 9. A request for a setback variance and conditional use permit to allow a tow which will transport people and supplies from the garage to the house at 2701 Davos Trail /Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Brian and Sonja Craythorne Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JANUARY 27, 1992 10. Approval of PEC meeting minutes for December 16, 1991 meeting. s • PRESENT Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Gena Whitten Dalton Williams PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 13,19M MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Shelley Mello Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairperson, Diana Donovan. Dalton Williams had been appointed by Town Council to replace Jim Shearer until February. WORK SESSION 1. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer The work session was led by Kristan Pritz. Kristan showed a drawing indicating areas of infill and expansion, as well as elevations. She explained pavers would extend to the end of the Clock Tower stone wall. Kristan listed the items for discussion. The first concerned whether or not there was a physical hardship for the variance. Other concerns were encroachment into any adopted view corridors; the removal of the maple tree with replacement of 2 aspens and ground cover in a planting area; where to place the newspaper dispenser boxes; the amount of additional shade which will be cast onto Bridge Street; and whether or not the resulting streetscape modifications are acceptable. With regard to the view corridor, the surveyor was rechecking this, and the applicant would respond after receiving the results from the surveyor. Ned Gwathmey, project architect, made three responses to the question of physical hardship. The first was that the protrusion of the building limited the exposure of the retail space. By bringing out the retail area, this would improve. Ned then pointed out the area being infilled was on the top level surrounded by walls. Due to all the additions surrounding it, this area was covered with snow and in poor technical condition. Ned also felt there was a precedent for bay windows in the core area. The deck to be constructed at Russell's Restaurant was discussed. Beth Slifer felt the deck would further decrease the visibility of Slifer Designs. Rod Slifer expressed an interest in getting rid of the newspaper racks. Connie Knight wondered if people getting newspapers from the racks would then notice the Slifer Design store, but was told the racks did not help in this regard. Proposed was a bench incorporated with the planter. Rod felt the roof additions would be lower than the roof line of Gorsuch, but this would be checked. Diana pointed out that the covering of Gorsuch windows would have to be worked out with Dave Gorsuch. A question concerning the caliper of the existing tree followed. It is approximately 5 " -6" in caliper. Ned felt the tree was in a poor place with relation to the windows. The Slifers proposed the installation of two aspen of X -4" caliper in the planter. Diana wondered why the maple tree was not just transplanted. Beth Slifer responded this tree was very messy. Rod felt it was too large for its location, and shed for several weeks each fall. Diana felt a substantial tree was needed, and preferred one larger tree to two smaller trees. Gena liked the architecture. However, with the anticipated construction of Russell's deck, she was concerned about everyone on Bridge Street moving outward toward the street. Kristan replied the staff was concerned about being consistent with respect to past decisions made on site coverage variances. She pointed out the staff had just told Paul Golden he could not increase his site coverage for two bay windows. Connie felt the ridge line was also crucial. She asked for dimensions of the increase in shadow. Ned replied it was 5 -112' - 6' deep. Connie asked that it be drawn with other -shadows along Bridge Street. She liked the architecture. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about the news dispensers. Kristan mentioned there had been talk of combining the racks into one wooden dispenser and perhaps moving them to another place. Kathy also felt a model would be helpful Dalton had no problems with the proposal. Diana again expressed the desire for a "significant" tree. Kathy wondered if a different type of tree other than aspen could be used. Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to recommend to the Town Council that the Council designate locations for newsracks and limit the newsracks to those Vocations. The vote on this motion was 7 -0 in favor. PUBLIC HEARING 1. A request for a conditional use permit for a modular office trailer at 846 Forest Road /Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District Planner: Shelly Mello 9 2 Shelly Mello distributed elevations and plans. She explained that the size of the trailer had been changed from 12' x 56' to 14' x 50' and was to be in place for one year. In the Public Use District (PUD), the development standards are set by the PEC. Shelly pointed out the staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. She then reviewed the consideration of factors. The factor which concerned the staff was the visibility of the modular unit from the recreation path. To mitigate this, the staff recommended the applicant install five 6 -8 foot evergreens along the south fence line adjacent to Gore Creek and the modular unit. They also wished to have the dumpster enclosed, as it was also visible from the recreation path. In addition, the staff recommended that the unit be a minimum of 5 feet from the south fence line, reducing the visibility from the Frontage Road. Fred Haslee, representing the Sanitation District, stated he had no problem with the enclosure of the dumpster. However, the planting of trees and moving the unit would impact a plan the District had to use space in the future for environmental recycling and mulching. This new activity would require a mulcher, and chipper and several bins. Further, the District stores their snow where the trees were proposed to be planted. Mr. Haslee added the District would to propose a landscape plan in late summer which would include the whole property. When asked if he could move the unit 5 feet from the south fence line, he replied that it would interfere with the use of a door in the existing building. Diana asked if the project would be completed within one year, and Fred replied that it would. Kathy wondered if the building could be painted another color which would be more compatible with the existing building. Fred stated that, since the District did not own the building, but was leasing it, he was not sure if it could be painted. Kathy asked that the concern of the color of the building be passed along to the DRB. Dalton agreed with Fred that it would not make sense to plant the trees only to take them out at a later date to make room for snow storage. He did feel painting the unit to match the existing building would help to make it less obtrusive. Connie felt the requirement of trees would be a hardship. She added when she biked along the recreation path, she did not look up toward this area. Chuck Crist liked to see a continuous line of the buildings rather than move the unit back. Gena had nothing to add. Ludi asked about height, and Haslee replied the height would be approximately 12'- 13.5'. Ludi did not feel the trees were needed. Fred offered to look into another trailer, and would bring that issue plus color samples to the Design Review Board. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the conditional use permit per the staff memo, deleting the request for trees as a requirement, and the requirement to move the building to the north 5 feet, but with the addition of the enclosure of the dumpster and the recommendation to paint the building a color to blend with the existing building. Connie Knight seconded the motion, and the vote was 7-0 In favor. 0 3 • 2. A request for a density variance in order to allow an addition to an existing non- conforming structure at 864 Spruce Courtla part of Lot 12, Vail Village 9th Filing. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Broughton /Steve Shanley Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained this lot contained two dwelling units, but was under 15,000 square feet in area. The zoning code allows two units on a lot which is under 15,000 square feet if one of the units is restricted for employee housing. Because both units are separately owned and neither is deed restricted for employee housing, a variance to the non- conforming section of the code was needed to allow for the use of the GRFA remaining on the lot. The applicants wished tgo construct an addition on the south side of the structure. The staff recommendation was for approval. It was felt this would not constitute a grant of special privilege, as the Town has approved similar variance requests for the Bighorn Townhouses in East Vail; the variance would not be a detriment to public health, safety or welfare, and there are extraordinary circumstances related to this site with regard to the history and documentation of approvals, and timing of construction. The documentation in the file for this property showed that the two- family dwelling was permitted by the Town in 1973. The regulations requiring that the secondary unit be deed restricted to employee housing was not adopted by the Town until 1979. In addition to this, the Town had approved a duplex subdivision in 1987. Because of this documentaion showing the construction had been approved by the Town of Vail prior to 1979, staff recommended approval. Elliot Goss, project architect, was available for questions. The PEC did not have any questions. Chuck Crist moved, followed by Connie Knight's second, to approve the request for a density variance per the staff memo. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 3. A request for a side setback variance at 586 Forest Road /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: William Sheppard Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained when the improvement location certificate for the framing inspection was submitted to the staff, it was found the garage had been constructed 7 inches into the side yard setback. The owner agreed to remove the stone veneer, reducing the encroachment to 1 inch. He would replace the stone with stucco and add five aspens to compensate for the less attractive appearance of the wall. The applicant had planted the trees, but wanted to request a variance approval to see if he could keep the stone. The staff recommendation was for denial due to a lack of physical hardship on the property. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, felt the applicant met all criteria with the exception of hardship. However, Jay pointed out that instead of hardship, the PEC could find 4 extraordinary circumstances or strict interpretation depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other owners of other properties in the same area. Jay added that in previous years, stone veneer had not been counted when measuring setbacks, thus many homes now would be considered to be in the setback because their stone veneer had not been counted. Jay also explained that an overhang extended beyond this wall and made the impact of the stone on surrounding properties negligible. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a side setback variance, followed by a second by Connie Knight. The vote was 7 -0 In favor. 4. A request for a variance from the maximum allowable driveway grade at 16 Forest Road /Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne /Jay Peterson Staff: Greg Hall /Jill Kammerer Kristan Pritz explained the requested variance. The staff memo explained the history of the construction of the home and driveway. Greg Hall, Town Engineer, was available for questioning. The heated driveway was constructed at a 19.7 percent slope. The variance being requested was for a slope of 7.7 percent above the allowable grade of 12 percent. Approved DRB plans showed a slope of 8 percent. It was then discovered that there was a discrepancy in the written scale on the site plan and the scale at which the site plan was drawn. Because of this error, the house was shifted to the west to ensure the house would fit within the site setbacks. Shifting the house resulted in a change of grade of the driveway from 8 percent to 13.3 percent, reflected on the drawings submitted for a building permit on June, 1991. The Town Engineer said he would approve this change. On November 6, 1991, the DRB approved modifications to the approved site plan which called for relocating the driveway. The slope of the proposed driveway was 19.7 percent. The DRB consent approved the modifications subject to the condition the Town Engineer approve the driveway and pond modifications. The applicant's representative received notice of the approval and the conditions of approval later that same day. Subsequent to the DRB's approval, the applicant proceeded to grade the new driveway location and install the heating coils and concrete base for the new drive. This work occurred without the Town Engineer's approval. Following the December 10, 1991 notifications by the Town that the applicant must obtain a variance for the driveway, the applicant installed the brick pavers, thereby completing construction of the driveway. The resulting driveway grade of 19.7 percent was due, in part, to the fact that the applicant desired to have a level area immediately in front of the garage doors on which to back and park autos. The staff was recommending denial of the request based on special privilege and safety. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that he must take some of the blame for the construction of the driveway at 19.7 percent grade. He was aware that the DRB approval had to be approved by staff, but did not go to the site in time to tell Ron Byrne before he finished • 5 the driveway. However, he felt the 19.7 percent slope made sense. Jay recalled many sites which, when built, were steeper than the plans in some areas and flatter than the proposed plans in other areas. Jay described the problems of building on a steep and narrow lot. He also mentioned the Hobart home was right on the property line. He showed cross sections and discussed percentages of the driveway. Jay declared that even with several major snow storms, the driveway was dry and safe and .there was no danger of cars sliding out onto Forest Road. Jay then displayed a plat which indicated many other steep driveways (12, 14, 16, 18 and 21 percent slope) in the neighborhood. He felt driveways could be much steeper than 12 percent with heating. Jay felt it was better to have a steep part and a flatter area at the top of the drive, He felt this request would not result in special privilege. Ron Byrne did not claim hardship, but better design. Connie felt the solution was best. Kristan Pritz felt this was a PEC decision, but the error in the survey did not contribute to the decision to change the driveway. Greg Hall explained that he discovered the error when he put the two site plans together. Kristan added the staff stood by the approval of a driveway of 14.2 percent, but could not staff approve a 19.7 percent grade. Dalton Williams asked Greg Hall how the Town had arrived at 12 percent as a top driveway grade, and Greg replied that 12 percent was a standard used across the United States. The Fire Department can get their trucks up a grade of 12 percent. Kristan added that she believed the driveways mentioned by Jay as being above 12 percent were probably not built at the grade approved on the building plans. Kathy Langenwalter felt she could support the request, but felt the limit had been reached. She felt a better solution could have been found. She did feel criteria needed to be established. Dalton felt he could support the request because it was not a special privilege, given the number of homes in the area that had driveways thata exceeded 12 percent, and also there was a hardship. Chuck Crist felt he could support the variance because it created a better solution. Gena Whitten agreed with Chuck. Ludi said there was a problem with the procedures used to arrive at this juncture. He felt everyone had been guessing, rather than dealing with facts. He agreed with the Town Engineer that it was safer to have a flat area when entering from Forest Road. Although he supported the request, the whole process did not feel right. Diana supported the request because the result had more positives than negatives and she felt the need for a flat area at the top of the driveway. Diana added the Town needed to come up with some criteria so they will know they are getting a workable driveway. Kathy moved to approve the request with the finding I, 2, and 3b. Chuck seconded the • 6 motion and the vote was 7 -0 In favor. 5. A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code regarding minor exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core N, Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, and Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO JANUARY 27, 1992 This item was tabled with items 8 and 9. 6. A request for a major amendment to Phase IV-A of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive /Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica showed floor plans and elevations and listed changes made from the previously approved SDD Amendment (1991). The changes were as follows: 1. Conversion of the 4th floor of the Lobby Building to a single, free - market DU of approximately 2,900 sq ft. 2. Conversion of the new 3rd floor of the Pancake House Building from 2 AUs and one employee- restricted DU to 8 AUs. 3. Conversion of one existing 250 sq ft AU in the Food and Deli Building and one existing 250 sq ft AU on 2nd floor of Pancake House Building to "permanently restricted" employee DUs. 4. Permanent restriction of a Pitkin Creek Park DU of 800 sq ft for an employee unit. Mike explained the only exterior changes were window modifications. The net result was 14 AUs, comprising approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. He then showed the site plan in the area of the sidewalk in front of the Vail Gateway Building. The staff felt a connection to this walkway was necessary. This could be a ramp or stairway. Kathy wondered about requiring a sidewalk all along the Frontage Road. Mike responded the staff did propose the VVI construct a sidewalk the entire length of the VVI property (in 1991), at which time the Town Council and the PEC did not feel the timing was appropriate. Mike pointed out Item H of the SDD Criteria addressed landscaping. Mike stated the staff would like to see additional landscaping added along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn, with 3 to 4 clusters of large aspen and spruce. • 7 0 The conditions of the staff recommendation for approval were: 1. The proposed DU to be located on the 4th floor of the Lobby Building be restricted in use per Section 17.26.075 of the zoning code. 2. All 3 employee DUs be provided with full kitchens and permanently restricted as employee units. 3. A pedestrian connection be provided adjacent to the South Frontage Road to the Vail Gateway Plaza Building sidewalk, design subject to approval of DRB. 4. Applicant provide additional landscaping along the north property line of the Vail Village Inn per Section IV (H) of the staff memo 5. The applicant provide screening of the existing trash compactor immediately to the north of the Pancake House Building, design subject to DRB approval. Kristan listed the basis for the staff recommending approval as follows. The board felt the free - market dwelling unit must be restricted. This could be used as a short term rental unit when the owner was not using the unit, and the mass and bulk of Phase IV -A did not change. i 2. The Town was getting one additional AU. s 3. The Town was getting 3 employee units. 4. The property was being upgraded. 5. The property was getting landscaping. 6. Pedestrian connection would be completed to the Gateway sidewalk. 7. Underground parking was being opened to the public. 8. The compactor was being screened. Bill Pierce, project architect, listed the improvements being made and stated that without the free - market unit, the project was not feasible financially. Jonathan Staufer, representing Josef Staufer, explained that with the July proposal, $800,000 in improvements were planned. With the present proposal, the improvements would add up to $2 million. Diana said one negative is that all the available GRFA for DUs had been used. She did feel the DU should be restricted per the staff's suggestion, to be consistent. Diana listed as negatives the employee unit moved off -site and the surface parking at the entrance to the • 8 project. Postives were the additional square feet used for employee housing; the interior parking becoming available to the public, having the trash screened, the addition of landscaping, the footprint was remaining the same, and the whole project was being upgraded. Diana felt the need for at least "some sidewalk" along the Frontage Road. Kristan added two more positive factors: the conference facility was being upgraded and enlarged and the entire building would now meet building and fire code requirements. Mike explained the restrictions on the DU would mean the unit could not be used more than 28 days during December 24 to January 1 and February 1 to March 20. Also, it could not be used as a permanent residence.as there was a 6 -month restriction on this type of use. Kristan added these restrictions were used at the Garden of the Gods, the Ramshorn and the space formerly housing "Goods ". Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Diana regarding the sidewalk. She added the whole dumpster area needed to be cleaned up. She told Jonathan it would behoove him to provide a pedestrian walkway between the VVI and the south walkway of the Gateway Building. Bill Pierce explained how one could get to the Pancake House or the Lobby Building through a series of covered walkways in the Food and Deli Building, without using the area near the Gateway Building. He said the applicant would have no problem with putting kitchens into the employee units and restricting the units permanently. With regard to the pedestrian connection to the Gateway Building adjacent to the South Frontage Road, he felt the transition in grades should be Leo Palmer's (Gateway owner) responsibility, but the applicant would be • willing to look at this again. Pierce stated the applicant would also be willing to landscape along the north property line, but that it was nearly impossible for an individual to talk to the CDOH and accomplish results. He felt it would cost more to receive their approval than to make the improvements. He agreed to screen the trash compactor. However, the applicant would not agree to restrict the DU. Diana explained that the CDOH had already bought into the landscaping plan along the Frontage Road, so there should not be a problem getting approval. Jonathan mentioned that there were also utilities in the area that would be dug up. Bill added the applicant would be willing to participate in the process, but it would be difficult to accomplish. Diana felt the staff could work with Leo Palmer. Mike responded he had spoken with Leo that morning and Leo would be willing to work with the VVI to make the connection. Connie wondered if the requested GRFA for DUs would be over that allowed. Kristan responded it would be, and this was definitely the key issue. Connie wondered how the DU restriction would be controlled. She felt one more absentee owner did not help the Town. Connie liked the control on the Pitkin Creek employee unit. She questioned the discrepancy in the amount of GRFA the memo gave for the DU and that given by Bill Pierce. Bill responded he liked to round the number up until the drawings were more definite. Chuck did not feel the unit needed to be restricted, since the proposal included more AUs. He wanted to see more landscaping and a sidewalk. • 9 Gena and Ludi agreed with Chuck. Ludi felt the landscaping and sidewalk on the north side were very important, and planning and financial help should come from the applicant. Diana felt the PEG must support the condominium conversion regulations which would place the restrictions on the DU. Bill pointed out all of Phase III of the VVI (the tali building on the northeast corner of the property) was free market, and over 50% of the units were rented out short term. Kristan suggested another option if the DU were not restricted, which was having a couple of restricted lock -off units. Mike Lauterbach, also representing the applicant, suggested the applicant pay for the landscaping and the Town do the actual work. He stressed the project must be financially feasible to make it possible for Josef Staufer to build it. He reminded the Board there would be 14 more AUs on the market. Diana replied too many DUs in Vail were sitting unoccupied, and the restrictions would not prevent the owner from using the unit. Diana asked Mike Mollica how the improvements along the Frontage Road would be handled. Mike replied the PEC's motion must be as specific as possible. Diana would like to see the sidewalk continue to the corner behind the Crossroads Building. Bill pointed out Josef Staufer did not own Phase III of VVI (nor Crossroads), but he would try to help financially, though Bill . did not know how much financial help Mr. Staufer could give. Diana felt Mr. Staufer should pay for the area in front of his property. Dalton agreed, and felt this was a fair exchange in return for obtaining a unit for sale. Mike Lauterbach suggested the applicant help financially and the Town perform improvements and gain approvals from the CDOH. Kristan felt the Town would be willing to help gain the approvals. Bill felt the applicant did not have control over the portion which would not be on his property. Mike affirmed the staff would work with the CDOH to get necessary approvals. Kristan suggested one condition of approval could be that the sidewalk must be constructed contingent upon approvals being obtained from the CDOH. Mike pointed out all of the sidewalk would be on CDOH property. He suggested expanding condition #3, that the length of the pedestrian connection, be clarified by the addition of "to Phase III of the VVI." Diana, Kathy and Connie asked the staff to pass on to the Town Council their wish to restrict the DU. Chuck Crlst moved to recommend to Council approval of the requested major amendment to the SDD with conditions 2,3,4,and 5 plus the requirement of extending the sidewalk to the western property line of Phase 111111. Dalton added a second, and the vote was 4 -3 In favor. Diana, Connie and Kathy voted against the request (without the restriction of the DU). • 10 • 7. An update on the redevelopment status of the exterior alteration request for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association /Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica Clark Willingham, applicant, gave an update on the status of the Golden Peak House project. He felt a rezoning would be possible. There had been many good meetings with other adjacent property owners, the covenants were solvable, the height on the east end and west end had been lowered 3 feet. The center section had been pulled back to reveal 15 more visible feet of Riva Ridge ski run from Bridge Street. With regard to the view corridor, the entrance to Los Amigos had been moved back to the east, and it would be out of the view corridor. Mr. Willingham had incorporated all the changes the Fire Department had requested. He had a meeting with Greta Parks (owner of the Cyrano Building to the east) and suggested plans to redevelop the Cyrano Building at the same time. In two weeks the project architect, Craig Snowdon, would be back to the PEG with specific drawings. Mr. Willingham was pleased with the support of the neighbors. He had put poles and tape on the roof of the Golden Peak House, which were still in place, to identify the proposed roof structure. is Craig Snowdon, project architect, explained Unit #405 had been removed from the 4th floor. He showed snapshots of the roof staking. Diana expressed gratitude for the constructive input and the working with the neighbors. 8. A request to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase II. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc./Steve Gensler Planners: Andy Knudtsen /Kristan Pritz TABLED TO JANUARY 27, 1992 9. A request for a setback variance and conditional use permit to allow a tow which will transport people and supplies from the garage to the house at 2701 Davos Trail /Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Brian and Sonja Craythorne Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JANUARY 27, 1992 Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to table items 5, 8 and 9 until January 27, 1992. The 0 11 vote was 7 -0. • 10. Approval of PEC meeting minutes for December 16, 1991 meeting. Kathy moved and Gena seconded to approve the minutes of 12116. The vote was 5 -0 -2 with Dalton and Ludi abstaining. • 0 12 s MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration for the Slifer Building, located within the Commercial Core I zone district, 230 Bridge Street, Lot B and a part of Lot C, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Beth and Rod Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer . i`zs°:acN'r " rA: r7.' �T�� :orrv:cyr�,�,��,x?.o-:�?r�� >;; t+�?,il�'i:: �:g�� €?s�.<p "4: f of �.?�:?y:G�';��.��,y.� f`` r� ?.y,::i�• � �o ,as. W."ell vy .R:OiC n�S��N��:{•. Qr/- �,r SY. �[ vr: r.. r., 4:• .4.rxr.Y:vr:{'r:rr:r.�xr.Or.nli q.J•v:.:r.11.Jr:fv.4000 �C.U.•.:..:. f.. ?.. ?. rr. fn �iC:,C nJ.� '. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant proposes to add 57.5 sq. ft. of site coverage to the Slifer Building in order to construct 53 sq. ft. additional first floor display area for the Slifer Collection retail business and 538 sq. ft. of new second floor office space above the existing Slifer Collection retail space. The 4' deep x. 11' -6" wide x 28' tall addition would be located on the front (west) facade of the existing Slifer Collection retail space entrance (see attached plans). The applicant also proposes to infill an area generally in the same location as the existing entrance to the Slifer Collection retail space, which is covered by building above. Because the area to be infilled is located under a cantilevered area, this new 28 sq. ft. entry vestibule is already included in the site coverage calculations and therefore will not increase site coverage. The Slifer Building is located in Commercial Core I. The maximum site coverage allowed in this zone district is 80 %. The existing building's site coverage is 92.1 %. Under this proposal, site coverage would increase to 93.9 %. Therefore, in order to allow the construction of the additional site coverage of 57.5 sq. ft., the applicant is requesting an increase in site coverage of 1.8 %. In addition to this request for a site coverage variance, the applicant will also be required to obtain an exterior alteration approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. • • Il. BACKGROUND Other Town departments have not yet reviewed the proposal. On November 13, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed and approved a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration request for the Slifer Building for a 93 sq. ft. addition at this same general location (please see the attached memo). The proposed addition was subsequently approved by the Design Review Board (DRB) on November 29, 1989. The PEC approved site coverage variance expired on November 13, 1990, and the DRB approval expired on November 29, 1990. In January of 1991, the Town's definition of site coverage was changed. Under the new definition, cantilevered areas and covered walkways count as site coverage. For this reason, the existing site coverage numbers in this memo will not correspond with the 1989 memo. Under the 1989 site coverage and exterior alteration approval, the existing site coverage was calculated at 89% and the proposed site coverage was 92 %. In August of 1991, the PEC denied Super Stars Studio's request for a site coverage variance for the construction of two bay windows at the Gorsuch Building, located in the Commercial Core I zone district, with the findings the property is not encumbered with a physical hardship or unique circumstances and the project does not meet the findings for a site coverage variance. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: 3,210 sq. ft Zoning: Commercial Core I Site Coverage: Allowed: 80% or 2,568 sq. ft. Existing: 92.1% or 2,956.7 sq. ft. (which is 388.7 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage) Proposed: 93.9% or 3,014.2 sq. ft. (which would be 446.2 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage) *A portion of the area to be infilled under this redevelopment proposal will not contribute additional site coverage because the space to be infilled is already covered by the second floor of the building. 0 2 Parking: The applicant will be required to contribute $19,496.00 to the Town of Vail parking fund. The proposed addition will require 2.435 parking spaces. The parking fee for 1 commercial parking space is $8,000.00. (85.5 sq. ft./300 =.285 x $8000 = $2,280.00) The parking fee for office space is also $8,000.00 per parking space. The formula for parking spaces associated with office use is as follows: 538 sq. ft. /250 = 2.152 x $8,000 = $17,216.00. Total parking fee = $2,280.00 + $17,216.00 = $19,496.00 IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Is there a physical hardship which warrants the granting of a site coverage variance? The section of the Code relating to site coverage in CCI states: "18.24.150 - Coverage. Not more than eighty percent of the total site area shall be covered by building and ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) § 1 (part).)" The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan: The design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this established character. The design considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan relating to these site coverage variance and exterior alteration requests are as follows: A. Pedestrianization B. Vehicular Penetration C. Streetscape Framework D. Street Enclosure E. Street Edge F. Building Height G. Views and Focal Points H. Service and Delive I. Sun Shade 0 3 • J. Architecture/Landscape Considerations 2. Will the proposed addition encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors? 3. The existing maple tree will need to be removed under this proposal. To compensate for the removal of this tree, the applicant has proposed to construct a 45 square foot planter between the addition and the Ore House's exterior dining deck wall. The net planting area in the planter will be 37 square feet. In this planting area, the applicant proposes to install two, 3 -4 inch caliper aspens and ground cover. To further compensate for the removal of the existing maple, the applicants propose to install the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan's approved paving on property which they own, adjacent to the building. 4. Currently, 7 newspaper dispenser boxes are located along the southern edge of the applicant's property, in part on the applicant's property and in part on Town -owned property. Should these boxes be consolidated into streetscape approved dispenser boxes, moved off -site, or should some variation of these two alternatives be pursued? S. The proposed addition will cast 147 sq. ft. of additional shadow onto Bridge Street (see attached drawing). 6. Are the proposed design and the resulting streetscape modifications acceptable? 0 c:\pec\rnemos\sEfcr.113 4 fr) OD 0) uy U C7 a:.r. C! 0 'o 00 t2 - - - (.•s... � �, .yr � b .� ' rte'-. °$ W 4 W W - - - (.•s... � �, .yr � b .� ' rte'-. C • • HCIj, A � - vat~r�pa Naiidawno.! ae� el n� 9� Ll 0 a�L � I. • M aF- opt co 6 • W • � 0 4, W 'k- x • • m Y C? F m 1Y S �7 O x 44 71 'I x W 0 Y U O i1 P-� O O Q N ad W D Q N s 4 ^r o m r 1 9 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 13, 1989 SUBJ: A request for a site coverage variance at the Slifer Building (230 Bridge Street), Lot B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Slifer Designs ---Rod and Beth Slifer I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Slifer Designs is preparing to open an interior design retail store out of the space previously occupied by "Club Vail" on Bridge Street. The applicants are requesting to expand the footprint and modify the west facade of the Slifer Building to accommodate this new business (see attached staff memorandum for the exterior alteration request). In order to expand the building footprint of the Slifer Building a site coverage variance is required. The site coverage numbers are as follows: . Allowable: 2568 sq ft or 80% of the site Existing: 2860 sq ft or 890 *Proposed: 2953 sq ft or 92% * The proposal is for an additional 93 square feet of site coverage. The requested variance is from Section 18.24.150 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code which states: "Not more than 80% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings...." II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the 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._ . It is the staff's opinion that the requested variance, in conjunction with the proposed site improvements related to the exterior alteration, would have no adverse effect upon the use of any adjacent properties. In fact, we feel that the variance, if approved, would create a more enjoyable pedestrian environment which would add to the visual interest of lower Bridge Street. Also, this requested variance would not block or impede views from any surrounding properties. 2. The decree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to-achieve compatibility and .uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes that approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. We feel that the variance is appropriate because the proposed addition will enable the Slifer Building to be more in compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan than the existing structure currently is. compliance with the Guide Plan is the most important aspect for development in the Village, and it is for that very reason that we feel a departure from the general zoning standards is warranted in this situation. 3. The effect of the requested _ variance on light and air, distribution of-population, transportation and traffic facilities ublic facilities and utilities and public safety. The staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations. III. Such factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before_grantincta variance;_ That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 11 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation 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 RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. • We feel that the Vail Village area has unique development considerations and that approval of this variance would allow the Slifer Building to be brought into more conformance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. vd�� • 3 -0- 1 (C— I "A3 ,ohs'4 4d OC2_ A7�- fo"'— 66C� TO: iFROM: DATE: .7 The Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development November 13, 1989 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration at 230 Bridge Street (Slifer Building), Lot B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing, in order to construct a 93 square foot addition. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an exterior alteration and addition at the Slifer Building on Bridge Street, which if approved would include a shop front revision and an addition of 93 square feet of floor area. This shop was previously leased by "Club Vail ", essentially a tee -shirt shop. However, with the completion of this exterior alteration, an interior design retail store, similar to "The Finishing Touch" will be operated out of the space. This exterior alteration calls for the following site modifications: .» The addition of brick pavers immediately in front of the shop; this would replace the existing concrete surface. - The addition of two planter boxes and a bench; to be located in the small courtyard adjacent to the store entry. - The existing maple tree will remain in its current location. However, the applicant is proposing to prune the tree to allow for greater storefront visibility. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. Zone District: Commercial Core I 2. Lot Area: 3,210 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage *: Allowable = 2,568 sq. ft. = 80% Existing = 2,860 sq. ft. = 890 Current Proposal = 93 sq. ft. TOTAL = 2,953 sq. ft. = 920 * See attached staff memorandum for the requested site coverage variance. 3 4. Parking: . The proposed 93 square feet of additional floor area will require 0.31 parking spaces. The applicant has agreed to contribute to the Town parking fund to meet this requirement. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose: The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. It is the staff's opinion that this proposal is in conformance with the intent of the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district as stated above. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no sub -area concepts which relate directly to this area of the Village. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE A. Pedestrianization: This exterior alteration will have no impact upon pedestrian circulation within the Vail Village area. B. Vehicular Penetration: This addition will have no impact upon vehicular penetration within the Vail Village area as Bridge Street is generally classified as a pedestrian -only street. • C. Steetscape_Framework: . The Design Considerations strive to improve the quality of the walking /pedestrian environment by promoting the use of landscaping along pedestrian routes and the creation of plazas and park green spaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. The Design Considerations also suggest the infill of commercial storefronts at key locations along pedestrian routes to add street life and visual interest to the Village. The staff feels that this proposal will contribute positively to the overall pedestrian experience. The proposed planter boxes, bench and paver design, along with the preservation of the existing maple tree, will create a small plaza area which we believe will enhance the lower Bridge Street area. D. Street Enclosure: The guidelines emphasize that building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building and that they should provide a comfortable enclosure for the street. This proposed expansion will provide the recommended stepped -back appearance to the west elevation of the Slifer Building and staff believes the Slifer Building will be in conformance with this design criteria. . E. Street Edge: This criteria encourage buildings in the Village Core to form a strong but irregular edge to the street. The proposed addition will meet this criteria with its glass - walled facade and irregular building line. The small plaza area and extensive window transparency will also add to the visual interest of the pedestrian environment. F. Building Height: The proposed addition will have a maximum height of 10 feet and will have no impact on overall building height. G. Views and Focal Points: This proposal will have no impact on views. H. Service and Delivery: No impact. The existing service /delivery alley on the east side of the building will not be affected.. I. Sun /Shade • This proposal will not substantially increase the spring or fall shadow patterns on adjacent properties or on Bridge Street. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The staff recommends approval of this request for an exterior alteration. We feel that the proposal complies with all of the applicable Design Considerations of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The staff recommendation for approval includes the condition that the companion application for a site coverage variance be approved. 3. V/ • v-f5 2`[N5 -`T mac: �Y1N(�7 Giti ^U L AN i xis t jig 4Tot`!c WAL I t 1 i • , MI P FIT)& 14 Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lot "Wal WIT . . . . . . fa took A3 Vy, sit 0, NO A 0 iz t, i A VA:0 Olt% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lot "Wal WIT . . . . . . fa took A3 Vy, sit 0, NO A 0 iz t, ti • 4 � � 41 .. � ter. � } .. 1•, ,.� { tai r }••�- d�. ^d _,4 .t4� ql om •, - 1. . r• • T��"�(i pyS y!D ow - {�. f � •• •Cv�� d>�..�� -Y��� a jam', •' ^` � • � �� ,,� - r .r x F�i'j�� 5.• r� ti � S �xr.. � Y � �- ° � a - r� "'%ar �. i �t �• "l 4 � ; �.x ell 'V - "• a ' f ' • ;r• ,s a✓' _ �s * N ^mot ''N, rhE• \r•r �'`• ` w.� ♦e �d;: '1f�77 rr3�.7� VT_ - 'h ✓ ,+r�'� lr r rf ,c • YC.�� ^.'S,'G���- 3Cw��.YS,�,• s'�?�t:1• �_ ��r�� �iA,.•mrt� rk- t� _; ♦ r , 1 4 -.. o-f �ri'�:; i'}- r` �"- ,'R.'ry�. v.,y,, -1 f. 4'; ` ,}'�'•� x v .�ryy ;6,w a • �+ Y , 4 er��tx,.eY. ,y ?%� {�j ?'r�' y;'ai14 'w�- �`'f;�,.cr� ��t�.4 t'7[r�y�.lti►1 "7' -+�• ° � ;ry1 �`3r_ .Y.i• rc 4 � r �t ijn. ���rl i3i- �- t�'rl�� ''��} � i's` t�94�4yZ i+ may' �Y .s i f 1 l4• 1 - . .✓� �r•Y.�.c y _ N i:i� � 1 � 2k`� - ffF i r 'J 'I •�.L,: �• ,�. .-r. i! . *�� ,... � •. Y.s.� ';;sy?ty Jr ? - • �� r � ��5�' 11�,' La �[!r [f��[e E�!!1{''`r�:. �.r�'r�r '. _. M s • s ]., - } •i fi '�• , � Mi�' r ♦ / ''"� s Ik i�i't 4ti k � - � {;A�t .�.:i�a tlt�'7•.%'t� •Yw, 4 -, ✓} 2� -.� 1`"! ' ?7 ry ���Y� :��r i � .'L- s he. a J•IC.r �4 t*' - �,} w..°i .. lS �' '��" `? - �� }:� "ice � �S} ski: /' i:T {!� iy i �. '7: � .. +• � - * _ t, • .� t � .� � a Fi- y �S `� „vim tr 5-t J �F_'� $ {�. �'•6-{ l� Y � icy 11 1' CL. "j'`• '�' '"t}��»' �' .�' 4 1 ,,#y�' ..- ":"t "ti ..'.i'i. -:.. li. '.• ., � -'_} �', t' .4 �, -..'d ktrt, ;�� ��F�4: �'. "��R'r`r•,.4 r>, 7} � +DJ�'x�s'�>:- r��,.$�! *,��k..�'{ y ��+:� -i` R..1 "•1 :... ui,•. �.. v. rS �i..... �u. ..,:.:,...�.+rh- .»nAa.:E:1•xii. �f,. :�.:]�s,As.d 'I y "r� ,,;L` �'4 .�'•r�'i�r; hl_''f'f�a��•.-'�4Ls`.._,r �ra - r �� ,�i..itL:� �, :Y�xti... Ki�,:�rriw'IR :C- �- +:+�.e:a'_�24 ii+'.i'.�+�.•r:.�4.t- �:�+rs . is MEMORANDUM TO. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for a modular office trailer at 846 Forest Road/Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District (UEVCSD) Planner: Shelly Mello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting to place a 12 ft x 56 ft modular unit on the above site to accommodate an increased demand for office space. The proposed location of the unit is on the southwest side of the property behind the parking structure. The unit is proposed to be located for a period of one year during which a permanent office space can be built. The proposed modular unit would be wood -sided with a pitched, shake roof. The proposal is located in the Public Use zone district (PUD). In this zone district, the development standards are established by the PEC in order to allow for the flexibility necessary to accommodate public and quasi - public facilities. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The purpose section of the Public Use District (PUD) states, "The Public Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed for • • other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare." UEVCSD has requested this temporary facility in order to accommodate an unexpected increase in staff. A remodel to the existing facilities is proposed for the summer of 1992, with completion by January 1, 1993. Because a permanent solution is being proposed, the staff finds that it is reasonable to allow the modular unit on a temporary basis. In general, this request meets the purpose section of the PUD zone district and is in compliance with the development objectives of the Town for this zone district. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed modular unit will be visible from the Town's recreation path located along Gore Creek. In an effort to mitigate this, the staff would recommend that the applicant install five, 6 - 8 foot evergreens along the south fence line adjacent to Gore Creek. We also would like to see the dumpster enclosed as it is also visible from the recreation path. In addition, the staff would also recommend that the unit be a minimum of five feet from the south fence line. This will decrease the visibility of the unit from the recreation path and will not increase the visibility of the unit from the frontage road. There will be no impacts on any of the remaining criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The following details the existing on -site parking: 33 paved spaces 4 unpaved spaces 7 paved customer parking spaces 44 available spaces on -site • 2 • With this proposal, 6 spaces would be removed. There is 3,320 square feet of existing office space in the UEVCSD facility which requires 14 parking spaces, based on one space per 250 square feet of office space. The temporary unit will have 672 square feet of office space and will require 3 parking spaces. The total parking requirement including existing offices and the temporary modular office will be 17 spaces. Office space does not include areas such as bathrooms, common hallways, mechanical areas or storage space. In this case, the square footage does include offices, reception areas, conference space and laboratories. Since the parking requirement will still be met, we find that the loss of 6 spaces will not be a problem. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed unit will not increase the mass and bulk of the existing building. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before • granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the request for a period of one year from the date of approval with the following conditions: 1. Five 6 -8 foot evergreen trees be installed by June 1, 1992 along the south property line in order to mitigate the appearance of the modular unit; and • 3 2. The existing trash dumpster be enclosed in order to further improve the appearance of this area from the recreation path. The staff finds that since this is a temporary structure to be located for a period of no more than one year, the use of a modular unit is appropriate. In addition, since the project will still meet its parking requirement, we find that the temporary loss of parking spaces will not be detrimental. Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval 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* 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance in order to allow an addition to an existing non - conforming structure at 864 Spruce Court/a part of Lot 12, Vail Village 9th Filing. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Broughton/Steve Shanley Planner: Andy Knudtsen I I. DESCRIPTION,OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The applicants, Steve Shanley and Dr. and Mrs. Broughton, are requesting a variance to the non - conforming section of the zoning code, specifically Section 18.64.050(B). That section states that "structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the pre - existing non - conforming structure." This duplex does not conform to density controls because the lot on which it is located is less than 15,000 square feet. Though the lot has additional GRFA which could be used, the number of dwelling units on the site (two) exceed what the current code allows. The code only allows two units on a lot less than 15,000 square feet if the secondary unit is restricted for employee housing. Because both units are separately owned and neither is deed restricted for employee housing, a variance to the non - conforming section of the code is needed to allow for the use of the remaining GRFA. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The two owners of the duplex would like to remodel the structure. The area for the proposed addition is south of the duplex. The proposed addition will be two stories and includes a two -car garage on the first floor and approximately 600 square feet of GRFA on the second floor. By a private agreement between the two owners, each will be entitled to one of the two parking spaces within the garage. The background of the project starts in 1970, when the 9th Filing (in which this lot is located) was platted. The Town of Vail issued a building permit for a two - family structure in 1973. The Town's requirement that secondary units on lots less than 15,000 square feet be restricted for employee housing was added to the zoning code in 1979. Last of all, the Town approved a duplex subdivision for the property in 1987 which allowed for two separate ownerships. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Duplex Lot area: 12,354.4 sq. ft. (Note: The 12' rear setback and the 13' side setback are not changed with this proposal.) IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: • 2 Allowed Existing Proposed Total GRFA: 3,938.6 1,843 683.1 2,526.1 Site Coverage: 2,470.9 1,100 635.4 1,735.4 Height: 33' 26.5' 26.5' Parking spaces 4 4 8 8 Setbacks: Front: 20 ft 37 ft 30 ft North Side: 15 ft 13 ft 13 ft South Side: 15 ft 34 ft 31 ft Rear: 15 ft 12 ft 12 ft (Note: The 12' rear setback and the 13' side setback are not changed with this proposal.) IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: • 2 • 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The new addition will be built on the south side of the existing home. This portion of the lot is adjacent to the North Frontage Road on the south and Red Sandstone Road on the west and is the furthest from surrounding homes. The addition is designed to match the existing house and will be compatible with the homes in the rest of the neighborhood. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the history of this site and through documentation of approvals for the two units, make the site unique from other lots with less than 15,000 square feet. Because the structure was constructed as a two - family residence prior to any Town regulations pertaining to lots less than 15,000 square feet, staff believes it is reasonable to allow the structure to maintain its original development potential. The zoning establishing the restricted unit requirement was adopted after the structure was legally constructed and creates a hardship for the property. Approval of this request will not prevent the Town from requiring an employee unit restriction for other structures built after the adoption of the restricted unit section of the code or for properties that cannot document building permit approvals for the number of units on a given lot. 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 proposed variance will not effect the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or 0 3 • improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Staff believes that a variance is warranted because the structure was approved by the Town of Vail and constructed for two families prior'to the adoption of employee housing requirements for lots such as these. Because the lot has available unused GRFA, staff believes that it is reasonable for the applicant to use the GRFA. The findings are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: 1. Staff believes that approval of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege as the Town has approved similar variance requests for the Bighorn Townhouses in East Vail. Though those situations are not identical to this, they are similar in that there was available, unused GRFA on the site. 2. Staff believes approving the variance will not be a detriment to public health, safety or welfare. 3(b). Staff believes that the variance is warranted, specifically because there are extraordinary circumstances related to this site that are not generally true of many of the sites in this zone district. Specifically, the history and documentation of approvals for this site, given the construction prior to the adoption of the employee housing regulation, sets this site apart from other lots less than 15,000 square feet. e:\pec`vnemos\brougton.113 0 4 i 1 r- ncz 0 4—j C- rn VI 0 L 1 _(D i r� V J LI LJ I } ,11 • c, R�Ty rl I 7 7 � 4 ! V i I r U W "fJ a) W O O L I cz m LJ • I sea�t�t+con � , O ^I"' ca A� W W O CO c O XZ- O) O Cn a _N ca M, 0 0 C O _O W cn c� W O o m W A _N C- M CO • r� U • �3 F O O cLS _N W w �# � 0 1 trV r'r V IF-] L] l� u c cz O O it N N CL J L d} CZ O O� O L 1 _W cu -r— U) n r r �J c cz CL L- O _O LL N v J v J C O O L I _v U) • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance at 254 Beaver Dam Road, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: William Sheppard Planner: Andy Knudtsen .{vtr��y. G'Cfii.'94. - ` ...' ��C:.c.7.u`�u`.n':�n�,c+f. vf..t' �.,,�i?cC•?+". : �',•;.5,;. r., %rf.;..��:,G.<�r Sri � ..;.t°.r�'C ; <-fffip�c,�;#� `�°%o�k4 �r� 'ri�y." J ,y?T' +if � o �. ,i .fi 4..Jrr �,vr` :G':4'. Iifl i•.:vi;otii' ' 'r�U. �e r. rh Jt ! l �1' �+.cc^��i .•P�y^' '$:�3".�Y� �. �' '�k'.''�{}r"o:r,�: ,.c�',�or'�fia ,J�,l�r`'fzf�f'.�1� £o�•�%a:� %nirii;36�s a��$C �'.U.� r,r�c. �y?r/�,� . 4 <F 4 � .�i .3d s. '•�,�.rJ,.���: � � r•:yca'!ic ,:�'r'ac�.'i o0o..3 ?yFgr;� c�Q`'o.: ?`' }:f'e.?• �eh�;h��f. '��rrjF�%:�'r'{s�'�,�' ?�kEic"oudrFW¢ 4w' ����'.''' �0t. �sFa: ra` fiAr�' x��rc�' �:' c` �%' s��:' �. i�i�i5i54lrr» t' �# ik�i�, ��u; 2F' fi `.:�:�.,�`r'�`�w� «oar.a��saafi; two' fh. :airi`FS`fg°�,%,�i?r.2c�rc�,o✓ I. BACKGROUND The Sheppard duplex, located at 596 Forest Road, was remodeled in 1991. The exterior expansions included two new stair towers on either side of the building and a new garage on the east side of the building. The proposed changes were approved by the Design Review Board on April 17, 1991, and this design required no variances from the zoning standards. The design provided for 15 -foot side yard setbacks on each side of the lot. Construction of these expansions proceeded through the summer of 1991. In September, the contractor submitted an improvement location certificate for the framing inspection and found that the garage on the eastern unit had been constructed seven inches into the side yard setback. The owner discussed the problem with staff and agreed to remove the stone veneer that had been placed on the side of the garage. With the removal of the stone veneer, the garage would encroach approximately one inch into the side yard setback. A one inch encroachment is acceptable since, staff understands, horizontal survey information is only accurate up to 2 {10 of a foot. Because the resulting encroachment, without the stone, is within that margin of error, the Town can accept it. The applicant received a design approval to remove the stone and put stucco on the eastern wall of the garage. This approval was made with a condition that the applicant plant five aspens to compensate for the less attractive appearance of the wall. The applicant has planted the trees, but before removing the stone, wanted to request a variance approval to see if he could keep the stone. • • M DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, William Sheppard, is requesting a side setback variance. The setback requirement is 15 feet and he is proposing 14 feet 5 inches. Staff sees two solutions to this encroachment problem; the first is for the applicant to remove the rock veneer currently on the east wall of the structure and replace it with stucco; the second is for the PEC to approve the variance request. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Lot area: 40,102 sq ft Allowed GRFA: 7,105.1 sq. ft. (included two "250's" that have been approved) Height: 33.0 ft . Setbacks: Front: 20 ft required West Side: 15 ft required East Side: 15 ft required Rear: 15 ft required * Area of requested variance. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Existing 7,076.5 sq. ft. 32.6 ft 34.0 ft provided 16.7 ft provided 14.5 ft provided* 144.0 ft provided Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The wall under consideration is not highly visible from Forest Road. However, the recently constructed home to the east is in view of the wall. Staff believes that the wall could be finished with either stone or 0 2 • is stucco without having a significant impact on the relationship of the structure to the surrounding structures in the neighborhood. It is worth noting that in general, a stone finish on this area of a residence is thought to be more attractive than stucco. Typically, a setback encroachment affects the separation between structures. In this case, the neighboring house is located far enough from the Sheppard duplex that the proposed variance would have little impact on it. 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 original design for the remodel of this house met the setback standards. The lot is relatively large for a lot located in the Primary /Secondary zone district, and does not have, in staff's opinion, a physical hardship which justifies a variance. 3. The effect of the requested population, transportation utilities, and public safety. variance on light and air, distribution of and traffic facilities, public facilities and The proposed variance does not have an effect on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before gantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The primary reason for this recommendation is the lack of a physical hardship on the site. Thus, Criteria No. 2 is not met. Staff understands that the amount of additional encroachment requested is minimal; however, staff believes that it is important to consistently apply the same standards to all homeowners and developers. • 0 4 u V' 1 f f� t � I - �i (,05) ado& ls.3�yol G0,011 ii Al I �J x � a so n.'.m m� ❑ o �'u v W N 1 �l 4� II L Y h U f �= 1 G7 . •ZJ i, W G i1 .. rJ 7,C Oiw al O ON O� 3 F e7 U V aw `a�!'OaO• -+U� J-7 it 43 V4 a •H N R C '++ iG O U U w •H ro G N 9). 21 M o u s a a•- -H u?a,a4"i4rnmr U N ;3 Vl w U O U h C F O • •1�+U+� C-r,ro -H •.i c G 4 A rtt C ro A, C ei 4 M 4-) C C ?v ro C O ••d a C a •H a ro O, rf V O ••-� .O 314 G L+ N N •rf rtl C � C� Jr U"yOnA a -o •'1 41 G V1 a w N a�i�useRro� cao G, Lf b V 4 o a m> CJ 4 41 C 4 'owR9IdMV Nuul N 0�,�.ia� �9.0 O � a � •a $$4 i� G q ?4 U iT .-I :S G O .0 A Y7 r1 N a N O•a N G A r7 s)V wNUNa 4- J0(d�uarro vv 13'A 00) F41 sa N N v U N N N 44 a N N (D .1 1, O U m 0 VNVV O 7.X •.f N U O 0 � a V i, C C N Q -0 n G O 19 rl A •5 r5 W N N •'I •'4 '-1 •.f A a 11 11 Cam, ,Ca, LUi N N O a k •rl •.I •.� J., N ro a JJ 0a) 41, 4W v N N F A taa�� 7.0 E) Q) k• H 04 V i, A 3, a 1, 43 a N 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Phase IV-A of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive /Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica yy� }}v'-'a::yu rr�`:,/rr.•'?c:'#`:gs :::•r¢ r; :u !ff:'tE: "::�:'s��:3i:?ct:'pc ��:::: trr���' �; ��a'` 1°J.'.°sia'fiw%�G�%�;:�::T;grrr .:T. �`.ro`�r,9�r'�.�,'..��` -.n ��' ��. }}4�: i { +4.. 'v',:�}'.W�.:Jff i¢!F'O.t �:. {e.� G /Jf :. •r,.: l: S:f'.'- }:i.�ri ivr: �.����'i rf d}.� f %lr �vC•`4 �!. N44' ��f 4. r�,I �k�,�.. f �:.. ;`ki.�fi.,�... Jr: {?, f -. .��.,:: f" a! ?., r fw6- 4ris'•Y`':Y.ri 11 ry %�N1:xs �`O.• c'.k'{''r'�'r4�G'.¢f' r' '' `'�'. �, ,r�b� �� ! ,%2404'4 F. �-0tr'2.SY..:B:���g7.yle'.wu�r�C ��,.,_� S:vs:- �xcr}r r� �c a� ;f r -i r, }-�gr 4fi F....✓Hy ✓qG ;' c d ,4.2�i: .',- .Gi4o }:4:<����fi'Sf �'r• 4.J,'F.!FSC W.2::r rti!R`r •i'r'i �J2 }:_4G�;�fr rrf r� " -:f �ir f�i�if�.> � .r�:�nr.3;.;c:�':,c�:.:;�.;�' ?: ��.'��'F;�'4�: [r #',o.!G.x°': ° �69': S�7r .:.)::.v,✓`Y.w.;{.�.��,4.�rs�k. ark. �: fvr: S}. r::.. r:. r..,. firrr frr. n.•. a•:...,....: i..' �:.-'.' �i.'- rh.: �? r. ?t:: s:: o-: fS::. 3.- r:: r�fr:$: �#:, o-: �: rt:! c.. cc f,. 3.. x. �ftsr. F:: S?. F: rFf .�- r..4r.,rf.£io-�2E.C�1�2'dc. .� .$'" a INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Josef Staufer, owner and operator of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow for modifications to the Phase IV -A portion of the Vail Village Inn SDD. Phase IV -A of SDD No. 6 was approved by the Town Council on July 16, 1991, through the passage of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, (a copy of which is attached at the end of this memorandum). The 1 991 approved redevelopment plan included the upgrade and renovation of the "Lobby Building ", which currently houses the hotel lobby, the front desk area, and the Coyote Bar, as well as the adjacent "Pancake House Building" to the west. Included in the redevelopment of the Lobby Building was the addition of two residential levels above the existing structure, which were specifically designated as accommodation units (hotel rooms). The final approval for Phase IV -A consisted of a total of 13 accommodation units, comprising 6,681 square feet of GRFA, and three employee restricted dwelling units, comprising 946 square feet of GRFA. The 1991 approval also included a new roof structure for the Pancake House Building, and painting and /or staining of the building to match the remodeled Lobby Building to the east. Fourteen additional surface parking spaces were included in the redevelopment plan, as well as limited landscaping improvements on the hillside adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The current proposal before the Planning and Environmental Commission Includes the following requests: Conversion of the fourth floor of the Lobby Building to a single, free - market dwelling unit. The 1991 approval for the fourth floor included three accommodation units and two employee restricted dwelling units. The proposed free - market dwelling unit would consist of approximately 2,900 square feet of additional GRFA. 1 C I • • The conversion of the new third floor of the Pancake House Building, from the 1991 approval of two accommodation units and one employee - restricted dwelling unit, to 8 accommodation units. The conversion of one existing 250 square foot accommodation unit in the Food and Deli building, and one existing 250 square foot accommodation unit on the second floor of the Pancake House Building, to "permanently restricted" employee dwelling units. The employee restriction shall remain in force until such time as either building is redeveloped. The permanent restriction of a Pitkin Creek Park dwelling unit (Unit #7L), consisting of approximately 800 square feet of GRFA, as employee housing. This results in 14 accommodation units net increase comprising 5,915 s . ft. of GRFA, and 3 restricted employee dwelling units, comprising approximately 1,300 sq_ ft. of GRFA. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The staff has provided.a copy of the June 24, 1991 staff memorandum to the PEC, as well as a copy of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, as background information for this major amendment to the SDD. 2 0 Ill. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS To maintain simplicity, the following table only outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal with regard to Phase IV -A, and specifically compares the 1991 approved SDD with the current 1992 proposal: Phase IV -A Only Required Parking 16.4 spaces 16.5 spaces or 17.0 spaces or 17.0 spaces Notes: * One existing 250 sq. ft. AU in the Food and Deli Building, and one existing 250 square foot AU on the 2nd floor of the Pancake House Building, would each be converted to a restricted employee dwelling unit. The overall net increase in AUs for Phase IV -A would be 14, due to this conversion. ** Pitkin Creek Park dwelling unit (approximately 800 sq-ft. of GRFA). IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate the Vail Village Inn redevelopment, Phase IV-A, are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the Special Development District chapter of the zoning code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the Immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. Only minor changes are proposed to the exterior facade of the Lobby Building and the Pancake House Building with the 1992 proposal. Such minor changes include the addition of some windows on the north and south elevations. All other architectural 3 1991 Approved 1992 Proposed SDD Plan Number of DUs 0.0 1.0 Number of AUs 13.0 16.0 (Net = 14) Restricted Employee DUs On -Site 3.0 2.0* Restricted Employee'DUs Off -Site 0.0 1.0 ** GRFA - AUs 6,681.0 sq. ft. 5,915.0 sq. ft. GRFA - DUs 0.0 sq. ft. 2,927.0 sq. ft. GRFA - Employee DUs 946.0 sq. ft. 1,300.0 sq. ft. (Approx) Required Parking 16.4 spaces 16.5 spaces or 17.0 spaces or 17.0 spaces Notes: * One existing 250 sq. ft. AU in the Food and Deli Building, and one existing 250 square foot AU on the 2nd floor of the Pancake House Building, would each be converted to a restricted employee dwelling unit. The overall net increase in AUs for Phase IV -A would be 14, due to this conversion. ** Pitkin Creek Park dwelling unit (approximately 800 sq-ft. of GRFA). IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate the Vail Village Inn redevelopment, Phase IV-A, are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the Special Development District chapter of the zoning code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the Immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. Only minor changes are proposed to the exterior facade of the Lobby Building and the Pancake House Building with the 1992 proposal. Such minor changes include the addition of some windows on the north and south elevations. All other architectural 3 modifications, as approved in the 1991 proposal, will remain intact and are as indicated on the attached elevation drawings. These changes will result in an upgrade of the VVI's architectural design. The painting of the Pancake House and the new roof are designed to match the remodeled Lobby Building. The staff recommends that, as a part of this redevelopment, the existing trash compactor be adequately screened. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff is generally supportive of the applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses, activity and density. The current SDD amendment proposal includes the ,addition of 14 accommodation (hotel) rooms and one free- market dwelling unit (located on the 4th floor of the Lobby Building). Although a total of 16 accommodation units (AUs) would be constructed within this new Phase IV-A, a net of 14 AUs would be the final result, due to the conversion of 1 AU in the Food and Deli Building and one AU in the Pancake House Building, to permanently restricted employee dwelling units. The 1991 approval of the SDD included 3 permanently restricted employee dwelling units, all to be located on -site. Two of the employee units were to be located on the 4th floor of the Lobby Building, and the third employee unit was to be located on the new third floor of the Pancake House Building. The current proposal also includes three permanently restricted employee dwelling units._ Two of the units, as mentioned above, would be provided by the conversion of existing accommodation units to employee dwelling units. The third restricted employee dwelling unit would be a Pitkin Creek Park dwelling unit, of approximately 800 square feet, currently owned by Josef Staufer. The 1992 proposal also contributes more GRFA (1,300 sq. ft.) to the employee units than the 1991 proposal (946 sq. ft. of GRFA). It is the staff's position that the applicant's proposal for employee restricted dwelling units is very positive. Additionally, staff is also supportive of the applicant's request to add one additional accommodation unit to Phase IV -A and the fact that the mass and bulk of the project will be unchanged from the 1991 approval. The staff does have a concern, however, with regard to the applicant's request for a free- market dwelling unit. We are uncomfortable supporting an additional 2,927 square feet of dwelling unit GRFA, specifically dedicated to a free - market unit. The staff would suggest that the applicant be required to abide by the restrictions contained in Section 17.26.075 Condominium Conversion, of the Town's zoning code, which includes rental restrictions and generally provides that condominium units shall be included in the short -term rental market for certain periods of time (see attachment). This rental restriction was placed on Unit No. 30, located in the Phase I building of the VVI, when an additional 3,927 square feet of GRFA was granted for the "Goods" retail space conversion to residential floor area on November 21, 1989. This rental restriction has been consistently required, by the Town, of previously approved mixed -use projects (SDD's) of this type. Two additional examples would include the Garden of the Gods project and the Ramshorn project. Staff can support the request for additional D.U. GRFA, with the rental restriction, because we believe there are certain public benefits to be gained by the 4 • redevelopment of this Phase of the VVI. Please refer to Section V of this memorandum for a complete listing of the proposed improvements. As further explained in the attached June 24, 1991 staff memorandum to the PEC, this SDD has utilized all its allowable "dwelling unit GRFA." At this time, the only remaining GRFA which is available is "accommodation unit GRFA." C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Upon detailed analysis of the Vail Village Inn parking calculations, the staff has determined that the applicant's 1992 proposal would not require any additional parking or loading, above the 1991 SDD amendment approval. The overall parking requirement for this proposal is 17 new parking spaces. The 1991 approved SDD amendment also requires 17 new parking spaces. However, as approved, the 1991 plan included: 14 new surface parking spaces north of the Pancake House Building; parking restrictions removed from 8 of the 9 spaces in front of the Food and Deli building, allowing short -term public parking; 6 surface spaces south of the Vail Gateway Building; and opening up 65 structured parking spaces (in the Phase III building) for use by the general public. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. This redevelopment plan for Phase IV -A was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below: 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 _Obiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. 2.3 Obiective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 0 5 i 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Po_ Imo: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Pow: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.4 Objectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Po� /icy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in. the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5.4.2 Policy: Medians and right -of -ways shall be landscaped. C1 The Vail Village Master Plan has identified the Vail Village Inn as subarea concept number 1 -1, which is copied in its entirety below: 1 -1 �+i aura X11 Ili - rr h I I, •� , 41 -1 Vaal Villace Inn Final phase of Vail Village Inn project to be completed as established by development plan for $DO #6. Commercial development at ground level to frame interior plaza with greenspace. Mass of buildings shall "step up" from existing pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4 -5 stories along the Frontage Road. Design must be sensitive to maintaining view corridor from 4 -way stop to Vail Mountain. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1. This proposal was reviewed according to the Streetscape Master Plan. However, there are no specific streetscape concepts which apply to this area of the Vail Village Inn. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards which would affect this property and /or redevelopment proposal. F. Site Plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. This SDD amendment request includes no changes to the existing building footprint and/or the 1991 approved redevelopment plan. The proposal will meet the required 20 -foot setback from all property lines, as the minimum distance from the porte cochere to the nearest property line would be 41 feet. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. Vehicular Circulation: As addressed in the 1991 SDD amendment, due to the change in use on this site, a Colorado Department of Highways access permit will need to be secured, prior to the Town of Vail issuing a building permit for the project. Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is still a key issue that the staff would like to address. The staff believes that it is extremely important, both from a functional view point, as well as one of safety, that the applicant provide a pedestrian q9 7 connection to the existing sidewalk, located on the Vail Gateway property. Since the addition of the pedestrian sidewalk along the north boundary of the Vail Gateway property along the South Frontage Road, there has been an increase in pedestrian traffic. The staff believes that it is imperative that the Vail Village Inn provide a connection to this sidewalk so that pedestrians using the area are not forced to walk through the Vail Gateway planter and onto the South Frontage Road. A simple connection to the Vail Gateway sidewalk could include a set of steps with a safety railing, and would be located just south of the proposed new planter. The issue of locating a sidewalk along the full length of the Vail Village Inn property will not be raised by the staff, as this item was previously reviewed by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission in 1991, and it was determined by those Boards that a condition of approval to add such a sidewalk was not appropriate at that time. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreational, views and function. As indicated in the 1991 staff memorandum to the PEG, the staff would like to see additional landscaping added along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn. The Design Review Board has approved a landscaping plan that includes a total of 21 potentilla shrubs along the South Frontage Road. Staff would recommend additional landscaping in the form of three to four clusters of large aspen (2" to 3" caliper) and spruce (8, 10, 12 foot trees). For comparison purposes, the staff would suggest a planting design similar to the one recently installed along the South Frontage Road at the Crossroads project. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional land efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has proposed that the redevelopment plan for Phase IV -A be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, the Vail Village Inn, is for approval with the items below included in the development plan: That the proposed dwelling unit, to be located on the fourth floor of the Lobby Building, be restricted according to Section 17.26.075 -- Condominium Conversion, of the Town of Vail zoning code. 2. That all three employee dwelling units be provided with full kitchens (refrigerator, stove, sink, oven or microwave), and that the dwelling units be permanently restricted as employee units, per Section 18.13.080(B)(10)(b -d) of the Zoning Code. 9 • 3. That the applicant provide a pedestrian connection, adjacent to the South Frontage Road, to the Vail Gateway Plaza Building sidewalk. The pedestrian connection shall be subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. 4. That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the northern property line of the Vail Village Inn, as discussed in Section IV(H) of this staff memorandum. 5. That the applicant provide screening of the existing trash compactor located immediately to the north of the Pancake House Building. Said screening shall be subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. After detailed analysis of the applicant's request for this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, the staff has concluded that the request for one additional dwelling unit, plus the 2,927 square feet of GRFA associated with this dwelling unit, is warranted for the following reasons: • The overall mass and bulk of the project, as well as the parking requirement, would not change from the 1991 approved project. (However, the staff believes that the proposed dwelling unit must be restricted according to the condominium conversion section of the zoning code.) • The proposed SDD amendment includes one additional accommodation (hotel) unit, compared to the original proposal, for a total of 14 a.u.'s. • Three employee restricted dwelling units are still part of the project, however, there is greater square footage dedicated to the employee units in this proposal than in the 1991 approved project. • This proposal also includes the complete upgrade of the Lobby Building and the Pancake House Building. • Substantial landscaping would be added along the South Frontage Road. • The applicant has agreed to provide a pedestrian connection to the adjacent Vail Gateway Plaza Building sidewalk. • The Vail Village Inn Phase III parking structure would still be opened up for public use. Sixty -five structured spaces would become available. • The applicant has agreed to screen and clean up the area of the trash compactor. • As previously approved, the existing conference facility would be expanded slightly and improved. • Both the Lobby Building and the Pancake House Building would be brought into compliance with the current building and fire codes (completely sprinkled). 9 v.�pecYnema•W,119 L .J n L� �� , l i��,�i l� � _- ' E , -- "- - :� it � �' � ' � k `'i -- � � I y� 7 f i- C -�: -- � jI � � i" I, ; �� I �� �� ,I I �� � � �� ,�� � I ti� ,�� I�..�1i �I y I _ _�,- � � ► a!,I !i � I � �I �j _ �i �� li I I� � I ,I _- �~ �i ,,, .. ,�w..� --,-� ---� �I M ___._. � .�c �i .� �. ►� _� -. �. IL E�1 T'Ropas�d So��Z. � N 7 / mE min mt E�1 T'Ropas�d So��Z. � N 7 • r] 40 Uj Vii. I �a�rcwKe Oovse 131.ta. • • • SUBDIVISIONS C. Flans and descriptions showing how the following will be performed: 1. All site work shall be brought up to current town standards unless a variance therefrom is granted to the applicant by the town council in accordance with the variance procedures of this Title 17. The town council may, if it deems necessary, require additional parking facilities to meet requirements of owners and guests of the condominium units, 2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by the building inspector, 3. Condominium projects shall meet current Uniform Build- ing Code requirements for heat and fire detection devices and systems. (Ord. 29 (1983) § 1: Ord. 2 (1983) § I (part).) 17.26.075 Condominium conversion. Any applicant seeking to concert any accommodation unit within the town shall comply with the requirements of this section. The requirements contained in this section shall not apply to structures or buildings which contain two units or less. A. The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be included in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The condominium units created shall remain in the short term (vaii ll- f5 -83) 298-4 • • • CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSiONS rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. I. An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to twenty eight days during the seasonal period of December 24th to January Ist and February Ist to March 20th. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner's occupancy of a unit or non - paying guest of the owner or taking the unit off of the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than for necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which may make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge, however, shall not be restricted by this section. 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected by foreclosure, on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium associa- tion's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restric- tion shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. if the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred. 298 -5 (Vail 12 -1 -87) SI.lBDIViSIONS (Vidi 12 -1 -87) • a 298 -b 3. The town shall have the right to require from the condominium association an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons for all converted condominium units. 4. The converted lodge units shall not be used as permanent residences. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be presumed to be a permanent resident if such person has resided in the unit for six consecutive months notwithstanding from lime to tinic during such six month period the person may briefly dwell in other places. B. Any lodge located within the town which has converted accommodation units to condominiums shall continue to provide customary lodge facilities and services including a customary marketing program. C. The converted condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. if unsold thirty days after recording of the condominium map, the unsold con- verted condominiums shall be required to be furnished and made available to the general tourist market within ninety days after the date of recording of the condo- minium map. This requirement may be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium project at comparable rates, in any local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the town. D. The common areas of any lodge with converted units shall . remain common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its previous character. Any changes, altera- tions or renovations made to common areas shall not diminish the size or quality of the common areas. E. Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide housing for employees at any time during the three years previous to the date of the application shall remain as employee units for such duration as may be required by the planning and environmental commission or the town council. F. Applicability. All conditions set forth within this section shall be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personal representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the subject of the application for the life (Vidi 12 -1 -87) • a 298 -b • MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 16, 1991 SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn - Second reading of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991 r � � ?ppr�r- .,: s�:: xs. ���Yr�y:? jY"}. c,' lY !%�'?t }�F��`��:- y:c:: #:EE::.�. r. j: �;''} r' �' r <:R�y..++;;jj:��SP.:,'?ry•: }'�`v�,: :;,:,rtt����vvaavv:Y•?Y..•'�c?.�' 'i �gpy:'.:fr �f �: •'F: fY:.: ':l. { {: {}41+` ?r�i"i�. i:..4`..4...Gi.:::. ;r:.4.•. YP `�� i�•�-�: 44 C!.�r .G'r vr�- r. - { }pe rtf r:,��•'4�'i•G �A '�Y :..:?p :. k ., : S,(r�•:- :i..:7.yp. ,1r.: Iry ?r;.ar a ry- �`�,.aL:''�i'r::o'F/4%%:.: �r' rs�: a�' rt' p: 4:? cr.{ t?J£ iiErG ...�,.,'� ?fr$i' /,�'�:f ?r{%:: rl, ::,',°k�., •.g� �r'rn4 :rrr,{ -'.�q n:� 7f.�yr; .;fY. {4 W.+r.�4} r'f� •�. � {�{`�i:4.?4.i J- ri ry:4..4�: {:f.:4: ii �:.Srirv(,. i,. .r.:f : }rr }:r !r •F•f :f :I.: :f::: :x {:.4,.•N.: }:rr..:':�ihfFiiY +Yin.I:r. }.4, J% 3r�,L e <r.:ruf .p .: �: /:.�Si: '�3:. ,4 11 :y.}S+ {Y,cn f }�.pp. ';Fi•:4'QQ � :.J:S::.S.. { :Fr'rif 4:z�:nr.1r : \..�1..'i.�i..r .:i•r•.r ?!•r. }. Jk {::{..: w:..n: vl iL:Fi �i.4,.?�} :.' +i' }.•fi'•.4.•i :.l:rt:.'r : ? r: Fr • }•rr.� }:- ;dffr:4 a. If�..�4 I4Y r+e4�,?.Y:1 e� l •'y '•r R:4'r. % J .: ¢. :'F ..5:' -'?. n 0.•.C. r.: i.f...rrr: • Fr? rrh:!..:::: isf.: f. fr• yr:: {::v'•ri:Cii•.yr.:'ri::.r.. l,.; r.4.t. r:.? %�: ?i�.?.. ?::: 4 ?•r •:: r.. ;.+Y,{.. .: .:f- :.f %.fir. ?:fly °?e.:wo.ac�lnr� ?:.'rS °: ✓. so-:. c•, �c. �u. �iAf�•. �, i,.$` °.ur'.�•:4G.,attw.c.,c;S:i:. -r:f rrrr:k�:.•:...:.::::::.::r ::a...•.a:4. �,..:....:.. r... r: r. r:. rr, �. l..: r.:,.::.:. r.: r:. r..:.:..:. u:. ,..,..x:r....:arr:x•�}..roratb: �c.:Y. Since the Town Council's initial review of the Vail Village Inn redevelopment proposal (July 2, 1991), Josef Staufer has made some modifications to the floor plans of the proposed remodel. At the Council's request, the applicant has added three permanently restricted employee dwelling units within the project. Two of the employee units would be located on the fourth floor of the "east" building where the previous plan included two accommodation units in that area. The floor area of these two employee units would be 250 sq. ft. and 307 sq. ft. Additionally, a 389 sq. ft. employee unit would be located within the new third floor of the Pancake House building. To compensate for the loss of the two accommodation units in the "east" building, and their conversion into employee units, the applicant is proposing two accommodation units on the third floor of the Pancake House building. These two 49 accommodation units will be larger than the originally- proposed accommodation units, and would consist of an additional 748 sq. ft. of GRFA. The total GRFA for the VVI, including the revised Phase IV -A, would be 85,487 sq. ft. Phase IV -A of the VVI would consist of a total of 13 accommodation units, comprising 6,681 sq. ft. of GRFA, and 3 employee dwelling units, comprising 946 sq. ft. of GRFA. The additional 748 sq. ft. of accommodation unit GRFA will also require an additional 0.748 parking spaces. The three restricted employee units will have a parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit, for a total of 4.5 parking spaces. Floor plans indicating the revised layout of the accommodation units and the employee dwelling units will be available at the evening Council meeting. A revised south elevation for the Pancake House building is attached to this memorandum. 'r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow DriveUt O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica .. MINES, S •{ 'r-,V'•': .' �. . `� ��} �.,J°�,f. L ; :C � %:v.Ls ,' ' �:.; � � :!y;£7c;:ri: r� _::g: y . � Yr�r :} �•::: �A...:':sr •':b. }.r'�:t.' . .r � .G. }4 ;fi a'e{:.>,°,}��:; ':}}4:{r�,• .r'C•:Cl.'•..'r'o , '�{r +.t_�.'i•�Y,',•k"yA' R •pd. - ?.,i.Gf. : .%: :.:.Jv.> ri. .r •$ 5;8{ '.� :. „>" ��xi.O:.ii",:.�N�Y:v.Yfr� 4xf tr ;:�a}tf� : v .°•r,°G- Y� ?�`�`r!:�r� ; -�'; t .rAi]Cr {Gr.:.o$r;4�:8{yi- f:r':�.%2.�r. : �. : I '$ ��. ' m".{.i... .l,.� [.%v; ,o-$ ,.v .G C'�Itw Pnh .a`fiQ .+�”. ,; . S � �.�. {Y.4 a� .: �: }{} ° ai^q�4 � :2.. n.> •a .r + 9 0, Fly at ww rr v t�: . ,. 6:� /• .4ir°;v,�'�.•� r. O . a "- 4t �,Er A '''fi'�C ' � Yi•.V,�-.: :r i!C,':. i'' �:'o;:rr'v�'�`. ., a.'`;.o.;:.�� ;. * hR r ; ; .v :}$ }:{ %•.:{:.:i }:Yn'i}rrr. r' YAK: ;:N: ?;:....�:niL,uri�'�ri6n�:lN �?} }tYca?ta�,�:�+i.{.'h ��' �.",$% u°.,�;�s�%'�'��cY�%C��.df�'c4"� ��"A b.�•. 3, [. INTRODUCTION Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of a portion of the final phase (Phase IV) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes, staff will call this redevelopment request Phase IV -A. The Vail Village Inn has an existing pP roved development plan for r the entirety of Phase IV. This development plan was approved through Ordinance 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987). -Additionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989), modified the density section of the 1987 ordinance by increasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances are still valid for SDD No. 6, and have been included as Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum. The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding further in this memorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section III of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and renovation of the east building which currently houses the hotel lobby, front desk area, and the Coyote Bar, as well as the adjacent Pancake House Building to the west. Included in the redevelopment of the "east" building would be the addition of two residential levels above the existing structure, which would be used specifically as accommodation units (hotel rooms). There would be a total of 13 additional accommodation units, comprising 5,933 sq. ft. of GRFA. One additional gas burning fireplace is proposed in the largest accommodation unit on the top floor. An elevator is proposed to be constructed at the southwest comer of the building, which would access all four floors. Additionally, the existing meeting room which is located on the second floor, would be expanded to the south by infilling an existing deck. This additional square footage would consist of approximately 243 sq. ft. of floor area. The proposed improvements to the Pancake House Building include a new roof structure, and painting and/or staining the building to match the remodeled building to the east. It is proposed that the new portions of this building be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. Site improvements called for in this redevelopment plan would include the addition of 14 surface parking spaces. Ten of these parking spaces would be considered regular spaces, and the remaining four spaces would be classified as valet -type spaces. These valet spaces would be reserved for exclusive use by employees of the Vail Village Inn, and the location of these spaces would be to the northwest of the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant and immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building. The proposal also calls for limited landscaping improvements. Specifically, the applicant is proposing one additional new planter, which would be located on the west side of the main entrance at the South Frontage Road. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village Inn: Phase I - This consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the VVI property, and includes one dwelling unit of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Sports, Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Village Inn Plaza Liquors, Eve's, and Total Beauty. Phase II - This phase consists of three residential dwelling units of approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: International Gallery, Unique Art, and Tezla. Phase III - Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the VVI property and consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately 44,830 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the following commercial establishments: Driscol Gallery, Velveteen Rabbit, Kitchenworks, Vail Antiques, Annie's and Vail Boot and Shoe. 0 2 Phase IV - This was the original Phase, and the oldest, at the VVI, and consists of 62 accommodation units, with approximately 16,585 sq. ft. of GRFA, and also includes the Food and Deli, VVI Pancake House and the Coyote Bar. There is also a 1,200 sq. ft. conference /meeting space and miscellaneous and ancillary offices for the hotel. Phase V - Phase V is the building located at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive, and consists of 11 dwelling units (9 of which have lock- offs), and 3 accommodation units, with 9,972 sq. ft, of GRFA. Phase V also includes Blano's Pizza, the Vail Resort Association and approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of retail, commercial use. B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, originally established the Vail Village Inn Special Development District No. 6. C. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 120,600 sq. ft. of GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also required a minimum of 175 accommodation units (AUs) and 72,400 sq, ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to AUs in Phase IV. This ordinance also listed six conditions of approval. D. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No. 6. This amendment allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and separate phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also . set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. Additionally, the ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA devoted to AUs in Phases IV and V. The ordinance also listed eight conditions of approval. E. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density section of SDD No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing .the allowable GRFA to a total of 124,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30 (originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be converted from commercial use to residential use. This space consists of 3,927 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the conversion to residential use has since been completed. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to AUs, in Phases IV and V of SDD No. 6." IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following table outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal with reference to the underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the existing project, the previously approved Phase IV, and the current proposal. To maintain simplicity, only those development standards which are specifically applicable to this project are listed. fArea Setbacks Building Height GRFA Units Site Coverage Underlying Zoning Existing Previously Proposed Public Accommodation Proiect Approved SDD SDD 3.455 acres or Same Same Same 150,500 sq. ft. elevator 20 ft. on all sides N = Frontage Rd: 41 ft. 20 ft. to face of No change from existing to Porte cochere; 72 ft. building; 1 ft. to or 86 DUs for the site (see below) 82,775 sq. ft. N/A Per the approved 245 sq. ft. of additional development site coverage plan Parking Per the current Same Same Same development standards (See Appendix A) Existing DUs Existing AUs Phase I 1 0 Phase 11 3 0 Phase 1I1 29 0 Phase IV 0 62 Phase V I1* 3 Totals 44 + 65 ** = 76.5 DUs Phase IV -A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs * (9 of the 11 DUs have attached lock -offs) * * 2 AUs = 1 DU • 4 to face of building Porte cochere 45 ft. - Flat Roof 31 ft Varies - with a 58 ft. to top of ridge 48 ft. - Sloping Roof 73 ft maximum 61 ft. to ridge over elevator 120,400 sq. ft. 78,806 sq. ft. 124,527 sq. ft. 84,739 Phase N -A 124,527 Entire Phase 1V 25 dwelling units Per acre 76.5 DUs 120.5 DUs 83 DUs or 86 DUs for the site (see below) 82,775 sq. ft. N/A Per the approved 245 sq. ft. of additional development site coverage plan Parking Per the current Same Same Same development standards (See Appendix A) Existing DUs Existing AUs Phase I 1 0 Phase 11 3 0 Phase 1I1 29 0 Phase IV 0 62 Phase V I1* 3 Totals 44 + 65 ** = 76.5 DUs Phase IV -A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs * (9 of the 11 DUs have attached lock -offs) * * 2 AUs = 1 DU • 4 V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate the Vail Village Inn redevelopment, Phase IV -A, are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Architecturally, the key issue is to maintain compatibility and work with the character of the existing structures in the vicinity. Staff acknowledges that this is a very difficult task to perform, given the varied architectural styles of adjacent buildings. Staff supports the design direction the applicant has proposed for the project. We believe that the additional two floors and the new roof structure would be compatible with the character of the adjacent structures. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to install all new siding materials on the existing lower levels of the structure, which would match the new upper levels. The applicant has also proposed to install a stucco finish on the north and west elevations of the porte cochere (around the arched openings). Given the close proximity of the VVI Pancake House building immediately to the . west, the applicant has also proposed improvements to this structure so that it blends architecturally with the adjoining "east" building. The proposed improvements to this structure include upgrading the entire roof area of the building, to architecturally tie it in with the proposed remodel of the structure to the east. No GRFA would be added to the ,enlarged roof area, however, the applicant would propose to install a new boiler in this attic area to service the Food and Deli Building. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to paint and/or stain the Pancake House Building to match the "east" building and to further ensure architectural compatibility among the structures. We believe it is positive that the applicant is making an effort to upgrade the materials and the style of the Pancake House Building, as well as the east building. The staff would recommend that the applicant reevaluate the proposed roof form over the elevator tower, as well as the roof form over the central chimney caps. We believe that these elements should be of an architectural style which would be more in line with the caps on the adjacent structures. 0 5 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff is very supportive of the applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses, activity and density, given the fact that the proposal includes the addition of 13 accommodation (hotel) rooms and an expanded conference space. The existing commercial square footage (gross area), which includes retail commercial and restaurant "service area" space, at the VVI is approximately 33,557 square feet. No additional commercial square footage is requested as a part of this proposal. With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, employee housing is no longer a potential concern, but it is an issue which must be addressed formally. The Affordable Housing Study has been adopted and provides guidelines for new development. Currently, the report's recommendations are being incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee housing by stating: Goal 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions." Although the Vail Village Inn does provide some employee housing, both on site and off site, there is currently no permanently restricted employee units on site. No additional employee housing is proposed by the Vail Village Inn for this redevelopment. It should also be mentioned that most Special Development Districts in the past have provided some number of employee housing units within the proposal. Given the scale of this project, with an approved GRFA of 124,527 sq. ft., the staff believes a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. Staff recommends one restricted employee dwelling unit be provided on site, either in the existing development or in the proposed redevelopment, Phase IV -A. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The Vail Village Inn parking analysis, as indicated in Appendix A, shows a total parking requirement for the Vail Village Inn project, which includes Phases I, II, Ill, IV and the proposed N -A, as being 243 parking spaces. The existing parking structure, located at the lower levels of the Phase III building, currently provides 109 parking spaces. Additionally, there are currently 45 regular surface - parking spaces (9 of which are privately reserved and are not available to the general public), and 16 • 6 valet parking spaces on -site, for a total of 61 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to add 14 surface- parking spaces as a part of this proposal. The total parking which would be provided would be 184 spaces, which equals 75.7% of the required parking. The staff believes that the required parking for Phase V, as well as for the new proposal (Phase IV -A) must be addressed. It should be noted that when the Phase V building was approved, the parking requirement was deferred until the final phase of the VVI was constructed (the redevelopment of Phase IV). Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, under Section 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the development plan for Phases IV and V. Condition No. 8 reads as follows: "Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD 6, commonly referred to as Phase V, shall include parking as required by Ordinance 1, Series of 1985." It is the staff's opinion that this current redevelopment proposal triggers condition number 8, and that the required parking for Phase V must now be addressed. According to the staff's calculations of the Phase V building, the parking requirement for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown) 1. Retail = 11.77 spaces 2. Restaurant = 4.25 spaces 3. Residential = 23.44 spaces 4. Total Requirement = 39.46 spaces The parking requirement for the proposed Phase JV -A is 11.13 spaces. The combined parking requirement for Phase IV -A and Phase V is 48 parking spaces (39.46 spaces + 11.13 spaces = 50.59 - 5% multi -use credit = 48). The parking issue is two -fold. First, the staff is of the opinion that condition number 8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (as stated above) is applicable to this redevelopment proposal. The Planning Commission, at their June 10th public worksession, concurred with this opinion. Based upon this PEC decision, the applicant must now provide, or address the issue of parking for Phase V. The second issue is the applicant's proposal to provide an additional 14 surface parking spaces, when a requirement of 48 spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has presented a parking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times of occupancy. This study is included as Appendix C. It should be understood that the 109 space parking structure, located in the Phase III building, is currently not open and available for use by the general public. In addition, • 7 9 surface parking spaces, which are adjacent to the Food and Deli Building, are currently reserved and are also not available for use by the general public. Of the total 109 parking spaces in the structure, 44 of those spaces are currently deeded to condominium owners of the Vail Village Inn (15 of those 44 deeded spaces are deeded to condominium owners within Phase V). Since the June 10th worksession, the applicant has agreed to remove the parking restrictions on 8 of the 9 parking spaces in front of the Food and Deli Building. These eight spaces would be available for short-term parking by the general public, in addition to the 14 new spaces on the north side of the project. The staff believes that this is a positive step towards meeting the Town's parking requirements. However, the staff maintains that the applicant should be required to open up the structured parking (in the Phase III Building) and to allow the general public the use of the 65 undeeded spaces in the structure. If the structured parking spaces were available to the general public, the staff would be able to support the overall parking plan at the VVI. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below: 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. � 8 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 3.1 Obiecti ve• Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3. 1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.4 Obiectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 5.1.1 Po_ lice: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided .(rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 0 9 • 5.4.2 Policy: Medians and right -of -ways shall be landscaped. The Vail Village Master Plan has identified the Vail Village Inn as subarea concept number 1 -1, which is copied in its entirety below: 1 -1 Vail Village Inn Final phase of Vail Village Inn project to be completed as established by development plan for SDD #6. Commercial development at ground level to frame interior plaza with greenspace. Mass of buildings shall "step up" from existing pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4 -5 stories along the Frontage Road. Design must be sensitive to maintaining view corridor from 4 -way stop to Vail Mountain. Special emphasis on' 1.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards which would affect this property and/or redevelopment proposal. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. There is essentially no change to the existing building footprint with this proposed redevelopment. As indicated in Section IV of this memorandum, the setbacks for the 10 is underlying PA zone district are 20 feet from all property lines. This proposal will . certainly meet the 20 foot requirement, as the minimum distance from the porte cochere to the nearest property line would be 41 feet. There will be no significant changes made to the Vail Village Inn open space provisions, as only 245 sq. ft. of additional area will be covered by buildings. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. Vehicular Circulation: After review of the proposed surface - parking layout, the staff believes that the general vehicular circulation system appears adequate. The Town of Vail Fire Department has reviewed this proposal, and does not take issue with the project. The Public Works Department also has no problems with the general vehicular circulation plan. However, they are concerned about some existing drainage problems in the surface - parking area just north of the Pancake House, which would need to be corrected and addressed through the building permit process. Due to the change in use on the site, a Colorado Department of Highways access permit will need to be secured, prior to the Town issuing a building permit for the project. Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to address. It is well known that a long- standing goal for Vail is to improve upon the pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master Plan, as well as the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan and the Master Transportation Plan, specifically call for bicycle /pedestrian ways along both sides of the South Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza site, the developer was required to provide a pedestrian sidewalk along the entire length of the Gateway property along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this time, staff believes it appropriate to request that the developer of the Vail Village Inn extend the sidewalk where the Gateway ended it, and continue the walk for the full length of the VVI property east to the Crossroads site. Staff acknowledges that there are some grade difficulties through this area, and also that cooperation from the ' Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) will be necessary. The Town staff is willing to assist the applicant in securing the necessary CDOH permits to install the pedestrian connection. The current Vail Village Inn SDD Amendment proposal, does not include any improvements to the pedestrian circulation system as described above. 0 11 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided limited additional landscaping, specifically in the form of one new planter, which would be located on the west side of the access drive off of South Frontage Road. The proposed landscaping includes 2 Aspen and 1 Blue Spruce. Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff believes that additional landscaping added along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn would be beneficial. We believe additional landscaping and screening in this area would not only benefit the general public, by assisting in the buffering of the structures from the Frontage Road and I -70, but will also benefit the property owner and guests of the VVI in the same manner. The staff would also recommend that the applicant remove the existing asphalt area south of the Gateway Building. This area has been used as surface parking, however, . we believe that it would be a benefit to both projects (VVI and Gateway) to add landscaping in this area. The proposal will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. L Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has proposed that the redevelopment plan_ (Phase IV-A) be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed. It is the staff's position that the redevelopment plans for the entire Phase IV, which are addressed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1587, are still valid. Should the developer with to proceed with this previously approved plan at some future date, which would necessitate the demolition of Phase IV -A, final DRB approval will be required. If there are changes or modifications to the plans, then a major SDD amendment will be required. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, the Vail Village Inn, is for approval with conditions. The staff believes that the proposed upgrade and remodel would be a very positive change at the VVI. We support the project, with the following conditions of approval: 1) That the applicant be required to open up the structured parking, in the Phase III building, for short -term parking use by the general public. With this 0 - 12 provision of an additional 65 parking spaces, the staff would be able to support . the project's overall parking plan. 2) That the applicant remove the existing asphalt parking area immediately south of the Gateway Plaza Building, and provide landscaping in this area. Final review of the landscape design shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to installation. 3) That the applicant provide a pedestrian sidewalk, adjacent to South Frontage Road, beginning on the west end of the VVI property (where the Gateway sidewalk now ends), and continue the sidewalk east to the western boundary of the Crossroads property. 4) That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the entire northern property line of the VVI. 5) That the applicant reconsider the proposed design solution for the elevator and chimney caps. This issue shall be further reviewed and considered by the Design Review Board. 6) That a CDOH access permit be secured prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for the proposal. 7) That the eight conditions of approval listed in Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, be included in the ordinance required for this project. Said conditions are as follows, (with the staff's recommended changes indicated by the bold type): A. That 'the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in, and do not remonstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape improvements to Vail Road and East and West Meadow Drive, if and when an improvement district is formed. B. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in, and do not remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases IV and V of the Vail Village inn, to a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when it is developed. C. That the developer receive approval from the Colorado State Highway Department, for any change in use on the property, prior to the issuance of a Town of Vail building permit. • 13 D. That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, such condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the application. There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting the Town of Vail's use of .the unit or the subsequent subdivision and/or sale of the unit. E. That no grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating to any Phase of Special Development District No. 6, be issued until such time that reasonable evidence is provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing, for the improvements to be constructed, has been obtained. F. Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be condominiumized, shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code and any amendments thereto. G. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any phase of SDD #6, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the relocation of the ski museum (into Phase V) of an amount not to exceed . .$75,000. H. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of SDD #6, shall include the parking as required by Ordinance 14, Series of 1987. 8. The developer must provide one permanently deed restricted employee housing unit on site at the Vail Village Inn. Said employee unit shall meet the restrictions listed in Section 18.13.080(B)(10) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 0 14 1. Phase I A. Retail B. Restaurants C. Residential 2. Phase II A. Retail B. Residential APPENDIX A Vail Village Inn Parking Analysis* Parking Spaces Required 19.12 16.50 2.50 Subtotal 38.12 = 38.12 12.99 4.99 Subtotal 17.98 = 17.98 3. Phase III A. Retail 25.12 B. Residential 59.33 Subtotal 84.45 - 84.45 4. Phase IV A. Food & Deli 6.00 . B. Restaurant and Bar 11.60 C. Residential 41.30 D. Conference/Meeting Area 5.07 Subtotal 63.97 = 63.97 5. Phase V A. Retail 11.77 B. Restaurant 4.25 C. Residential 23.44 Subtotal 39.46 - 39.46 6. Phase IV -A A. Residential 11.13 - 11.13 Total: 255.11 -5% Multiple Use Credit: -12.75 Grand Total: 242.36 = 243 * Parking requirements were determined by using the Town standards in effect at the . time of construction. 15 A. M APPENDIX B VVI - Phase V Parking Analysis Parking Spaces Re ug ired Basement Level (Vail Resort Association) 0 Ground Level 1. Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533/300 2. Restaurant: 510/15/8 C. Second Level 1. Unit #1 = 402 + 398 = 800 2. Unit #2 = 343 + 461 = 804 3. AU = 229 4. Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608 5. Unit #4 = 475 + 317 = 792 6. Unit #5 = 445 + 279 = 724 7. AU = 224 • D. Third Level 1. Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620 2. Unit #7 = 397 + 318 = 715 3. Units #8 & #9 are combined into one unit =454 +314 +35 +712= 1515 4. Unit #10 = 445 + 277 = 722 E. Fourth Level 1. AU = 279 2. Unit #11 = 388 3. Unit #12 (with loft) = 598 +244 +36 +273 +410 = 1552 • 16 11.77 4.25 2 2 0.63 2 2 2 0.63 2 2 2 2 0.67 1.5 2 39.46 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Ordinance 2, Series 1983, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING TITLE 17 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE SETTING FORTH NEW SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE TOWN AND PROVIDING DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO which sets forth the maximum allowable heated driveway grade at 12 percent if the Town Engineer's approval is obtained; for the Byrne Residence, 16 Forest Road, Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne Presenters: Greg Hall /.Till Kammerer kY' v.Y a r✓w ,v �'::.. 3 ;n: 7 /. yyr 7vY'.✓. f , �a,� ��....:# ��[t..•:�. .:.:fo.�- [`����'•`:o, r �;;'3', .�;..h :�ict[�.,£d::Y::� =s�� .`'s:.'?[�eY���:�'�'�'• :: �r,�"'•. - :r��ri�2`�:.lz�r,. ,f °3�% gy#�' #� a �C�' ::�� � y <2, :: �� ���..yr.!r r.a,F.�.':7':s..r� �`} }' 2a`i yi.•.,2..!$;s.rf'�r '�Q � h�rse�i:[;;k. s:•a� r: ?i:$'r':Yi.:c ^• ^•.[,cc � :.:+.� u : ,a:3 -.: rk. a:.,m,.:::: r.: f r r•.a:[.?rr..8s[�. �:r� -: �:. �'r:'E�.o..4..� 4:�..c[. :� {;f . ::..yiA''r �';. �4;.:.r � -.. y.:t�H r . o,2.:f::::a;[riv'[•n� ??�.0 had;.. h..,;..;:: �:. c•: y.[ c:.: Y:;°-:: 1. ygrr�:: �::-> w�`.:;.. S: v:[.,-[ os} c[ k4'.,:'• �:• �. rryr: rl::: orJ; u.;..: � .y:�:c:::..:ar�..•rra:fA.�:,a,: a�.o-::::N :-"r. f.4rf :�'A%.:�1' ;6 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from Ordinance 2, Series of 1983 relating to heated driveways with a slope in excess of 12 percent. Under this ordinance, the maximum allowable slope of a heated driveway may be 12 percent, provided the Town Engineer's approval is obtained. However, minor deviations to this 12 percent maximum may be allowed subject to Section 17.28.160 of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant's heated driveway was constructed at a 19.7 percent slope. The applicant did not obtain the Town Engineer's approval prior to constructing the driveway. Therefore a variance to allow the maximum allowable grade of 12 percent to be exceeded by 7.7 percent is required. I1. BACKGROUND a) On October 17, 1990, the Design Review Board received a request by the applicant to construct a secondary unit, separated from the primary unit, on a lot which is zoned Primary/Secondary. By a vote of 4 -0, the DRB determined there were site constraints associated with the subject property which warranted allowing the separation of the primary and secondary units. b) On November 7, 1990, the DRB approved the Byrne residence secondary unit demolition /rebuild with a 250 square foot addition. The DRB's approval was subject to four conditions. C) On November 13, 1990, the Town Council called up the DRB's approval of the Byrne residence secondary unit demo /rebuild which incorporated an addition of 250 square feet. This item was reviewed by Town Council on November 20, 1990. By a vote of 6 -0, the Town Council voted unanimously to uphold the DRB approval of November 7, 1990. d) In October of 1990, during the Town's review of the Design Review Board application for the demolition of the existing secondary unit and the construction of a separated secondary unit with a 250 square foot addition, the Town staff forwarded comments to the applicant indicating the slope of the driveway, to the proposed secondary unit, must be 8 percent rather than the 9 percent represented on the submitted plans. The applicant revised his plans, and the driveway grade on the November 17, 1990 DRB approved plans was 8 percent. On the approved plans, the driveway alignment was more or less at a right angle to Forest Road (see attached plans). Subsequent to that time, it was discovered there was a discrepancy in the written scale on the site plan and the scale at which the site plan was drawn. Because of this error, the location of the house was shifted to the west to ensure the house would fit within the required lot setbacks. In shifting the house to the west, additional excavation of the site would have been required in order to maintain the approved driveway grade of 8 percent. In order to avoid the necessary additional excavation, the base elevation of the garage was raised 2.5 feet. In raising the garage, the grade of the driveway increased from 8 percent to 13.3 percent. The plans submitted to the Town at the time of building permit (June of 1991) reflected these changes and the resulting 13.3 percent grade. In subsequent review of the driveway grade, the Town Engineer has indicated he would approve the grade at 13.3 percent. The Town Engineer would have the authority to approve a heated driveway grade which exceeded 12 percent based on Section 17.28.160 - Plan Revisions of the Subdivision Ordinance which states: "Should circumstances warrant changes to the approved plans or specifications, the proposed revision must be submitted and written approval must be obtained from the Town Engineer. No work shall proceed on that portion of the project being revised until said revisions are submitted, approved, and distributed. Minor deviations from the plans or specifications may be (approved sic) by written permission from the Town Engineer or his representative on the job. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to have his engineer provide the Town Engineer with a set of "as- built" plans at the completion of the project verifying all elevations, utility locations, and any other change that has taken place. (Ord. 2 [1983], 1 1 [part]) In other words, the Town Engineer has interpreted the 13.3 percent grade, as shown on the approved permit plans, to be a minor deviation from the maximum heated driveway slope design criteria specification of 12 percent (see attached letter of December 10, 1991 from Greg Hall to Ron Byrne). e) On November 6, 1991, the DRB approved modifications to the approved landscaping and site plans which called for relocating the driveway, enlarging the pond, and relocating the entrance stair. Under this modification, new entrance pillars and entrance lights for the residence were also proposed. The revised driveway location corresponded with the location of the construction access to the site. The revised driveway enters the site at a point off of Forest Road which is further to the east, and further downhill. The slope of the proposed driveway was 19.7 percent. The DRB consent approved the modifications subject to the condition the Town Engineer approve the driveway and pond modifications. The staff also noted on the DRB approval sheet, which was mailed to the applicant, that the height of the entrance pillars could not exceed 6' -0 ". The applicant's representative received notification of the approval and the conditions of approval later that same day. Subsequent to the DRB's approval, the applicant proceeded to grade the new driveway location and install the heating coils and concrete base for the new drive. This work occurred without the Town Engineer's approval. Following the December 10, 1991 notification by the Town that the applicant must obtain a variance for the driveway, the applicant installed the brick pavers, thereby completing 0 construction of the driveway. The resulting driveway grade of 19.7 percent is due, in part, to the fact that the applicant desired to have a level area immediately in front of the garage doors on which to back and park autos. Had the applicant graded the driveway continuously from the roadway to the entrance of the garage, the resulting grade would have been 14.4 percent. The Town Engineer believes a grade of 14.4 percent would still be within reason of the minor deviations from the required driveway specifications, and no variance would be required. However, the Town Engineer and Town Attorney believe a drive of 19.7 percent falls outside the flexibility of Town of Vail ordinances, and a variance must be obtained. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS * Maximum allowable heated driveway slope: 12% Constructed driveway slope: 19.7% Amount driveway slope exceeds allowable: 7.7% * NOTE: This 12 % maximum slope may be exceeded subject to the provisions of Section 17.28.160 - Plan Revisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 0 3 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes there is a greater likelihood that autos exiting and entering a heated driveway with a slope of 19.7 percent will lose control than on a heated driveway of 13.3 percent or 14.4 percent, and therefore, a slope of 19.7% poses a greater hazard to traffic and pedestrians Forest Road, than does a heated driveway with a grade of 13.3 percent or 14.4 percent. The design and appearance of the driveway will not have any major negative impacts on adjacent properties. 0 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes allowing the grade of 19.7 percent will be a grant of special privilege. The applicant has the ability to regrade the driveway in the present location so that the maximum grade will be 14.4 percent. In order to meet this 14.4 percent grade, the driveway would have to be at a continuous slope from the edge of Forest Road to the entrance to the garage, (i.e., the level area in front of the garage would have to be eliminated). Further, the applicant has the ability to install a driveway at a grade of 13.3 percent if the driveway were to be installed in the approved location at the western edge of the site. The reason a driveway in this location would be less steep than a driveway at the existing location, is, the driveway would intersect with Forest Road at a point further uphill. Consequently, the elevation change between the point at the entrance to the garage and the point where the drive intersects with Forest Road is less than in the as -built situation. Ordinance 2 of 1983, which addresses the maximum slopes permitted for driveways, has been in effect since 1983. The current Town Engineer has been reviewing driveways for compliance with this ordinance since 1989. The Town Engineer is aware of seven driveways which were either approved or built at • 4 grades which exceed the 12 percent maximum grade specification. Two of • these driveways were associated with existing houses in which modifications to the houses triggered the Design Review Board guideline requirement that the driveways be paved. In both of these instances, there were existing garages, and neither the elevations or grades associated with the driveway or the existing garages were changed. The three driveways associated with new construction, which were approved by the Town Engineer, which exceeded the 12 percent grade are: this residence at 16 Forest Road, where the grade was approved at 13.3 percent; the Garden of the Gods project where the driveway was approved at 13 percent; and a new residence, also constructed by the applicant, at 186 Forest Road where the driveway was approved at 14 percent. In the case of the final two projects where the grades exceed 12 percent, the plans which were submitted and approved showed the grades to be 8.9 percent and 10 percent. However, when constructed, the driveways associated with these projects were constructed at grades of 14.4 percent and 13.8 percent respectively. 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. As previously stated, staff believes approval of the driveway as constructed, poses a greater threat of an accident occurring between the users of the drive . and traffic on Forest Road. The applicant believes providing a level spot in front of the garage with a driveway slope of 19.7 percent, is a safer situation than the driveway solutions supported by the Town Engineer. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • 5 b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or . conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested variance from Ordinance 2 of 1983 to allow the maximum allowable driveway slope to be exceeded. Staff believes to approve such a variance would be a grant of special privilege and that none of the variance findings or criteria are applicable. Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, if this application is approved, this approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion. c:\pec\rnemos\byme.l 13 • 6 • TOV BUS BARK! 01/09/92 25:50 F.02 TOWN OFYAIL 7S Soutb Frontage Road V4H, Colorado 816Y7 303 - 479 - 2158 1FAX 303 - 479.2166 December 10, 1991 Mr. Ran Byrne Ron Byrne & Associates 285 Bridge St Vail., Co 81657 RE: RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY Dear Mr. Byrne Department of Pubic War#slTraxrportathn Following review of the circumstances concerning your request for a driveway grade of 19.7%, the Town Staff has determined a variance • from of Town Ordinance 2(83) - Heated Driveways In Excess Of 1:2% Grade, must be obtained, The variance process will require the approval of the Planning and Envjro.nmental Commission and Town Council. The earliest Planning Commission meeting your request may be able to be scheduled for is the January 131 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Tease submit a variance request and all the required submission material, to the community Development Department by December 16, 1991 in order to meet the filing deadline for the January 13Th Planning and Environmental commission meeting_ The following is a discussion of staff findings: During the Town's review of your project for Design Review Huard approval, comments were forwarded to your architect to have a driveway grade of 8 percent rather than the 9 percent grade submitted. The driveway grade on the DRH approved plans was 8 %.!Tn subsequent discussions Jay Peterson, ind.cat.ed an error was found in the architect's site plan versus the site survey, resulting in the need to shift the house to the west to ensure that the house fit within the required setbacks. Shifting the liouse to the went required further excavation as the elevation to the west is higher than the elevation to the east. Eliminating the need for additional excavation, required raising the base elevation of the garage 2 1/2 feet . By raising the garage, the grado of the driveway increased from 8% to 13.3 %. The plans CJ s. TOV BUS BARK 03r09r92 23:50 P.03 . Letter to Mr. Ron Byrne December 1b, 1991 Page 2 submitted to the Town for building permit application reflected these changes and the resulting 13.3% grade. The individual who reviewed the permit plans was not the same individual who had reviewed the DRH approved plans. This individual assumed the 13.3% grade on the permit .plans had beaA previously approved. Therefore, the proposed 13.3% driveway grade was not questioned during our review of the building permit. This was an error on the Town's part. The question then comes up did the Town Engineer have authority to exceed the 12% grado at that time and if he didn't why do you ]lave to Obtain a variance how as the approved grade exceeded the 12% maximum allowed grade. Section 17. 28.160 Plan Revisions of 'the Subdivision Ordinance, states "Minor deviations from the plans or specifications may be "granted" by written permission from the Town Engineer or his representative." 3 The 13.3% grade as shown on the approved permit plans is interpreted to be a minor deviation. If you straight graved your drive from the proposed pan to the garage, a grade of 14.4% would result. This is still within reason of minor deviations front the specifications, and no variance would be required. However, a drive at 19.7% falls outside the flexibility of our ordinances and a variance will need to be obtained. If you shov4d have any question, please contact myself at 479 --2160 or Jill Kammerer at 479 -2138. Sincerely, Greg Hall Town Engineer GH /jw CC; Larry Eskwith Jill Kammerer alike Brake Ken Hughey 0 _M �YL6 �aYS�HZ �n _ u u Gw � 1ni a N p vy G �qW wa, - yy gyrM �LCw -y QV yQdYGY 'A �H YY H MYA31A1{ G c r 4 .+ 1 nu I u °o� i eun�nYb aueaa y A Y Y A u a • QU a Y 116.0 40 I �Yp AF �i 'HJ W ip PA ppY y q u u G a Y p V py� V A Y Y a a�a y u YY YrA U� ti n N °a $ °YN A 6w u oyayoQ H°e L#' i 1 i of. CH Y4tl aa, IV a O PC y ,.., wwA7N HY i Y dAb 3 0 i 1 li � a,. wP 4 w s I N W cr O w j I o a w vi \ 9 d J 6 I 1 O ,60, ,0'02 � na a _ M1 Iw �. is , iA Y 4 W LO a Q P o M„ 00 ,91.00 N 1 m j LU I j 11 1 a i a a • • � 0 a .o I � r IL I - , . r F i 17 � 4Y� LL Aj I ! *5 5 ,:f � i� � � '., r �` �, 7 �r ! t t i { �. _• ;i ♦ r:' -fie 0 POST OFFICE VAIL, CO. (3 0 3) XXX - January 8,1992 Mr. Ron Byrne 285 Bridge Steet Vail,CO. $1657 RE: 16 Forest Road, Dear Mr. Byrne, BOX 3238 81658 / 949-4121 By your request T have researched my records to compile a brief history of a portion of the constuction of your residence last year as it pertains to the driveway. On or about the first of May 1991 1 was requested to produce a set of construction documents to be submited to the Town of Vail Building Department for the purpose of obtaining a building permit.These documents were created from an approved Design Reveiw Board application documents supplied by yourself and Arnold,Gwathmey,Pratt Architects dated 11-- 21 -90. Prior to submitting the construction documents for the permit reveiw it was required to obtain final Design Reveiw Board approval of the Site Development.Again utilizing the • information provided,the completed Site Development Plan was submitted and the site was staked to indicate the location of the structure. This document was subsequently approved. During the time the documents were being reveiwed by the building department. an excavation permit was sought and given.Upon the coordination of the Layout of the structure by the surveying team and ourselves it was discovered that the location of the structure was inaccurate due the fact that the scale indicated on the document was 1 "= 10' -0" and in fact the true scale of the document 1/8 " =1' -0" there by the approvals of the design were flawed and the location of the structure had to be moved 11' to the west. Also no consideration was given to the fact that the bay windows had to be placed within the required setbacks (note that the bay windows were also previously approved). By moving the structure to the west to allow for the space between the converging property lines,it became apparent that due to the variation of the indicated grades and the actual grades discovered that the top of the south wall of the garage was now going to be below the surface and dangerously close to the existing large tree at the southwest corner. As you might recall the decision was made at that time to elevate the entire portion of • the garage structure 2' -6" and the angle between the garage and the main building was increased to eliminate any potential problems. MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS 1/8/92 . 16 Forest Road After discussion with the Town of Vail staff, the revised document showing the new location of the structure and the compliance to maintain a maximum 3'height of the retaining walls was re- submitted,reveiwed and the building permit was issued. Since the area in front of the garage is to utilized for parking and turnaround,that portion needed to be at a minimum acceptable slope(<8%). It was then discovered that the portion of the drive between the parking area and the edge of pavement was of a distance less than would allow for safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians. Thus the decision was made to re -work the drive between the parking /turnaround area and the road to better accomodate all of the circumstances presented so far. The solution provided,and since constructed,now solves all the prceeding difficulties and situations that previuosly approved solutions failed to recognise.The present driveway offers a safer way to enter the property and also allows for a substantial landscape buffer along the entire length of the property between the adjacent residence.It is in my opinion that this is the best possible solution to a multitude of unforseen circumstances that were less than evident at the beginning. Please do not hesitate me should you have any other questions. 5en s, -,...� James Riden A.I.A. C w ^^y K7 co 'Gbf 'IVA I�+T � / 1 o-I 4 m N L Q - l F-. - pNry LLJ U , 4 cv rn �y LU ~ a ~ ( I co 4 C7 � � am � N N � _� r � 00 h N �e V m LL o� fl N co Fj k N rC N i� N W rr�r CD N Oj in sir M � N d � N T • • ORDINANCE NO. 19 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE- ENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 1987 AND ORDINANCE NO. 24, SERIES OF 1989; TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; ADOPTING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW PHASE IV -A OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Special Development District (SDD) No. 6 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lot 0, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing, and commonly referred to as the Vail Village Inn Special Development District; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission, on ,tune 24, 1991, held a public hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 2 Legislative Intent A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 7, Series of B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning code of the Town of Vail. C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD No. 6. D. In 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, providing certain amendments to the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. Such amendments modified and amended Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, which relates to the allowed density of the development plan for SDD No. 6. E. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase IV and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. • F. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the C7 changes submitted by the applicant and has recommended that SDD No. 6 be so amended. G. The Vail Town Council considers that the amendments provide a more unified and aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail. Section 3 Purpose A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town. Section 4 Development Plan The proposed development plan shall include: n C�J B. The development plan for Phases IV and V shall consist of the plans and environmental impact report prepared and submitted by Gordon R. Pierce Architect, dated February 19, 1987, and revised on April 14, and April 22, 1987. C. The development plan for Phase IV -A shall consist of the following plans provided by the Intratect Design Group. Sheet No. 1, dated June 6, 1991, and revised July 15, 1991 Sheet No. 2, dated June 6, 1991 Sheet No. 3, dated June 6, 1991 Sheet No. 4, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18, 1991 Sheet No. 5, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18, 1991 Sheet No. 6, dated June 6, 1991 Sheet No. 7, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18, 1991 Sheet No. 8, dated July 10, 1991 Section 5 Permitted Uses The permitted uses in Phases I, II, Ill, IV, IV -A and V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in the development plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Section 6 Conditional Uses Conditional Uses for Phases I, II, Ili, IV, IV -A and V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in Section 18.22.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code with the addition of the following conditional uses: A. An outside popcorn vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core Il. B. No office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the Plaza level of Phases IV, IV -A and V. Section 7 Height A. For Phases I, II and III, the allowable heights shall be as found on the development plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated March 12, 1976, provided by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey. B. For Phases IV and V, the maximum building height shall be as set forth in the approved development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987). C. For Phase IV -A, the maximum building height shall be as set forth on the approved development plan, submitted by the Intratect Design Group, as set forth in Section 4 above. Section 8 Density A. The gross residential floor area (GRFA) for the entire Special Development District No. 6 shall not exceed 124,527 square feet. There shall be a minimum of 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA allocated to accommodation units in Phase IV and Phase V of Special Development District No. 6. 3,927 square feet of GRFA shall be allocated specifically to Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums. B. Condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations if utilized for residential purposes. C. In addition to the allowable GRFA set forth in Section 8A above, Phase IV -A shall be allocated 946 sq. ft. of additional GRFA, which shall be specifically allocated to three employee housing units. Section 9 Parking and Loading A. Any application for any amendment to Phase IV of SDD No. 6, subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, shall include not less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324 B. The parking requirements for Phase IV -A shall be as set forth on the drawings is submitted by the Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, and revised July 15, 1991, sheet number 1. Section 10 The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to perform the following: 1. Make a minimum of 65 parking spaces in the parking structure, located in the Phase III building available for short -term parking use by the general public and/or hotel guests of the Vail Village Inn. These 65 spaces shall not be leased to any party. 2. Prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for the construction of Phase IV -A of SDD No. 6., the applicant or his successors in interest shall provide written evidence to the Town of Vail Director of Community Development that a Colorado Department Of Highways access permit has been obtained for access from the South Frontage Road • 3. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict three dwelling units for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing units) in the following manner: A. The employee housing units shall not be leased or rented for any period less than 30 consecutive days and shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. B. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle -Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. C. A full -time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per week. D. The applicant or his successors In interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by • the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the land. Said declaration shall not"be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for Phase IV -A of Special Development District No. 6 until said declaration of covenants 1,...- E. Said three employee housing units shall be located as indicated on the 40 drawings provided by the Intratect Design Group, Sheet No. 3, dated June 6, 1991 and Sheet No. 8, dated July 10, 1991. 4. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases IV, IV -A and V shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any improvement district(s) which may be established by the Town of Vail for the purpose of constructing improvements as set forth in any officially adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Plan, if and when an improvement district is formed. 5. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases IV, IV -A and V shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage between Phases IV, IV -A and V of the Vail Village Inn, to a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when said commercial expansion is developed. 6. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases IV and IV -A agree to transfer iby general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, a condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size. Said unit shall be located as indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the 1987 application. There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting said unit to Town of Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivision and /or sale of the unit. 7. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating to any Phase of Special Development District No. 6, shall be issued until such time as reasonable evidence is provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing has been obtained for the improvements to be constructed. 8. Any units in Phases IV, IV -A or V which may be condo miniumized, shall be restricted as set forth in Section 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code and thereafter amended. 9. The applicant or his successors in interest of Phases IV, IV -A and V shall reimburse the Town of Vail in the amount of $75,000 for expenses incurred in relocating the ski museum. Of said $75,000 relocation expenses, the amount of $27,000 shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of Phase IV -A of SDD #6. The balance of 1 D. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of SDD #6, shall • include an overall parking analysis as set forth in Section 9 of this ordinance. 11. Provide a pedestrian easement, along the western boundary of the VVI (the east side of Vail Road) of sufficient width (as determined by the Town) to accommodate an 8 foot wide sidewalk with integral landscaping. Said easement shall begin at the northwest corner of the Vail Village Inn property (said corner is also the southwest corner of the Vail Gateway Plaza property), and extend along the westerly line of the Vail Village Inn property south to East Meadow Drive. Said easement shall expire at such time that a building permit for the construction of Phase IV of SDD No. 6 is issued. Prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for Phase IV, the Town shall reevaluate the need for pedestrian access along Vail Road and if in the Town's sole opinion, some manner of pedestrian access is still required, the applicant or his successors in interest shall provide for such pedestrian access. . Section 11 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, 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 12 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 13 . The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED • ONCE IN FULL, this 2nd day of July , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the 16th day of July , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED by title this 16th day of July , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The planning and Environmental Commission The Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, Co. 8 16 57 December 26, 1991 T would like to put in writing for you some of our concerns regarding the proposed development for the lower portion of The Valley Phase 2. Many of the owners here at The Valley Condominiums purchased their homes with the understanding that this land, when developed, would be developed in such a way that would be in keeping with the concept and look of the existing condominiums in this area. we like the idea of having parking nearer the road and in open areas where trees need not be killed for asphalt. We like the footpaths to the homes and the openness and feel that they provide. We feel that the original concept as provided for by the county was sound and should not be so easily discounted by the pEC or the developer. Here are several considerations that we feel deserve your oible to attention: First, the original 1980 plan save virtually any trees that aren't in the way of the buildings themselves. The walks can all be made to go around the trees. A 24 ft. road, as Gentzler proposes, will wipe out all trees in its way. Second, the buildings can be placed to minimize the cut of the hillside with the original plan. Gentzler's plan forces them up into the hillside in order to make room for the road. The cut will be unsightly and more trees will have to go. Third, with the original plan, there is not the added mass of garagesfon each unit. Gentzler is asking for an additional 3500 sq. garaged. Fourth, Gentzler's road will require a considerable amount of fill which will make it massive and unsightly. require f fill. Fifth, we feel that these houses would dwarf the adjacent condominiums and would not fit in with the natural surroundings and existing condominiums. Sixth, in that these lots have no views and little, if any, sunshine, we have concerns that if ,,40o, 000 homes are built here, the possibility aexists that, once again, we could end up with a project oncoagai we all know what a scar an unbuilt foundation can be. if the project isn`t viable, we could be stuck with it for a very long time. Additionally, 1 think that up-grading this project to expensive single family houses when all the local headlines and politicos are crying ld be able housing is ironic best. oneof thes working wou houses. locals wou And finally, 1 draw your attention to the project analysis written for the June 24, 1991 PEC meeting by the planning staff: "Staff believes the proposed plan impacts the hillside and meadow more than the county approval. We believe the • county approval of clustering the houses and accessing them.with pedestrian walkways was more integrated into the existing environment. Staff is concerned about the impact the access road will have on the area. Not only is the amount of asphalt increased, but fill will be required to build the road'. Granted, two of the houses were eliminated from that plan, however, i don't feel that this planners concerns were adequately resolved. IJow, make no miBtake, we don't necessarily feel that the approved plan of 1980 was the best of all worlds, but we do feel that the concept is sound and can easily be improved upon. For example, the 1980 plan shows parking for 45 cars. obviously, for nine units, only about 18 or so spaces would be needed. So that opens up considerable space for adjusting building locations, parking locations, etc. it may even allow for saving more of the hillside than in the 1980 plan. please consider these items carefully. We'll see you on Jan. 13. Best R ds, Tom Fitch The Valley Board of Directors - Exec. Committee �. PO 3176 Vail, Co. 81658 47 6 -'7.2 02 cc: peter Zwiebach; Pete Feistmann; I%Tancy Robbins; Mike McCune; Steve Lx.ndat.rOm; Brian Doolan; Peter Rudy -tAx C01L.DOV Rpm NOV 251991 United States. Forest White River P.Q. Box 948 Department of Service National Glenwood .Springs, Agriculture Forest Colorado'.; 81602 303 945 -2521 Reply to: 2820 Dater November 22, 1991 Mr. Kent Rose & Ms. Diana Donovan Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Co 81657 Dear Kent and Diana: It Thank you for submitting comments on the White River National Forest's Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis. The identification of your concerns is an integral part of the environmental analysis process for determining issues that need to be addressed and identifying potential leasing alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, ML /ml I- w--- 5 A. HOOTS t Supervisor PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 27, 1992 AGENDA 1:00 P.M. Site Visits 2:00 P.M. Public Hearing Site Visits PUBLIC HEARING 1. A request for a setback variance and conditional use permit to allow a tow which will transport people and supplies from the garage to the house at 2701 Davos Trail /Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Brian and Sonja Craythorne Planner: Andy Knudtsen 2. An update on the status of the redevelopment proposal for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc. /GPH Partners, Ltd. /Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica 3. A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code regarding minor exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core Il, Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, and Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 4. A request to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase II. Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc. /Steve Gensler Planners: Andy Knudtsen /Kristan Pritz TABLED INDEFINITELY 5. Approval of PEC meeting minutes for January 13, 1992 meeting. • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Master Agenda Notebook FROM: Leslie Hagerman, Planning Secretary DATE: March 2, 1993 RE: Minutes from January 27, 1992 PEC meeting It appears that the minutes from the January 27, 1992 PEC meeting were never completed nor reviewed or approved by the members of the PEC board. It has been decided by Kristan that the tapes of these meetings do not need to be transcribed and that should someone wish to review the tapes from this meeting date, they may do so in the Council Chambers. The reason for this decision is that the PEC members would have a difficult time approving the minutes as it has been more than a year since the meeting. • • �J • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 27, 1992 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Gena Whitten Dalton Williams Absent Connie Knight Diana Donovan called the meeting to order at 2:OOPM Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Betsy Rosolack Larry Eskwith 1. A request for a setback variance and conditional use permit to allow a tow which will transport people and supplies from the garage_ to the house at 2701 Davos Trail /Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Brian and Sonja Craythorne Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the requested variance and conditional use permit. After reviewing the appropriate criteria, Andy stated staff recommended approval of both requests for the reasons stated in staff's memorandum. Chuck Crist wondered if this project required an environmental impact statement. Kristan Pritz replied it did not. Chuck asked if the Planning and Environmental Commission members could be open to any liability suits if they approved this. Kristan answered that anyone could sue, and she could not give any legal advice. Galen Aasland, project architect, stated this particular tow did not fall into the category which needed tramway review. Kristan added that the Town would have to inspect the construction to ensure building standards were met. During a discussion of the color, Galen indicated the concrete would be an earth tone, the tract would be a matte color, the bottom of the car would be a forest green with the upper portion to match the brown of the house. Finally, the curved top of the car would be a forest green. Kathy Langenwalter inquired if the railing would be • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 27, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance and a conditional use permit to allow a tow which will transport people and supplies from the garage to the residence located at 2701 Davos Trail/Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Brian and Sonja Craythorne Planner: Andy Knudtsen 'i4 /.SV ri:{:: v[;:+{;�': v'fr: 'Src:i <St::o `.,`Q {:iiYf.'�`- :::^':!:$r �:3Yi}•:tY:yzy x'Ir wa +! r ':4rr •:S.L.: s.Y`...L... n::R <:;r.'v' ::R.: :d•:. .t: :�c;{a {rf; - 'a'r %�d �'�::. ii \�r14:::$r::::�:v.:'Jrr' f.•::i .f+.S:v +: :`��. {l.,J: J.,.l .. :: "Ix^ d# `Sd..h� . ,'r.'v`,': r v : •••r •a• ': >1::,�;: #�... u : .$ <.�` :r:•::v: :..3�::kr:: -4 ..rr�:r��'•rr:r` •:s�?G'•, '�h:i <5 ''� {:.:..,. ?+.yc ' : r... ..a. ...�o avl:r : = f'.':i ^::s 4P4,.,r.{c'!,c ".t �'{i'r{ , . a:.G..r.,.�:n:�:' ,x,r�..o : {•c3 "c�idrrrf•rd.;r;.yo.::, {.. : ?f... �e ,., .d.`., 'E,�.C,{y:{r.:.o� ?e �rrr. .. y..;�.';ir::,:. r:rr�.u: ?a•i-d:'c:.fi:W:r rr ..-: +' ° {''ud.: r'�: ?4:4. ��N.v.; r..S:.i '. :Yh. .virGr .,u.., r, �. t`.: G, {. �fy3r�].. .'.., ...�� .�yn AF:�'r: {u.:....a..,r�<c.:.`.•` {:i ..�:: ..n;;x.x:c4.3..: vL. A, f, ..r:•i -f ..7,:.5 <'. { ?:: <f- ..yrs- s5+rry: y': p''i�l.V �[r�:e :4s .;dr.K• rnr,r •r /.. S! . ::�:: r r :£ =fi: . :o2.�i'�f ? ^:'j,�., s..L..:: +y,.. ;... ,.. � . ?�4 6! f.Yrti '• A'✓., {r,;r..r,, :r .. f..{}i :. n:. ,:; -'a}{ '� , x!� .: {.f.[I.•.S.i:ii:G ii:'i:;.ii: ": Sir.:, {v:•i.SV,{.. {... {.::i;•:asiy',i:;� :r:r: o:•:#'fG. {: �:. .. ?. AV h,.r� 1 �:: h : �r9 -. .:.W: -f.• r :. �+r.. d:r� {4 �v � ^:p:r s {�: s':r i:rf';:Ciiri.•: iii�.�iti:'�::::o...: .$r:I+ i .4n ..:4ifr r:J .;�...{:,'. rr..SU. {.1{iddi'v ., r:•:S} : : }� 1 �.CF irfr. ... rr rr. rr.. r. rr: rY. r.:.r:: F:?.........+.. sq:{{ au:•.{:, L. v..:.. rr.... r:': 2:...:....... v.:..:.., r:}..,.,. nrr:: fr: r.......... x. r.: i5:'? i:` 2. w. tir.., r:: �: . 5: r]..? 12}. E. h.. dvd: S.` Ln�n' h. rrrl: rr:? r.!{ viri?% x ., +•'4'4•ZSi�I.:'.'f:.:�r:_r.,, T:ird�irf ?7:i,.bt) I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The home of Brian and Sonja Craythorne, the applicants, is situated at the high point of their site. The garage for the property is on the level of the street and a staircase, with over one hundred steps, connects the two structures. They would like to install a tow, consisting of a set of rails with a car that will move between the garage and the house. There will be eight piers located approximately 10 feet apart that will support the rails. Each pier will be located approximately 12 to 24 inches above grade, and will be 30 inches wide. The car will be three feet wide and four feet long. It will have one bench in it and will have room to seat two people. The body of the car will be approximately 30 inches high and will be made of wood. The roof of the car will be made out of metal and it will have plastic flaps that can be rolled down in the winter. Both the lower wooden part and upper metal part will be painted forest green. The applicant will be planting 20 potentilla and two aspens around the tow, as well as re- seeding the hillside once the construction is completed. II. ZONING STANDARDS The proposed setbacks for the tow are as follows: Garage and House Tow REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED Front: 20' Side: 15' Side 15' Rear: 15' 3.0' 2.5' 9.0' 6.5' 17.0' 67.0' 24.0' 73.0' f . As shown in the table above, the proposed tow will be located within the front yard setback as well as the west side yard setback. Concerning the conditional use request, staff determined that the proposed mechanism is a tow, which is listed in the Primary /Secondary Zone District as a conditional use. III. VARIANCE CRITERIA Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed use will not have negative impacts on other sites in the neighborhood. Because.of the steepness of the site and the site's location at the very west end of Davos Trail, the proposed tow will not be very visible from the public right -of -way or from adjacent lots. The applicant is . proposing to plant two aspen trees at the base of the tow to provide screening from the street and will plant 20 potentilla on the hillside around the tow. None of the trees on the hillside will be removed during the construction. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping improvements, in conjunction with the relatively small size of the proposal, will crake the site compatible with others in the area. • 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The slope of the site where the tow will be located is approximately 67 %, which staff believes is a physical hardship for the property. This information is based on a survey of the site done on August 16, 1991. The slope not only creates the need for the tow but also requires that the tow be located within the setbacks. The elevation of the property at the front setback line is 14 feet above the grade of the street. With that amount of change of elevation within the front yard setback, staff believes that an encroachment into the setback is justified to allow the tow to extend closer to the street elevation. 2 • 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 have no effect on any of the above referenced criteria. The redesign of the staircase requires that a portion of it be located in the Davos Trail right -of -way, and there is a wing wall which is part of the existing garage which also extends into the right -of -way. The wing wall was built in 1985 and was approved by the Town with a revocable right -of -way permit. Staff has conceptually reviewed the proposal with the Town Engineer, and he believes that the use of the right -of -way for the staircase is reasonable and will not negatively effect traffic facilities. IV. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the zoning code, 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 Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District has site development standards which are intended to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the sites in that zone district. The specific conditional use request and the variance request, staff believes, are consistent with the general purpose of the Primary/Secondary Zone District and will be compatible with residential development found in this zone district. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes, with the review and approval of the encroachment into the right - of -way, the proposal will have no effect on any of the above referenced facilities. 3 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposal may improve pedestrian safety for people on this site. Staff believes that providing an alternative to using the long staircase will improve safety. Other than that positive effect, the staff sees no other impacts. 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. Because the property is located near the end of Davos Trail at a point where the street curves, and because the tow will be located on a steep hillside, few other properties in the area will see it. Staff believes that in general, the improvements are relatively minor and will not negatively affect any adjacent property. . V. VARIANCE FINDINGS C7 A. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. n W f C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. CONDITIONAL USE 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. • VII. CONCLUSION • Staff recommends approval of the setback variance and conditional use requests with the condition that the Town Engineer approve a revocable right -of -way permit prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff believes that the proposal meets the criteria as discussed above in this memo and also meets the findings. Specifically, the variance findings are met as follows: 1. The granting of this setback variance, staff believes, will not constitute a grant of special privilege, as the 67% slope of the hillside is a physical hardship which justifies a deviation from the setback standards. 2. The proposal does not affect public health, safety or welfare. 3(a)(b). Staff believes that a strict enforcement of the setback standards would result in a practical difficulty. Staff believes that because the slope is so steep in the front yard setback, it is reasonable for the applicant to request to bring the tow to as close to the garage and road, and to as low an elevation as possible. In addition to the variance findings, staff believes that the conditional use findings are met as follows: M 1. The proposal is in accordance with the purposes of the Primary /Secondary Zone District and will be compatible with other development in the zone district. 2. Staff believes that operating the proposal will not affect public health, safety or welfare. Except for the variances that will allow the structure to be located in the setback, the proposal will comply with all the other provisions of the zoning code. c �pcMemos\craytme.127 LI ID 0 I . I * � 0 f 1 o / o o x �JSw i \a }n J w'�yJ \ Q IL w S � I \ I � I �5 i \ l 1 Ak 7 o J :Y 7 °W I�{ � .Inc tin _iii J b y ti kA. IT T ' 11 . _-if • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: .January 27, 1992 RE: A request for a worksession to discuss amending Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, and Commercial Core II, Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer .Z'Y.S 11 f {. h'' }3!'.O�fi ��i'fi,��:<sF, ; �r:.�S:R� 3F<fi,��::��f °.;�i.3fi'# The Community Development Department staff proposes the Sections of the zoning code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II, be modified. These changes are taken from recommendations made in the October, 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Phase I. The following is a list of issues, staff recommendations and related recommended zoning code modifications. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I Exterior Alteration or Modifications - Procedures will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of the issues and the related staff zoning code modification recommendations for Section 18.26.045 Commercial Core it Exterior Alterations or Modifications. The text modifications proposed for CCI and CCII are identical. COMMERCIAL CORE I SECTION 18.24.065 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURES A. Issue The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of the zoning code. However, the two semi- annual submittal dates do not allow for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects. Staff Recommendation Move the submittal dates for major projects up two months, from November and May to September and March respectively. The purpose of this change is to complete Town project reviews at an earlier date in order to allow project construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season and in the fall prior to the beginning of ski season. 1 a B. Issue The sixty or ninety day review process as outlined in this section is not consistent with the manner in which applications are actually handled. Staff Recommendation Review procedures stipulate a sixty or ninety day review period as may be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). In reality, the review of exterior alterations is primarily dependent on the applicant's submittal of material, and not on the review period established by the PEC. Staff recommends this section of the code be amended to state that the formal review by the PEC will be scheduled by the Director of Community Development following a worksession (if necessary) and planning department receipt of all of the required submittal material. C. Issue This section of the code does not set forth formal submittal requirements for exterior alterations. While the staff and the PEC ultimately determine what materials must be submitted in order for the review of the exterior alteration application to occur, minimum submission requirements should be specified in the code. • Staff Recommendation • Staff recommends the code be modified to include a list of submittal requirements similar to the Special Development District (SDD) submittal requirements. The Community Development Director should be allowed the flexibility to add or delete submittal requirement material as may be appropriate depending upon the magnitude of the project. D. Issue The code does not specifically address who may submit an exterior alteration application. Staff Recommendation Concern over who may submit an application on an exterior alteration application has to do with condominiumized projects. Under the SDD review process, all property owners within the project area are required to sign the SDD application, unless, the condominium by -laws give a condominium association representative (or officer) the authority to pursue SDD approval with a majority vote of approval by its members. Staff recommends this same SDD language be incorporated into this section of the code. 2 0 E. Issue Any exterior alteration development proposal which adds or removes floor area is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site development alterations, specifically outdoor dining decks are related to many of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEC. Staff Recommendation The addition of a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the exterior alteration process. Currently, proposals for new or expanded dining decks require PEC review for a conditional use permit. However, exterior alteration criteria are more appropriate criteria to use to evaluate the impact of this type of development than are the conditional use criteria. This change will not add a new meeting to the review process of these proposals but, instead, will allow the PEC to consider urban design criteria in evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck. Under this change, outdoor dining deck proposals would no longer be reviewed under the conditional use process. Therefore, the outdoor dining deck use would no longer be a conditional use in this district. Instead, outdoor dining decks and patios would be listed as an accessory use in Section 18.24.080 - Accessory Uses. This will require changes to CCI Section 18.24.080 - Accessory Uses and CCII Section • 18.26.050 - Accessory Uses. Changes to these sections of the code must be advertised and formally discussed by the PEC at a later date. r] F. Issue The PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) both participate in the review of exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly defined. Staff Recommendation The PEC is to review the siting, form, massing, circulation and other large -scale urban design issues. The DRB's responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated 'in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles of each board should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code. G. Issue Under this section of the code, applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. However, a single property owner is limited to one such submission in any two year period. 3 0 Staff Recommendation Staff believes limiting the review of additions of 100 square feet or less to one proposal every two years is unnecessary. Staff proposes the code be modified to allow the review of additions or redevelopment proposals of 100 square feet or less in the following manner: • If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a submission proposal may be submitted for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. • If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less, within the last two years, said applications shall be submitted for review on a semi - annual basis on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. • No public hearings or work sessions before the PEC shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the semi - annual submittal date deadlines. • Exterior alteration applications which call for the addition or removal of any enclosed area of 100 square feet or less shall be considered minor alterations. Any exterior alteration proposal which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of more than 100 square feet shall be considered a major exterior alteration. H. issue Alterations to the roof line of existing buildings are not currently reviewed under the exterior alteration section of the code. Changes to roof lines can impact sun /shade analysis and established view corridors. Staff Recommendation Require changes to the existing roof line on structures located within. the CC[ and CCII zone districts to be reviewed using the exterior alteration criteria. TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 18.24.065 The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.24.065, which address the Issues and Staff Recommendations set forth above: "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedures: 4 A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided ,by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general • description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, etc.); • C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun /shade analysis of the existing and proposed building; 5 0 g. Existing and proposed floor plans and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties; Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, views and formally adopted Town of Vail view corridors; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The Director may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for exterior alterations shall be submitted semi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph 2. above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the semi - annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraph 3.a. of this Section shall be exempt from this required work session. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.090 - Hearing - Evidence. The Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 18.66.080 {B} - Hearing- Notice, following this work session and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required. i 6 a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed "minor exterior alteration ". The review procedures for minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(a) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free - standing structure. A property owner may apply for an expansion greater than one hundred square feet in any year in which he or she submits an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. b. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required time of the month for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. C. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment iproposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, said applications shall be submitted for review on a semi - annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Section 18.66.100 - Amendment - Prescription. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.66.110 - Amendment - Initiation; 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in Section 18.24.010; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan • and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited 7 to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service /delivery and sun /shade; 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. Following approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, all exterior alterations shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. In addition to design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural /Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. B. Modification or change to either the exterior facade of a building or a site that is not specifically addressed elsewhere in this section shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purpose of the CCI district as specified in Section 18.24.010; that the proposal substantially . complies with the Architectural /Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood." • III. COMMERCIAL CORE II SECTION 18.26.045 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS - PROCEDURES All of the issues and staff recommendations related to Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 - Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedures, also apply to Commercial Core II, Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedures. Staff recommends all modifications to be made to the CCI Section 18.24.065 of the code occur simultaneously to the CCII Section 18.26.045. IV. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18.26.045 The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.26.045, which address the Issues and Staff recommendations as more fully explained in Section I of this memo. These changes are identical to the changes proposed for CCI Section 18.24.065 with the exception of the referenced planning documents to be used in evaluating development proposals. "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedures: 0 A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community. Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property if • applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; • C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun /shade analysis of the existing and proposed building; 0 llt■ 0 9. Existing and proposed floor plans and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties; L Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, views and formally adopted Town of Vail view corridors; Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The Director may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for exterior alterations shall be submitted semi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of February and the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all • information listed in Subparagraph 2. above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the semi - annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraph 3Q of this Section shall be exempt from this required work session. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of the. Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.090 - Hearing- Evidence. The Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 18.66.080(B) - Hearing - Notice, following this work session and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required. • 10 • a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed "minor exterior alteration ". The review procedures for minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(a) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free - standing structure. A property owner may apply for an expansion greater than one hundreds uare feet in any year in which he or she submits an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. b. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required time of the month for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. C. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, said applications shall be submitted for review on a semi - annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Section 18.66.100 - Amendment - Prescription. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.66.110 - Amendment - Initiation; 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section 18.26.010; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban ,Design Guide Plan or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 11 IV • 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. Following approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, all exterior alterations shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. In addition to design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural /Landscape Considerations of the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. B. Modification or change to either the exterior facade of a building or a site that is not specifically addressed elsewhere in this section shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purpose of the CCII district as specified in Section 18.26.010; that the proposal substantially complies with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood." cApe6memoslextalt.127 12 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits February 10, 1992 AGENDA Public Hearing 1. Swearing in of new Commissioners. 2. Election of Chairman and Vice - Chairman. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer TO BE TABLED TO FEBRUARY 24, 1992 • 4. Appointment of PEC member to serve on the Water Quality Project. 5. Appointment of PEC member to serve on the Housing Authority. 6. Update on Art in Public Places Program. 7. Update on Eagle Valley Community Forum. 8. Update on Master Transportation Plan. 40 0 0 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 10, 1992 Present Greg Amsden Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Gena Whitten The meeting was begun at 2:05PM. Swearing in of new Commissioners. Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Amber Blecker Martha Raecker, Town Clerk, swore in Greg Amsden, Diana Donovan, Ludwig Kurz and Dalton Williams to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Each new Commissioner read the oath of office. 2. Election of Chairman and Vice - Chairman. Chuck Crist nominated Diana Donovan to serve as Chairperson of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. Dalton Williams brought up the question of moving the chairmanship to different individuals each election. He thought it might be beneficial to having the responsibilities exercised by different people, so they could obtain a better understanding of the position. Greg Amsden believed that was a good idea to investigate. Kathy Langenwalter raised the issue of the term length for the Chairperson. She wanted clarification of whether the term was one or two years. Kristan Pritz was not sure, and asked that Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, be brought in to address the question. Greg, as a courtesy, asked if Diana was, in fact, interested in remaining as Chairperson. She indicated she was, and would accept the nomination. Kathy supported Diana's nomination, stating that Diana made a good Chairperson, and maintaining her chairmanship would give important continuity to the Commission. Ludwig agreed, saying that Diana had shown strong leadership and a great understanding of the issues. Larry Eskwith came into the meeting at this point. He said there was nothing specific in the Code concerning a maximum term length, but did indicate the Code specified an annual appointment with re- appointments being acceptable. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 10, 1992 • Page 1 . There being no further nominations, the selection of Diana Donovan to serve as Chairperson for a period of one year was unanimously declared. Gena Whitten nominated Chuck Crist to serve as Vice - Chairman. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Dalton Williams nominated Ludwig Kurz to serve as Vice Chairman. Dalton's motion was seconded by Kathy Langenwalter. After a secret ballot, Amber Blecker declared that Chuck Crist had been elected as Vice - Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission for the following year. At this point, Gena Whitten left the meeting. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bride Street/Part of Lots B and C Lot 5 Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: rill Kammerer Kristan Pritz explained that this item was requested to be tabled due to the Town Council's action on a view corridor ordinance. In addition, staff would be requesting a change in the criteria for a site coverage variance to be evaluated under in the Commercial Core II zone district in order to allow for the Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plan to be a factor in the evaluation, as staff believed it was a more appropriate standard than a flat 80% site . coverage requirement. Diana Donovan asked what the 80% site coverage limitation would stand for under the proposed changes. Kristan answered that it would be a guideline. Kathy Langenwalter inquired if a variance would still be necessary if a project in this zone district exceeded 80% site coverage? She also asked if this would basically only change the criteria under which a variance was considered. Kristan said she was correct that the variance and the Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plan would be used to review a site coverage variance request. Kathy Langenwalter moved to table the request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing until February 24, 1992. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It unanimously passed, 6 -0. 4. Appointment of PEC member to serve on the Water Quality Proiect. A discussion was held regarding the membership of this group and its objectives. It was decided to hold the decision on this appointment to a later time during the meeting. 5. Appointment of PEC member to serve on the Housing Authori . • Ludwig Kurz indicated his continued interest in serving on this board. He was appointed by acclaim of the Commission. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 10, 1992 • Page 2 • 6. Appointment of PEC member to serve on the Art in Public Places Board. Kathy Langenwalter indicated her desire to continue serving on this board. She was appointed by acclaim of the Commission. The Commission returned to item 4, concerning the appointment of a member to serve on the Water Quality Project. After Kristan Pritz answered questions posed by Dalton Williams, and gave a further explanation of the project, its scope and issues, Greg Amsden indicated he was interested in serving on this project. He was appointed by the acclaim of the Commission. 7. Update on Eagle Valley Communit y Forum. Kristan Pritz explained what the current status was on this effort. A general discussion took place regarding its activities. 8. Update on Master Transportation Plan. Kristan Pritz explained and capsulized the meeting which had been held regarding loading and delivery practices in Vail Village. She explained possible solutions, indicating that the area behind the Lodge at Vail held a strong potential for a centralized site. The Commissioners asked to be notified when this issue proceeded to Council for action. • On an issue which was not on the agenda, Diana Donovan expressed concern that the Town Council seemed to stress environmental concerns, and that a separate environmental commission be formed. She said that Council members led her to believe that the felt the Planning and Environmental Commission should initiate action on environmental issues. Kathy Langenwalter thought that a separate environmental board was needed, as the issues were extremely technical, and the PEC members already had a significant load. Diana suggested a sub - committee of the PEC, as planning and environmental issues are inseparable. Greg Amsden thought a 3- member board could be beneficial in handling major environmental issues, such as wood burning, water quality, air quality, etc. He said the PEC looked at environmental issues in the context of development, and perhaps a separate board could look at environmental goals and future policies. Kathy wanted to be able to come up with solutions to environmental questions apart from simply reacting to those raised by Council. She indicated the Telluride system seemed to work, and there was simply too much happening on the environmental front for the seven people on the PEC to keep up with. Greg wondered if a separate commission would be an additional stop on the way to approval for an applicant? Kristan did not believe the board would have to necessarily function that way. Greg believed a policy making commission would be beneficial, as long as it was not another approval step. He did believe that the tasks were larger in scope than what a task • force could deal with, as it was an ongoing issue. He also thought it should be a separate board in order to have enough weight before Council. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 10, 1992 • Page 3 Dalton Williams asked what areas would be addressed, as he did not feel air and water quality was enough for a formal commission to be formed. Kathy answered that there were additional issues, such as recycling, and more were being raised all the time. Diana believed it should be part of the PEC, but she requested information on the Telluride system. Kristan agreed to compile the requested information and bring it to a later meeting as a worksession. Kristan Pritz updated the Commission on the progress toward hiring an Environmental Policy Specialist. 9. Update on Art in Public Places Program, Kristan Pritz updated the Commissioners on the time and date for a discussion on the current Art in Public Places project. Addressing an item not on the agenda, Mike Mollica requested input from the Commissioners regarding a Backcountry Zone District proposed by Eagle County. Mike explained both the proposal and his response letter. A general discussion ensued regarding the boundaries of the proposed zone district, the rights of existing mining claims, and other issues. It was decided that the proposed Backcountry . Zone District be further reviewed at the next PEC meeting and Mike stated he would invite representatives from Eagle County and the U.S. Forest Service to be present at the meeting. • The meeting was adjourned at 3:35PM. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 10, 1992 • Page 4 i s is PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 24, 1992 AGENDA 12:30PM Site Visits 1:30PM Worksession 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Worksession 1. A request to review the proposed Eagle County Backcountry Zone District. Applicant: Tom Allender, Eagle County Planner Planner: Mike Mollica Public Hearin 1. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast at 5197 Black Gore Drive /Heather of Vail Condos, according to the plat recorded in Book 238 at Page 678. Applicant: Linda Dula Staff: Mike Mollica 3. 2. A request for an exterior alteration at Blu's Restaurant, Gore Creek Plaza Building, 193 Gore Creek Drive /Part of Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist Planner: Shelly Mello 3. A request for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail /1 -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Commencing at the NE corner of the SE' /4 of the SW' /4 of Section 5, Township 5 S, Range 80 W of the 6th P.M., being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bering of S00 °11'00" E between the NE corner of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, and the SE corner of said SE 1/4 of the SW'A being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said NE corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW'A being the Point of Beginning; thence S00 °11'00" E along the east line of said SE 1/4 of the SW ?/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320.14 feet to the SE corner the said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5; thence S89 047'48" W along the south line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 901.00 feet; thence N73 048'32" W along 1 -70 ROW line a distance of 214.12 feet; thence N66 052'12" W along said ROW line a distance of 241.10 feet to a point on the west line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5; thence N00 °20'31" W along the west line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1161.66 feet to the NW corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 114 of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; thence N89 141'12" E along the north line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1331.07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39.55 acres, more or less. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. Planner: Mike Mollica 2. 4. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer 4. 5. Discussion regarding staff decision concerning the conditions of approval for the previously approved parking, common area and height variances for the Sonnenalp Hotel, 20 Vail Road /Lots I and K, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. A request to renew and amend a conditional use permit for Lionshead Miniature Golf, Tract D, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicants: Vail Associates /Charlie Alexander Planner: Shelly Mello 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core 11, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) - Sun - Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer TABLED TO MARCH 9, 1992 B. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5 -A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO MARCH 9, 1992 9. Approval of February 10, 1992 meeting minutes. 10. Reminder of Council Worksession on loading and delivery plan for Vail Village, Tuesday, February 25, 1992. .i 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 24, 11992 • Present Greg Amsden Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Gena Whitten Absent Ludwig Kurz Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker A request to review the proposed Eagle County Backcountry Zone District. Applicant; Tom Allender, Eagle County Planner Planner: Mike Mollica A worksession on the above item was held prior to the official meeting. Tom Allender of the Eagle County Community Development Department and Rich Phelps from the United States Forest Service were in attendance to answer specific questions from the Commissioners and staff. The public hearing was called to order at approximately 2:25PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast at 5197 Black Gore Drive/Heather of Vail Condos, according to the plat recorded in Book 238_ at Page 678. Applicant: Linda Dula Staff: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica briefly explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast at 5197 Black Gore Drive/Heather of Vail Condos, according to the plat recorded in Book 238 at Page 679, per the staff memo. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6 -0. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 24, 1992 • Page 1 E 2. A request for an exterior alteration at Blu's Restaurant, Gore Creek Plaza Building, 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following elements included in the proposal: 1. The applicant agrees to contribute $600 to the Streetscape Fund to provide two newspaper dispensers on the Gore Creek Promenade prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the required parking fee be paid to the Town of Vail Parking Fund prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant agrees to contribute their fair share of the expenses to correct the drainage problems on the east side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The total expense for this project is estimated at $4186. The applicant's portion is determined by his percentage ownership in the building. A development agreement, along with a cash escrow or letter of credit, must be approved by the Town prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, should the drainage work not be completed prior to this time. Erich Hill represented the applicants. He asked that the condition of approval which referred to placing $600 into the Streetscape Fund be changed, as the owners preferred to add landscaping around the site. He said a specific landscape plan would be submitted at the final DRB approval for the project. The general areas where he wanted to add landscaping were at the stair and two other locations. Diana Donovan asked if the owners would be responsible for the maintenance for the landscaping. Erich agreed to that request. Diana requested that the detailing of the decks of the building to be addressed. Chuck Crist asked how much the project was estimated to cost. Erich indicated the bar addition would be between $8- 12,000, and the office was approximately $7- 9,000. In addition to those figures, there would be an interior renovation. Chuck explained his question was asked in order to determine the percentage of the cost the Town was asking for in additional improvements. He said the Town had requested approximately 15 -20% of the cost of the project. Shelly explained the rationale, stating the amount was linked to the additional square footage being requested, not the cost of the project, and that the parking fee was automatically required by CCI zoning. Chuck responded he wanted to be aware of the cost of municipally- required improvements. Kathy Langenwalter addressed the new window and door, and stated she wanted them to look like they belonged together. In addition, she pointed out that the planter on the south side of the project needed to be addressed, and that care be taken on what was placed there, as it was an over - exposed site and very hot. Diana Donovan summarized the Commission's changes to the proposal as follows: #1 from the staff memorandum would be changed to additional landscaping, to be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission • February 24, 1992 • Page 2 f Design Review Board at final approval. 44 would be added to state the upper deck trims would be researched, and made to conform with previously - approved DRB colors. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration at Blu's Restaurant, Gore Creek Plaza Building, 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 513, Vail Village First Filing, per staff's memorandum, with the change that additional landscaping would be placed on the south side and additional landscaping on the north side of the project in place of the contribution to the Streetscape Fund. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6 -0. After the vote, it was requested that staff make sure the trim band on the building and railings were what was previously approved, and ensure the addition matched. 3. A re nest for wall height and road grade variances for the S raddle Creek Subdivision an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main _Vail -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Commencing at the NE corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/ of Section 5, Township 5 S, Range 80 W of the 6th P.M., being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bering of S00 °11'00" E between the NE corner of said SE 1/ of the SW 1/ and the SE corner of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/ being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said NE corner Is of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 being the Point of Beginning; thence S00 °11'00" E along the east line of said SE 1/ of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320.14 feet to the SE corner the said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/ of Section 5; thence S89 °47'48" W. along the south line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/ of Section 5 a distance of 901.00 feet, thence N73 148'32" W along 1 -70 ROW line a distance of 2.14.12 feet; thence N66'52'12" W along said ROW line a distance of 241.10 feet to a point on the west line of said SE 1/ of the SW 1/ of Section 5• thence N00 °20'31" W along the west line of said SE 1/ of the SW 1/ of Section 5 a distance of 1161.66 feet to the NW corner of the SE 1/ of the SW 1/ of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly. marked and set;_ thence N89141'12" E along the north line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1331.07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39.55 acres, more or less. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained this was a request for a re- approval of previously granted variances, but was basically a time extension of those variances. The original variances had lapsed; hence the request for the new variances. Mike informed the Commissioners that variances granted after January 1, 1992 were now valid for a period of 2 years. Staff was requesting an additional condition above those conditions required at the first approval. That condition was that the variance would expire in conjunction with the final plat expiration, which will occur on February 11, 1994. Other than that change, the recommendation was to approve the requested variances. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 24, 1992 • Page 3 I Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and cast of the Main Vail/I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery, more specifically described above, be approved per staff memo, and further moved the variances expire February 11, 1994, if construction was not commenced before that date, and diligently pursued to completion. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It was passed by a vote of 5 -0 -1, with Chuck Crist abstaining, due to a potential conflict of interest. 4. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bride Street/Part of Lots B and C Lot 5 Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the request. Kristan Pritz clarified that the newspaper boxes referenced in staff's memorandum were to be faced with wood. Jill stated staff recommended approval of the requests. Ned Gwathmey, the applicants' architect, asked for clarification on the building height. The planning staff and the applicant were in concurrence on the building height. He also asked why the applicants should be made to pay $1,200 to the Streetscape Fund for newspaper . boxes. He believed that, since the newspapers received the benefit, they should pay for their own boxes. Rod Slifer explained he had been required to pay almost $20,000 into the parking fund, had needed to provide a title report, a model of the proposed renovation, along with other requirements, and the costs of those items had added up. He objected to paying $1,200 for newspaper stands to be located on his property. He stated he had never approved the placement of the existing newspaper boxes on his property in the first place. He did not want the stands there, and believed it was onerous to require him to pay for something which reduced his property rights. Kristan responded that the Town was trying to work with the newspapers to have them enclose the stands in wood, in conformance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, but indicated the newspaper companies had indicated a reluctance to do this. She stated the current boxes negatively impacted the streetscape, and were therefore an important part of the improvements. Jill added the Streetscape Master Plan set forth that implementation of the specific improvements would occur through a public /private partnership. Ned reiterated that the newspapers were the beneficiaries of the enclosures, and they should pay for the enclosures. Kristan mentioned there were freedom of speech issues surrounding the Town's ability to require the newspapers to move and improve the appearance of the newspaper boxes. However, the Town was still pursuing the option of the newspaper • companies also participating in the upgrading of the newspaper boxes. Rod again stated his property rights were limited because of the placement of the boxes. He also suggested that, because the entire area benefitted from having the boxes improved, everyone should pay Planning and Environmental Commission • February 24, 1992 • Page 4 equally. He did not find it appropriate that he should pay simply because he chose to upgrade his property. Greg Amsden inquired as to whether the Town staff designated how the funds placed into the Streetscape Fund were to be used. Kristan replied they did. Greg indicated his preference to designate the funds the applicant would contribute be spent in another manner other than on newspaper dispenser boxes. Mike Mollica indicated it was not imperative to have the boxes in this location. Kristan added the Town would prefer to see the boxes relocated from this area. The Streetscape Master Plan called out centralized box locations in the Village, one of which is proposed in this area. Ned asked that the reference in the memo be changed in the requirement for landscaping from a Norway Maple to a specimen tree. Jill agreed to that change. Diana Donovan clarified it was to be a deciduous specimen (large) tree placed in the planter, not an evergreen. The applicant and staff agreed. Jill said the applicant had indicated he would work with Sherry Dorward when the project was reviewed by the DRB to finalize the plant material to be installed. Ned indicated the applicant would be responsible for maintenance of the plant material in the planters, including the plant material in that portion of the planter located on Town of Vail property. Gena Whitten agreed with Mr. Slifer on the newspaper boxes, and believed the newspapers should pay for the boxes, as she believed it was a cost of their doing business. Greg Amsden asked that the requested contribution to the Streetscape Fund be used to fund a different streetscape improvement. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the applicants could move the existing tree to 'a new location. Rod indicated it was his intent to do this, and he was working with the Town Landscape Architect, Todd Oppenheimer, to identify a location to transplant the tree. Kathy agreed with applicants on the newspaper boxes, and indicated she was concerned about granting a variance and having a dollar requirement associated with approval. She did not like the appearance of "buying" a variance. She believed it was, however, more appropriate to require additional money amounts for improvements in conjunction with an exterior alteration. Kristan clarified that the donation to the Streetscape Fund was part of the exterior alteration request, and was not associated with the requested variance. Dalton Williams said he did not realize "private - public partnership" meant private parties subsidized newspapers through contributions of use of land. He also believed the requested Streetscape contribution should not be used for the newspaper boxes, as that money should come from the newspaper companies. Dalton also agreed with Kathy about equating variances with money. . Chuck Crist liked the proposed addition, and believed it would be a pleasant addition to Bridge Street. He supported changing the newspaper boxes to wood, but was confused by the term "contribution," as the amount appeared to be a tax. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 24, 1992 • Page 5 4& Kathy indicated she believed there were streetscape improvements which the applicant could provide on his property. In other requests, there had not been on -site improvements applicants could make, and in those instances, it was appropriate to ask for the contribution. She believed this applicant was improving the streetscape on his property, and did not see a need for an additional monetary contribution. Diana Donovan could approve a $1,200 contribution to the general Streetscape Fund, but not to be specifically used to enclose the newspaper boxes in wood. Diana did not believe the new landscaping proposed compensated for the loss of a mature tree. She was concerned the Town was losing the softness of its streetscape as more and more buildings were built up to the property line. Regarding the newspaper dispensers, she thought the Town was unable to require the dispensers to be changed by the newspaper companies. She could support a donation of $1,200 to the Streetscape Fund in general, as there were some impacts of the project on the streetscape, in the form of additional shade and increase in building size. However, she did believe the renovation was attractive. After clarifying that the 18 -inch high planters proposed to be constructed by the applicant were seating height, she concluded by stating the $1,200 donation, in her mind, was essential. Chuck asked what else the Streetscape Fund was used for. Kristan said it was also used for benches, lighting, etc., but staff had specified the newspaper boxes in this instance because they were a high priority item for the Town, and were currently located on the applicant's property. Diana believed there would be a direct benefit to the owner to provide the funds for the boxes, as the public would benefit. Dalton already saw public- private cooperation in the applicants' proposal, and believed the Town was asking for too much. Kristan reminded the Commissioners that other, more modest proposals, had made contributions to the Town for streetscape improvements in the past. Rod Slifer asked for consistency, and suggested a standard fee per square foot of expansion. Gena believed the additional shade was something to be concerned with. Although it was minor in this request, and this was a positive addition, Bridge Street was becoming increasingly shaded from the sun. Jill Kammerer explained the formula used to determine the requested amount to be contributed to the Streetscape Fund. After her explanation, Johannes Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, stated the formula could be prohibitive for a large remodel, and believed this was a tax with another name. He extrapolated that it was costing approximately $6 per square foot addition to contribute to the Streetscape Fund. After further discussion of the formula used and staff's position, Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing, per staff's . memorandum. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 6 -0. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 24, 1992 • Page 6 I Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core T for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing, per staff's memorandum, with the following elements in the proposal: 1. Approval of site coverage variance by the PEC. 2. Payment of parking fee in the amount of $19,672.00 prior to Town issuance of a building permit per the Town's amortization program. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The exterior alteration was approved, 4 -2, with Diana Donovan and Greg Amsden dissenting. Diana disagreed with the exclusion of condition 3, regarding the $1,200 contribution from the motion. After the vote, Ned Gwathmey stated the applicants would voluntarily make the contribution to the Streetscape Fund on the condition it not be associated with the newspaper boxes (i.e., to be used for paving), and would continue to work on it. Diana Donovan accepted the offer. S. Discussion regarding staff decision concerning the conditions of approval for the pLeviously a roved parking, common area and height variances for the Sonnenal Hotel 20 Vail Road/Lo is T and K Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: _Andy Knudtsen is Andy Knudtsen explained the revisions, as illustrated on the plans, and shown in the staff memorandum. Staff believed the change to the fire access to be a positive benefit. Kristan Pritz explained the plans were brought back to confirm the staff's position with the PEC. Staff saw the movement of the Meadow Drive access gate as beneficial. 0 Diana Donovan asked what size the trees in the planter were proposed to be. Andy said the proposal called for 6 -8' trees. Diana requested that, if the entrance to the Swiss Chalet were not addressed in "x" number of years, that the applicant be required to improve the area. Johannes Faessler, the owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, stated that a specific year would not be the right approach, as it was his goal to work with the Town when it made streetscape improvements to the area. Staff was not requiring that the plaza be brought back in "x" years. Staff believed the gate work was in place of the plaza construction. Kristan said this was brought so staff could ensure their interpretation of the conditions was appropriate, and if the Commissioners did not have concerns, no action was necessary. Planning and Environmental Commission - February 24, 1992 • Page 7 • 6. A request for a conditional use permit to renew and amend a conditional use_ permit for Lionshead Miniature Golf Course on parcels generally located west of Chair 8 Born Free Express); more specifically located on Tracts C and D Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicants: Vail Associates /Charlie Alexander Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello briefly described the request. Staff recommended approval of the request, as outlined in their memorandum. The applicant, Charlie Alexander, explained how similar projects worked when the facilities were not removed in the winter. When Vail Associates turns the project over for use in the spring, the setting up process for the course immediately begins, weather permitting. On October 15, Vail Associates resumes control over the property, and sets up for their winter lift operations. There would be no "down" time. Shelly indicated the course would operate from May 1 through the fall, 9 :OOAM -dusk. Kathy Langenwalter asked if there had been neighborhood complaints during its operation the previous summer. Shelly answered none had been received by the Community Development Department during the first year of operation. • Gena Whitten found the course to be very nice, attractive, and did not generate excessive noise. Diana Donovan asked if a permanent building was being requested. Charlie said not at this time, because of the application requirements and deadlines for a major exterior alteration. Diana inquired if approving a temporary structure would affect the conditional use permit if a permanent structure were approved at a later date. Shelly answered there would be no problem with that, and it would not rule out the permanent building. She also stated that with the current proposal, the temporary building must be removed prior to ski season. Diana also questioned if the lease with Vail Associates addressed the potential Sunbird Lodge renovation. Charlie replied it did, but illustrated how the course location would not be impacted, due to the fact the maze for Chair 8 would remain in its current location. Charlie did indicate, however, that he needed a 4 year conditional use permit, as his financing had a 4 year payout period, and changing that to 3 years would negatively impact his potential. It would be difficult for him to meet a 3 year payment schedule. Diana asked if the Commission could call up the permit if there were a problem. Shelly indicated they could, if there was a violation of the permit. Mike Mollica indicated the permit could be approved for 4 years, and if the Sunbird Lodge came in for their renovation in that time period, the permit for the course could be re- addressed. Planning and Environmental Commission - February 24, 1992 • Page 8 y_w Dalton Williams clarified that, since the course had a lease with Vail Associates, if they chose to redevelop the Sunbird Lodge, they could evict the course. Charlie agreed with that assessment. Chuck Crist asked if the water hazard on the course would be circulating. Charlie explained it would be. Chuck also asked why there were no windmills on the course, believing the absence of windmills to be "communistic." Diana asked that a copy of the lease be provided as part of the conditional use permit approval, and that the reference to 18 planting areas be removed as part of the application, with landscape plans to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Kathy Langenwalter moved the request to renew and amend a conditional use permit for Lionshead Miniature Golf, Tract D, Vail Lionshead First Filing be approved per staff's memorandum, with the changes that no specific number of planting areas were required, the planting areas would be reviewed by the Design Review Board, the conditional use permit would run for a period of 4 years, and that any application for a permanent building on the site would come in a separate application. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6 -0. 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chu ter 18.26 - Commercial Core II of the Town of Vail zoning, code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (11 - Sun - Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 8. A request for the establishment of -a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block_ 2 Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5 -A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica Chuck Crist moved to table items 7 and 8 to the March 9, 1992 meeting. Greg Amsden seconded. A 6 -0 vote tabled the items. 9. Approval of February 10, 1992 meeting minutes. Gena Whitten moved to approve the February 10, 1992 meeting minutes as amended. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a 6-0 vote. After a general discussion and updates on upcoming meetings, the meeting was adjourned at 4 :30. Planning and Environmental Commission • February 24, 1992 • Page 9 'r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration at Blu's Restaurant, Gore Creek Plaza Building, 193 Gore Creek Drive /Part of Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist Planner: Shelly Mello `ly::y "{r.. <pr a `a�' f'f +f ri:` r �Y4'�,."•r�;',^xwF^� . •. ��,*; �: �r•` y- rrrr' orcg; �F: �r��;; �? rr!' i;: �.? l�:< �•' �`' or` dk` c':' �8��' ;'.'d`p•�' ?.''�iYS''?;v'r <',': 4"YI':�zx..x ?':i Sz ^%'?r. .a s� ,.:• /?�.b.�g�- r��b:i;.�4W:`.� . ff�.�.��b � �`d}�: 'J $.k �.'J:,.4S4 t} 4 r�'.'i.�_'�r . }f 14: <Ftir:�y: % }�.:� %�r <��r:. �5<S� .$$.����`` .r�:. #: 'r4ir r.- ,ia°�:�w'$.•�•3„hr ,. lr..... �. �! � !,r:;,.1pri;;,,,',5;.,,,s�c./?s x,�.r Tj. ,�b.#'Sfr �r t�rn4r8v..;G.�:�;a rr. r,'�fii ♦�'cr ��UUCCO��CC r: `.f'�':ry G f�.# %'�i .. <dr�' , '+> '' .! o i:: ��..4'Uibf.3.G .h. v:L v 4 fr•.4, .4l:r 4 4 vb. y. � r.fr � }.v s :rr4'•::i . A:4j.4. i;} 'ir'- {'�V.'i' ?'•`^'Ui \s •.vi rs.C_$.ri, :. <.y'fii ri::. �f�'ad f2+ }�!` , ^� `cU:%�..�,+c. n r. �?�:r :r r o �r rfr: •::r�. r�� FCa ?,, i 2rn•kr..:" :w � . r�behx `t4�.6iri•�Y�:a�:a..n`�..- �rti:�:nti_£�: �:enn..:::45�6..fS:� Pra?. A: vv�l',::a:''''.��J f�' nr✓:G:�;:$r rr.:: 5 :rr:.:w`::c. ^..r`C.`.'Gs`2:£�:: . .k<:,o- :�::?•sY :` .:3e- :.:::.;�:.`.�:.si I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting to add 97.1 sq. ft. to the Gore Creek Plaza Building (66 sq. ft. of office and 31.1 sq. ft. of commercial). One addition will enclose a second floor deck on the west side and the other will be an addition to Blu's Restaurant on the east side of the first level. All colors and materials will match the existing building. The approval of a minor exterior alteration is required for this type of addition. • II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: A. Zone District: Commercial Core I B. Lot Area: 0.1734 acre; 7,553 sq. ft. C. Site Coverage: Allowed: 6,042.6 sq. ft. (80 %) Existing: 5,211.5 sq. ft. (69 %) Proposed: 5,276.5 sq. ft. (69.8 %) D. Parking: Additional: 0.264 space = $2,112 (for the office space only) (66 sq. ft./250 = 0.264 sq. ft. x $8,000 per space = $2,112 parking fee) E. GRFA: No GRFA is being added with this application . III_ COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE 1 18.24.010 Purpose: The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Design Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan, and the Vail Streetscape Plan prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This request is in conformance with the purpose of the Commercial Core I zone district and will help to further the objectives of the Town's development policies for CCI. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE . There are no specific concepts or sub - concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan which apply to this addition. V. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN There are no specific objectives or concepts of the Vail Village Master Plan which are applicable to this addition. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE A. Pedestrianlzation: No impact. B. Vehicular Penetration: No impact. C. Streetscape Framework: Staff requests that the applicant contribute $600 (2 boxes at $250 each plus installation) to the Streetscape Fund in order to further improve the aesthetic quality of the area. These funds would be earmarked for the provision of two newspaper dispenser enclosures. • 2 D. Street Enclosure: No impact. E. Street Edge: There are no impacts, as the additions are located off of the adjacent streets in the "alley ways." F. Building Height: No impact. G. Views and Focal Points: No impact. H. Service and Delivery: Neither addition will generate any significant increase in service or delivery demands. I. Sun /Shade: No impact. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff finds that the application meets all the Town of Vail CCI Urban Design Considerations and other applicable plans for this area. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant contribute $600 to the Streetscape Fund to provide two newspaper dispensers on the Gore Creek Promenade prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the required parking fee be paid to the Town of Vail Parking Fund prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applicant agree to contribute their fair share of the expenses to correct the drainage problems on the east side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The total expense for this project is estimated at $4186. The applicant's portion is determined by his percentage ownership in the building. A development agreement, along with a cash escrow or letter of credit, must be approved by the Town prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, should the drainage work not be completed prior to this time. c:lpeclmemoslbtus.224 • 3 • :7 ety,f, C-r ` Froo (r(o.a -647) PKoPlu-2`1" Y �Ir.iE r2Ar, K0 jlb� k' "e N -Ps Ori��L� -rte �jrc-, • • z 0 I U V� 1 l i 1 • ru d � z • u _7 3 �LO Z Z d 1.1 v d 3 L C �_J � � _7 3 �� �o z �I �_ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1992 RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast at Unit A6, Heather of Vail Condominiums, according to the plat recorded in Book 238 at Page 678; 5197 Black Gore Drive Applicant: Linda Dula Planner: Betsy Rosolack/Mike Mollica DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail. The definition given in that ordinance states: "A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use." Ms. Dula has applied for a conditional use permit to allow her to use one bedroom in her home, which is located in a Residential Cluster zone district, for a Bed and • Breakfast rental. The bedroom and bath contain a total of 170 square feet. A maximum of two guests could stay in the bedroom. 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: Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail as a favorable type of lodging for tourists. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation fa_ ciliti_es_z and other public facilities needs. The addition of two guests would have little impact on the use of the Town's parks and recreation facilities and on transportation facilities. • . 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. There is a Town of Vail bus stop approximately one third of a mile away. However, it is unlikely that the guests would walk to the bus stop, because they may not wish to carry skis that distance. If the guests drive their own vehicle, it is quite likely that there would be only one additional vehicle driving to the Dula residence. The staff does not feel the addition of one vehicle would have a negative effect 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 interior or exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed and Breakfast. 5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Operations shall be subiect to the following requirements: • a. Offstreet 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. This Bed and Breakfast requires 2 parking spaces. Ms. Dula has two designated parking spaces in front of the entrance to her condominium. b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. Trash for the condominium complex is kept in a trash dumpster, within a wooden enclosure, with regular weekly trash pick -up. C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged. There will be no removal of landscaping. • 2 t d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name plate sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code. A name plate has not been applied for at this time. e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use property or facilities owned in common or iointly with other property owners such as parking spaces or a driveway in duplex subdivisions by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a conditional use permit. Ms. Dula has submitted a letter of approval from the Heather Homeowners Association. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for a Bed and Breakfast operation: . A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance. ,l; 2 t01i7uML9i;L7MC6Pl The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. The staff feels all necessary criteria and findings for a conditional use and the additional requirements for a Bed and Breakfast business have been fulfilled. clb &bdula is 3 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vaill1-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. Planner: Mike Mollica The applicant is requesting approval for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. These two variance requests were previously approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Town Council, in 1990. Each variance request was valid for a period of one year from the date of final approval, which has since expired. This expiration occurred pursuant to Chapter 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect, as follows: "The permit shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year from • the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion." The chronology of the 1990 variance approvals is as follows: 1. On September 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved the preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance and road grade variance by a vote of 5 -0. The two variances were approved with the condition that the subdivision preliminary plan, and the subdivision final plat both receive final approval from the Town: 2. On October 2, 1990, the Town Council unanimously approved and upheld the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision and recommendations of September 24, 1990. The two variance requests approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission were upheld. However, the Town Council modified some of the conditions of approval of the preliminary plan. The applicant has proposed no changes to the development plan from the 1.990 approved variances and preliminary plan. The EIR information is also included with this approval. The staff recommendation is for approval of the applicant's request for road grade and wall height variances as long as the final plat subdivision approval is valid (up to February 11, 1994); Section 17.16.330 states that the subdivision approval expires 3 years from final plat approval. Pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 1991, variance approvals are now valid for a period of two years from the date of final approval. Staff recommends that, if the request is . approved by the PEC on February 24, 1992, the approval be valid until February 11, 1994, per the final plat approval expiration date. The following background information is included in the PEC packet: 1. September 24, 1990 Community Development Department memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2. October 2, 1990 Community Development Department memorandum to the Town Council. 3. September 24, 1990 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting minutes. 4. October 2, 1990 Vail Town Council meeting minutes. c Apeftpraddlelvariance.224 r� I� :7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration for the Slifer Building, located within the Commercial Core I zone district, 230 Bridge Street, Lot B and a part of Lot C, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Beth and Rod Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer y��,�e,�,'.•y o t�°6- &�� 1dy+'�,� � ° �fa�;" t.` 2��c•o. ��.r`mfr`j�n'�ff'c'F�f`, ^�•ri�•�' �•'r .r "I r. ?.�h"r,'. ifi•�}rii�f -rir�. Pf' &i$�r�° mr. f f �f r f3�1 ���c �,.uK � r� �;<s,�� I{�.yEie:i: .;y:��,�r��`c >?`�lSv.'.'.o'. Yu�..'i�:�,Y•.x•: ' ' 2i� :�;,rumu�,c2rr.5%r.4F.tak..a ' �i �,c...o.�Gha�`d'3`�.s'?'3 .w'0�°,K'.crro,ccm v'?FSrrrA:S?:i).:.�n;�S:2 2ci} GF, eF .�a.c,,.w.;$.,�SLsL:7::�5:.� .k.. : i. g I. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE AND THE EXTERIOR ALTERATION RE VESTS The applicant proposes to add .57 sq. ft. of site coverage to the Slifer Building in order to construct 53 sq. ft. of additional first floor display area for the Slifer Collection retail business, and 548 sq. ft. of new second floor office space above the existing Slifer Collection retail space. The 5' deep x, 1l' -6" wide x 28' tall addition would be located on the front (west) facade of the existing Slifer Collection retail space entrance (see attached plans). The applicant also proposes to infill an area generally in the same location as the existing entrance to the Slifer Collection retail space which is currently covered by building above. Because the area to be infilled is located under a cantilevered area, this new 27 sq. ft. entry vestibule is already included in the site coverage calculations and therefore will not increase site coverage. The Slifer Building is located in Commercial Core I. The maximum site coverage allowed in this zone district is 80 %. The existing building's site coverage is 92.1 %. Under this proposal, site coverage would increase to 93.9 %. Therefore, in order to allow the construction of the additional site coveraRe_of 57 sq. ft., the applicant is requesting _an increase in site coverage of 1.8 %. In addition to this request for a site coverage variance, the applicant is also required to obtain an exterior alteration approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. As a part of the redevelopment proposal, the applicants propose to remove an existing Norway Maple and 7 newspaper boxes from their property. However, the applicant will install the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan paving on property which they own. In addition to installing pavers, the applicants will construct 2 stone faced planters with a total net planting area of 47 sq. ft. Although the Streetscape Master Plan shows 4 newspaper boxes located on Town land adjacent to the Ore House Restaurant deck, the text recommends newspaper dispenses boxes in the Village be consolidated in a few centralized locations. 11. BACKGROUND On November 13, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed and approved a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration request for the Slifer Building for a 93 sq. ft. addition at this same general location. The proposed addition was subsequently approved by the Design Review Board (DRB) on November 29, 1989. The PEC approved site coverage variance expired on November 13, 1990, and the DRB approval expired on November 29, 1990. In January of 1991, the Town's definition of site coverage was changed. Under the new definition, cantilevered areas and covered walkways count as site coverage. For this reason, the existing site coverage numbers in this memo will not correspond with the 1989 memo. Under the 1989 site coverage and exterior alteration approval, the existing site coverage was calculated at 89% and the proposed and approved site coverage was 92 %. In August of 1991, the PEC denied Super Stars Studio's request for a site coverage variance for the construction of two bay windows at the Gorsuch Building, located in the Commercial Core I zone district, based on the findings the property is not encumbered with a physical hardship or unique circumstances and the project does not meet the findings for a site coverage variance. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: 3,210 sq. ft Zoning: Commercial Core I Site Coverage: Allowed: 80% or 2,568 sq. ft. Existing: 92.1% or 2,956.7 sq. ft. (which is 388.7 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage) • 2 Proposed. * 93.9% or 3,013.7 sq. ft. (which would be 445.7 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage) *A portion of the area to be infilled under this redevelopment proposal will not contribute additional site coverage because the space to be infilled is already covered by the second floor of the building. Parking: The applicant will be required to contribute $19,672.00 to the Town of Vail parking fund. The proposed addition will require 2.459 parking spaces. The parking fee for office space is also $8,000.00 per parking space. The formula for parking spaces associated with office use is as follows: 548 sq. ft. /250 = 2.192 x $8,000 = $17,536.00. The parking fee for 1 commercial parking space is $8,000.00. (80 sq. ft. /300 =.267 x $8,000 = $2,136.00) Total parking fee = $2,136.00 + $17,536.00 = 19 672.00 Height: Maximum allowable height: Building height restrictions in Commercial Core I are as follows: 1. Up to 60% of the building (building coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. 2. No more than 40% of the building (building .coverage area) may be built higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. Proposed height: 100% of the height of the building, once the addition is constructed, will be a height of 33 feet or less. 0% of the height of the building, once the addition is constructed, will be a height of greater than 33 feet. Existing maximum height: 28 feet 0 3 IV. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE i SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Pu ose: "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." Staff believes this proposal is in conformance with the intent of the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district as stated above. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub -area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally architectural/landscape considerations which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and Town of Vail Streetscape Maser Plan also address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition to these master plans, zoning considerations are also a factor in reviewing this proposal. VI. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub -area concepts relevant to this proposal. 0 4 VII. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REOUEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: This exterior alteration will have no impact upon pedestrian circulation within the Vail Village area. The addition will add interest to this pedestrian area through the increase in window area transparency and increased visibility into the store, installation of the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements, facade articulation and landscape improvements. B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework: Streetscape framework identifies two alternatives for improving the pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space, including landscaping along pedestrian routes and the development of infill commercial storefronts along pedestrian corridors. While landscaping can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, commercial infill can provide activity generators and visual interest for the pedestrian. The staff believes this proposal will contribute positively to the overall pedestrian experience. As previously mentioned, under the proposed facade modification, the increased transparency of the shop frontage, the proposed planters and paver design, along with facade articulation, will add visual interest to the area. Further, the proposed streetscape improvements conform to the recommended streetscape improvements set forth in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. D. Street Enclosure: The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of streets and the height of buildings. The proposed addition is not designed to step back. However, the street width measures 27 feet from the bottom of the Slifer Building steps to the bottom of the Covered Bridge Building steps which is the widest is 5 • portion of Bridge Street. For this reason, staff believes a comfortable relationship between the width of the street and the height of the building will be maintained under this design. E. Street Edge: This criteria encourages buildings in the Village Core to form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Under this exterior alteration proposal, the Slifer Collection retail space will project out from the building an additional 5' -0 ". The proposed addition will meet this criteria with its glass - walled facade and irregular building line. The small plaza area and extensive window transparency will also add to the visual interest of the pedestrian environment. Staff believes that this modification will have no negative impact on the street edge. F. Building Height: The proposed addition will have a maximum height of 28 feet. The maximum height of the existing building is 28 feet. The maximum allowable height for a sloped roof in CCI is regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. Building height restrictions in Commercial Core I shall be as follows: 1. Up to 60% of the building (building coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. 2. No more than 40% of the building (building coverage area) may be built higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. The existing roof height in the area of the addition is 22' -6 ". Therefore, the proposed addition will exceed the existing roof height by 5' -6 ". The height of the building is in conformance with CCI zoning requirements. Steeply pitched roofs are encouraged in the Village. The proposed pitch on the addition is 12:12, in keeping with the Design Considerations. G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted or proposed view corridors, nor does it affect any focal points. (Please see the attached letter from Dan Corcoran, Eagle Valley Engineering dated February 17, 1992.) H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. C . I. Sun/Shade: The proposed addition will cast 147 sq. ft. of additional shadow onto Bridge Street (see attached roof, shade /shadow plan). J. Architecture/Landscape Considerations: The staff believes the architectural detailing and increased transparency resulting from the redevelopment of this retail space and the landscaping and streetscape improvements will have positive impacts on the appearance of this area by adding visual interest to the space. The applicant has indicated one S" -6" caliper Norway Maple will be removed under this exterior alteration/site coverage variance request. As a part of the redevelopment proposal, the applicants propose to remove an existing Norway Maple from their property. However, the applicant will install the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan paving on property which they own adjacent to the building. In addition to installing pavers, the applicants will construct an 18 -inch stone faced tall planter between the addition and the Ore House's exterior dining deck wall. The net planting area in this planter will be 39 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to install a 3" caliper specimen tree and ground cover in this planter. An additional 18 -inch tall stone faced planter will be constructed immediately north of the addition's entrance door. The net planting area in this planter will be 8 sq. ft., resulting in a total of 47 sq. ft. of new planting area. Currently, 7 newspaper dispenser boxes are located along the southern edge of the applicant's property, in part on the applicant's property and in part on Town -owned property. The applicant will require these boxes be removed from their property under this redevelopment proposal. Although the Streetscape Master Plan shows 4 newspaper boxes located on Town -owned land adjacent to the Ore House Restaurant deck, the text recommends newspaper dispenser boxes in the Village be consolidated in a few centralized locations. Staff believes the construction of a planter in the area where the newspaper dispenser boxes are currently located is appropriate. Staff recommends the applicant contribute $1,200 for the purchase of 4 Streetscape Master Plan approved newspaper dispenser boxes. VIII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN 7 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. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encourage to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. The proposed infill is generally consistent with established zoning and the existing uses of the area. The addition will provide interest and activity to an area which currently experiences limited activity. IX. SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: • A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. To the north, south, east and west are restaurant, retail, commercial and office uses. To the west, across Bridge Street, is the Covered Bridge Building and Gasthof Gramshammer which contain a mixture of retail, restaurant and lodging uses. To the south is the Clock Tower Building which has the Ore House Restaurant on the first floor. To the north is the Gallery Building which has Russell's Restaurant on the first floor. To the east are the Vail Rowhouses. Staff believes the proposed site coverage variance request, in conjunction with the proposed exterior alteration, would not negatively impact other potential or existing uses and structures in the vicinity. In fact, staff believes the variance, if approved, would create a more enjoyable pedestrian environment which would add to the visual interest of lower Bridge Street. Also, this requested variance would not block or impede views from any surrounding properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The section of the Code relating to site coverage in CCI states: "18.24.150 - Coverage. Not more than eighty percent of the total site area shall be covered by building and ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) § 1 (part).)" The wording of this section of the code is unclear. The October, 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Please I, proposes the intent of this section of the code be clarified. The speck language on Page 85 of the Report pertaining to the clarification of this language and the staff recommendation is as follows: "ISSUE As written, it is unclear whether the Guide Plan is to be used to review proposals that exceed 80% site coverage, or whether standard variance criteria are to be used. V • ALTERNATIVES The issue is similar to setbacks in that the intent of the Guide Plan is that site coverage be determined by the PEC relative to project's compliance with urban design standards. As with setbacks, there will be cases where one site may warrant more site coverage than another in order to achieve the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. For example, the benefits from improved meetscape enclosure may outweigh the impact of site coverage over 80 %. Language in this section should be amended similar to the setback section. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO 18.24.015 Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent of the total site area, provided however, that site coverage in excess of eighty percent may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. The determination of allowable site coverage shall be made in accordance with the exterior alteration review process as prescribed in section 18.24,090(A)." The staff believes that approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. We believe the variance is appropriate because the proposed addition will bring the Slifer Building into greater compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan Considerations than the existing structure, and no negative impacts are associated with the proposal. Compliance with the Guide Plan Considerations is an important goal for development in the Village. In addition, the previously approved proposal which required a site coverage variance utilized this review process. For these reasons, we believe a departure from the general zoning standards is warranted in this situation. 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 applicant proposes to install streetscape elements in conformance with the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The requested variance will have no impact on any of the above - mentioned criteria. IN • B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a_variance 0 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance as requested. We feel that the Vail Village area has unique development considerations and that approval of this variance would allow the Slifer Building to be brought into greater conformance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff believes the application is not a grant of special privilege, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity and that the site coverage variance is warranted for 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. 11 The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested exterior alteration with the is following conditions: 1. Approval of site coverage variance by the PEC. 2. Payment of parking fee in the amount of $19,672.00 prior to Town issuance of a building permit per the Town's amortization program. 3. Contribution of $1,200 to the Town of Vail Streetscape account for the purchase and installation of 4 newspaper boxes at a location to be determined in Vail Village. The review of the Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan goals show that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. Staff believes the redevelopment of the Slifer Building facade, which includes allowing the front of the Slifer Collection retail space facade to be moved forward five feet, will be an additional activity generator for the Bridge Street area and will improve the area's general appearance. c Ap a clm e m osls l i fe r. 224 12 pF wiu- Niw1..I�i1r •w ll� UP 3 Y w � k Z O_ a " v w ❑ m f ! E f tom' LU IL 3 u s S :I), to 0 r1 LJ i T m i �i uxlAS \11,� wT o � to o� rr k Na lu Y. U 4 k J. V Q 0 E L 0 �, � • VC hf'IPd I I ��IjddHnG.i dd�J _ Q'S d4♦ 4 • 4 LI LU cc ' q IL CL o L _ ffi b 2 " • LJ f to ir w CO to cr w 0 I-- Y 0 0 • T0: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department February 24, 1992 SUBJECT: Review of minor amendments to the conditions of approval for the previously approved parking, common area and height variances for the Sonnenalp Hotel, 20 Vail Road /Lots I and K, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Andy Knudtsen .d'ri` "gpL,SYA�4 -:G�� ,:£E: urkl' i$:;' fiicp. �:, e�x `°:`�r�.'w•.,`i:i;�p:•r;.•'x �f•:�z-� i'IA`d:`Cgi "s�'r'&s} �'f.°¢ o`/o?f r�$:,`d:•r :a'•a;3G'pf�'f :r'^A�:o: #� #bt±yY•r,`f�';.'::i: 11 7� ' y � :f�`..,y: o c.�,.,r,�t/...e. c. v..'J,.o�g� ov:L,yh..'iF.:i .¢.:a*. ' r„ ♦rr:b.��40.- ;.•�F•.�`{�.,vf�.. 4:•5 . . I�. S, 3?4 lr� oE'Gf 3� ''3'?r tr a,.p♦y.,y♦df %'. f f . <fiE'�g. r�r,8c:� <� x �b�£ ,�'f��:ij' pi u «.q^afl.,Yif•,:?fi:Yx cJs�w.�;•'•�,.?j .I4w.'�'�'' �; � w���14✓'¢f,� ♦ �'�C�r.,'b .��j:��f�'.bi� J.:, rte:. °,. dgr�. z >c`. drrc o �vr:. rAF � r ros x•!/ 4°'` 'C/o' �G�. F ..a <l 'f S 'r$d f fG'£},y � 'O }c:. `: <o�.#�r�:e "' u�. �r. ` fi�J.'^; �: �' ��• h• 5. : ��: �; �'.C' ��. s. �:` �u: ��: 2c: ^lsew`rs.�r.�•r.���`1�$d'C Fick•: �`:. s.. �if G: �!' v�` J .,�r$`.�..'•,'�ucdkfn�r.'�r.�.. eft. F: �'`. �. �':~.. �. �w•'.'' � %�E•♦:?,..r,>..�.�+.Gl..�:�Y?# In the spring of 1991, Johannes Faessler, the owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, requested variances for height, parking and common area in order to renovate the Bavaria Haus. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved those variance requests on July 8, 1991. There were several conditions of approval tied to that decision by the PEC. Staff would like to discuss two of them with the Planning Commission, as the design has changed since last summer. The two conditions are listed as follows: F. The fire access to be built between the Talisman and Sonnenalp parking lots is shall be constructed out of pavers, shall be designed to replace the existing access between the two areas. Any landscaping that is to be removed shall be replaced within the parking lots in a different location. G. A fire access turn - around shall be designed in front of the Talisman to meet the standards of the Town of Vail Fire Department. Access onto Meadow Drive via the recorded easement shall not be an option to meet the Fire Department access requirements. The area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance shall be redesigned to accommodate fire truck access. A combination of landscaping and pavers shall be planned in this area to create a plaza, according to the concepts of the Streetscape Plan. Concerning the first condition, the design of the parking lot has changed because the architect for the Sonnenalp, has designed a loop system for fire access. Prior to this design, it was thought that fire access would be accommodated with a T -turn around. The change in concept has significantly affected the design of the parking lots. In the revised design, the architect has been able to extend landscaping around the Talisman parking area. Though the width of the landscaping island is shallower than the previous berm, staff believes that it actually screens more of the parking. Another change in the design is that the need for pavers to be installed between the two parking lots is no longer as important. Before, staff thought that the fire truck turn- around would have to be incorporated into the site plan between landscaping islands. At a minimum, staff believed that pavers should have been required to mitigate the need for additional hard surface. Since the landscaping islands have is been completely relocated, staff believes that the need for pavers is no longer necessary. • Regarding the second condition of approval, staff believes that the applicant has fulfilled the Parlous parts of the condition to a reasonable level. The last part of this condition requires that the area in front of the Swiss Haus be designed in accordance with the Streetscape Plan. Staff has discussed this with the applicant, and he is willing to relocate the public gate on Meadow Drive according to the Streetscape Plan. This is a significant improvement which will help simplify the area and improve the fire and pedestrian access. Staff believes that other improvements, such as pavers and landscaping, can wait until a future time. Staff would like to confirm that our decisions regarding these two conditions of approval are reasonable. As with most projects, the building permit drawings are more specific than the concepts shown to the PEC. On a project of this magnitude, some changes are inevitable. Staff believes the progression made in the parking lot area is an improvement to the previous plan, and the portion of the improvements the applicant will provide in the Swiss Haus area is adequate. c: 1peclsonenalplapproval.2 24 is MEMORANDUM TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to renew and amend a conditional use permit for Lionshead Miniature Golf Course, on parcels generally located west of Chair 8 (Born Free Express); more specifically located on Tracts C and D, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates /Charlie Alexander Planner: Shelly Mello ••Ft'f .c� 4 �rfiw. � •'rrf,,:£ :� �,'. &;•' o�'�d�s• �. r.r f• &;'N rrK $�:}�v' �' �� f�-,�r.... �.f 20r`' .`�•' "-i '4 %, ,o$' £r�`'Y.•>,: G•S�:• <':�. �� ��+{yvi,.l.;�";tss;,s!A:�, .f :r; i � o..,yr �h�- °.i.•.i7r.`rr�'� .�'.o� .�`�q�ya. qr .�C.f,'�•' f f4 �' '� L.Tr,`�wfgo. c.•`2- .�, <r''�`:�y.,rnfi ?.ry c4yA,nfh..tvi•-`�'.ii': r: %n,`•.' 8.4M4`tii.!C.. r' rf�$iG4 �: 6 PF'�Yryl �f4 }hiiP iY:����.�<ik��4,�A� , �..: �, ��� '#{+41�ipAr�°b`'�A�.s�I.X:Si'�6 4i4��r�'rs4s. ar J_. i' ^Jf�. ?F, �.n. u. __ �•:Y_ I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE Vail Associates and Charlie Alexander, the applicants, are requesting to renew and amend the conditional use permit for the Lionshead Miniature Golf facility, located southwest of Chair 8. On June 10, 1991, the PEC approved a temporary miniature golf facility for this site for a period of one year. This request would allow it to be located permanently for a period of 10 years. The golf course holes will be permanent with concrete borders and will not be removed in the fall; a one - story, 72 sq. ft. building will also be located on the site while the miniature golf course is in use. The golf course will be covered with a wooden structure during the ski season. There will be no decorative features as part of the golf course (i.e. no windmills or castles). All of the holes will be flush with the ground with the exception of one, which will involve a bridge made out of redwood decking approximately 18 inches high and 20 feet long. The golf course will not be illuminated, nor will there be any music. There will be one 3- square foot sign. The course will be open from 9:00 A.M. to dusk daily starting approximately May 1st and running through the fall as weather permits. The Town is considering this request a public park/recreation facility, which is listed as a conditional use under Section 18.26.040(D) of the Commercial Core II zone district. The temporary building being proposed will be removed prior to the ski season. If the building is to be permanent, then it will need to be reviewed by the PEC as a major exterior alteration. 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 development objectives of the Town can be found in the purpose section of the zone district as well as the zoning title of the Municipal Code. The purpose section of the Commercial Core H Zone District calls for a mixture of uses. Section 18.02.020 (B) 10, the purpose section for the zoning title calls for the provision of recreational facilities. Staff believes that this proposal will continue to add to the mixture of uses in the Lionshead area as well as provide an additional recreational facility for visitors and residents of Vail. During its first year of operation, the facility proved to be a positive addition to the Lionshead area. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that this proposal will not have impacts on the above referenced services. A positive impact of the facility is that it will provide another recreational opportunity for the public. is 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. Initially, the staff was concerned with the possible impacts on bicycle and pedestrian safety, as there is a recreational path in the vicinity of the proposal. This did not prove to be an issue during the first year of operation of the facility. The split rail fences on the east and west sides of the golf course will remain during the months of the golf operation, and will create a separation from the closest recreational path, chairlift housing and equipment. Staff believes there is adequate separation between the paths and the golf course on the north and the south sides. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The character of the area immediately south of the Lionshead Mall is open and natural, and is adjacent to Gore Creek. Staff finds that the proposal, with the permanent golf facility and temporary building, will not alter this existing character. Because the course will be flush with the ground, and because it • will not have any artificial looking obstacles, staff believes that its design is compatible with the character of the area. In addition, the applicant will continue to provide 18 planting areas for flowers, which will improve the appearance of the area during the summer. Vail Associates will cover the course during the ski season and remove the temporary building in order to facilitate its ski operations. At the time of the initial application in 1991 for the temporary golf facility, there were some adjacent condominium owners who believed the noise from the golf course would be incompatible with the adjacent residential uses. To date, the Community Development Department has not received any complaints related to the facility. Staff believes the noise from the miniature golf course is less than other nearby commercial uses. The fact that no lighting is proposed and that the course will not be open after dark should minimize any impacts on adjacent properties. III. LIONSHEAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS This location is not identified in any of the sub -area concepts, and the design considerations do not specifically address miniature golf courses. • IV. COMMERCIAL CORE II ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The zoning code does not provide a specific parking requirement for recreational facilities. Section 18.52.100(0)(8) of the zoning code states that recreational facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and any parking requirement shall be determined by the PEC. Staff believes that, because the proposed use is intended for summer /recreational use only, requiring the applicant to pay into the parking fund is not necessary. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional 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. 0 3 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. VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request for this miniature golf course for a period of three years. After three years, the conditional use permit will be reviewed by the PEC. This will allow the staff and PEC to consider changes to the surrounding conditions. In addition, if the Town's objectives for this area are revised, the implications of these changes may be addressed. The temporary building must be removed prior to ski season each year. Staff believes that the criteria and findings for a conditional use have been met, specifically that, 1) the proposal fulfills the development objectives of the Town, 2) the proposal will have a positive effect on the public need for recreational facilities, 3) the proposal is reasonable in reference to pedestrian safety, and 4) -the proposal will maintain the open and natural character of the parcels of land located between Gore Creek and the commercial area of Lionshead. Regarding the findings, staff believes, A) that the proposal will be in accordance with the purposes of the Commercial Core II Zone District, B) that the proposal will not be detrimental to public, health, safety or welfare, and C) that the proposed use complies with the standards of the zoning code. c:\pec \va\mWgo1f.224 • 4 • 0 Q _ 040 a 00 ° 4 � v M 4 a o� Q 0o O 00 N °O Q 9� qa cl a ° 4 � 0 X 00 ° 00 00 00 as b QQ // W U! 0 L a H �0 � 00 ° 00 00 o� Od v d 0 u. 1O 0 O 0 q W H 00 paf n 0 0 m W 0 Y O V� H �z 0= P� vm Q b tiga 'O q4 o ° O n °Q a p d O ` N in 1 1 • r1 U TICKET BOOTH PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 March 9, 1992 10:45PM Site Visits 12:45PM Worksession 2:OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits Worksesslon AGENDA 1. 1. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from Primary /Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 of the South East 114 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 114 of the SE 1/4 bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 114 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 112 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 114 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. • • • Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen 2. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Millrace III, 1335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of the North -South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S00 038'56 "W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00 °38'56 "E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1 -70; thence departing said ROW line N66 053'25 "E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81 023'19 "E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49 °08'51" and a chord that bears S1 51157'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40 032'10 "E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49 012`10" and a chord that bears S15 °56'05 "E 64:28 feet; thence S8 040'00 "W 90.27 feet; thence N38 142'24 "W 224.55 feet; thence S78 °10'32 "W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd. /Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jill Kammerer Public Hearing 4. 1. A request for an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core II zone district for the Cana Residence, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing /520 East Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Victor Cano Planner: Andy Knudtsen 7. 2. A request to extend 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 Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3. 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District administrative offices, at 846 Forest Road /Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District Planner: Shelly Mello • 0 • 5. 4. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica 5. A request to amend Section 18.34, Parking Zone District of the Vail Municipal Code to allow construction staging as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates /Sonnenalp Properties Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. 6. An appeal of a staff decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill Creek Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drive /a part of Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Appellant: Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello 7. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core II, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) - Sun- Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer 8. Approval of February 24, 1992 meeting minutes. 9. Reminder of March 19, 1992 Eagle Valley Community Forum Fireside Forums. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 9, 1992 Present Greg Amsden Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Gena Whitten Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 1 :05PM. 1. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from PrimarylSecondary Residential to Low Density. Multiple Family, for the. Schmetzko ro ert generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane more articular) dscribed as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 40 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00' north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section i� the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section beginning. ' along the extension of the 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to 11, being the point of . Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 1 0 Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the request and issues surrounding the proposal. Chuck Crist asked why the Land Use Plan called out this area as Medium Density Residential, Kristan Pritz said MDR was a general range of 3 -14 units, and was used as a guide. Greg Amsden asked if the Commission should then give the applicant a development range. Rick Rosen, representing the applicant, said they wanted to obtain approval for as many units as possible. He said the hazard mitigation plans were still being worked upon, and that he would like to see direction from the Commission on the maximum number of units which would be approved. Greg asked for a history of the parcel. Rick responded that when Mr. Schmetzko purchased the property, it was not yet annexed into the Town of Vail. At that time, he believed it was zoned for 5 units by the County. When the Town annexed the area, he believed the owner was given no notice that the Town was going to down -zone the property. At this point, Mr. Schmetzko wished to rezone the property and replat it into one parcel for continuous access. Is Diana Donovan indicated that how the County had zoned the property was not the issue. She indicated she could only support increasing the density of the property if sufficient mitigation was performed. She believed it was unbuildable without mitigation. In addition, she felt it was critical that the mitigation be performed on the property, not off-site, as there would be too much scarring if the mitigation went back into the BLM lands. She challenged the owner to address the aesthetic corwerns of the mitigation. • Kathy Langenwalter was not comfortable rezoning the property. She thought a Special Development District would be more appropriate. She was leery of giving the parcel a new zoning, then having it sold. Since the mitigation was critical to the proposal, she wanted more development controls placed on the property than just zoning. Diana agreed, but suggested placing plat restrictions on the parcels. Kathy did not believe that would be enough control, as the mitigation was part of the design process. Andy indicated that standards for the mitigation construction could be placed on the plat. Kathy believed the rezoning request would be easier to support if it was known who would develop the property. Rick replied that if the property was restricted through use of the plat, the developer would still be required to go through the planning process. If a site - specific request were approved, it would be difficult for Mr. Schmetzko to sell the property, as it would limit the use and value of the land. Kathy reiterated that the site is very sensitive, and she did not believe a plat restriction would sufficiently protect the character of the area. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 2 S Rick informed the Commission that, according to Art Mears, a hazard specialist, the hazards on the lot may not be as severe as previously thought. Mr. Mears had indicated that mitigation was probable, but that perhaps the removal of the past "solutions" would lessen the scope of necessary on -site mitigation. Kathy found 9 units to be an unreasonable request, as she thought it would entail some mitigation to be performed off-site. She believed all mitigation should be contained within the property. However, she said she would wait to make a decision until additional work from Art Mears was completed. Rick asked the Commissioners to give direction to him, stating the number of units they believed would be acceptable, if the development would meet all zoning and design standards. Greg Amsden asked why mitigation would affect the number of units which could be built on the property. Kathy explained that the mitigation could cover half of the buildable acreage, and therefore the development would be restricted to a small portion of the site. Kristan further explained that, while mitigation did not affect the development potential determined by zoning, it did make the constructable area much smaller. Greg believed an attractive building of approximately 9 units could still fit on the lot once the mitigation was constructed, and the lot could be attractively developed. Kristan indicated staff needed more questions answered before they could agree. jft Diana wondered if there could be a liability problem if the Town upzoned the property knowing it was in a debris flow hazard area. Rick believed the Town and Mr. Schmetzko could rely on Art Mears' assessment of the danger. Rick asked if, as part of the mitigation, debris flow could be channeled across the driveway. Michael Hazard, the architect for the proposal, indicated that a similar plan had been successfully constructed in Beaver Creek. Kathy believed any rezoning should be realistic as to number of units the site could support, and she did not believe 9 units were reasonable, and again questioned having some of the mitigation performed off -site. Rick indicated the current Town -built mitigation was not sufficient, and that since the BLM land was where the hazard originated, it was most efficient to mitigate in that location. Diana disagreed, stating mitigation on BLM land was too visible. Gena Whitten agreed with Kathy, that 9 units were not supportable after mitigation was performed. For her to make a determination, a more specific mitigation plan was necessary, so she could see the size of the remaining constructable area. Dalton could support 9 units for the property, depending on the mitigation plans. Rick Rosen asked if, once they obtain a fully- engineered mitigation plan for the lot, could Mr. Schmetzko return to the Commission to discuss the number of units which could be built. Diana said that would be acceptable, but believed the Commission would have to be given a guarantee that the mitigation would be performed, and that the additional density would be safe. Ludwig Kurz agreed with Diana's assessment. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 3 Rick thanked the Commission, indicating he had a good idea of what the applicant needed to do. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4 Area A Millrace 111-1335 Westhaven Drive Cascade Village, more s ecificall described as follows: A hart of the SW 1/4, NE 1/, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of the North -South centerline of said Section 12 whence_ an iron pin with a plastic can marking the center of said Section 12 bears S00 °38'56 "W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00 °38'56 "E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of I -70; thence departing said ROW line N66_ °53'25 "E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81 °23'19 "E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122_.83_ feet alone the arc of a 143:20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49 °08'51" and a chord that bears S 15 °57'45"E 119.10 feet; thence, S40 °32' 10 "E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius _curve to the right, having a central angle of 49'12'10" and a chord that bears S 15 °56'05 "E. 64.28 feet; thence S8 040'00 "W 90.27 feet; thence N38 °42'24 "W 224.55 feet;-thence S78 010'32 "W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd./Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the history of the parcel, the proposal, and staff's suggestions. Greg Amsden asked if there had been previous increases in GRFA granted for the Cascade SDD. Kristan Pritz answered that Coldstream Condominiums had requested an increase, but it had not been approved. Under the recently approved Millrace IV development, there had been a decrease in GRFA from previously approved plans. Kristan pointed out that the Cascade SDD allowed for the development of single family homes on this site because of the Millrace IV recent amendment to allow single - family units, and the allowable uses listed in the SDD for Millrace lII were now the same as those listed for Millrace IV. Diana Donovan asked if the project would be 6,000 sq. ft., or have 6,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. Kristan replied it would be GRFA. Greg asked how large the garage would be on the southernmost garage. Mike Lauterbach, the co- applicant, said it was an oversized 1 -car garage, but if the design were increased by 2 feet, it could become a 2 -car garage. Diana asked Mike if he was receptive to developing 1 duplex and 1 single family residence on the site as opposed to three single family residences as he had proposed. Mike indicated • he could be receptive, and was testing the water. He indicated the roof would be 33 -38 feet in height, which is less than the 48 foot height maximum allowed in the SDD, but did not Planning and Environmental Commission - March 9, 1992 • Page 4 feel that 1 large building and 1 small building was as visually stimulating as 3 separate buildings, but agreed that 2 buildings would be better than one large 3 -unit building. Regarding setbacks, Mike said they would be no less than 8 -10 feet, and more likely 10 -12 feet, but did not want to be locked into the greater setback. In addition, he requested that an additional 250 sq. ft, per unit be granted to the project on top of the 6,000 sq. ft. to be used for circulation, as the definitions for GRFA in place at the time the SDD was approved allowed additional square footage for stairs. Kristan agreed, stating that at least stairways and mechanical had not been counted toward GRFA when the SDD was put in place. Diana said she could support 6,000 sq. ft. of GRFA plus what ever credits were in place when the SDD was originally adopted, and asked staff to research that. The consensus of the Commission was in agreement with that provision. Kristan indicted it may depend on what type of building would be constructed with respect to credits. Jill indicated this direction from the Commission was different from that given during the Cosgriff (Millrace 1V) approval. Shelly Mello said, under the Millrace N review, the Commission had directed staff and the applicant to determine GRFA using the 1991 definitions. Kathy Langenwalter agreed that all spaces should be counted, but was comfortable giving a credit for stairs and mechanical. Kristan agreed to check the GRFA definition in place at the creation of this SDD. Gena Whitten said the Commission should consider more than just the GRFA for the site, as . she did not believe the site could support 3 single family homes due to other limiting factors on the site, such as the creek and the recreation path. Dalton Williams was concerned that the applicant was trying to put too much on the site, and from an environmental standpoint, he was concerned with the trees which would be removed and the impact of the development on the creek. He encouraged the applicant to re -think the development to move it forward on the site toward the street in order to avoid tearing out as many trees adjacent to the creek. Mike replied that if any development took place on this site, not all the trees could be preserved under any scenario. He could move the foundations closer to Westhaven Drive and cantilever the buildings in order to minimize the impact on the site. However, he said the options were to remove approximately 60% of the cottonwoods, or place the homes right on the lot line up against the road, or have very "skinny" buildings. Dalton suggested having 2 buildings, built closer to the road, and leave the beauty near the creek. Mike said the neighbors he had spoken with preferred the buildings to be away from the road. He had not proposed the buildings closer to the road on the north end of the site because he wanted to install landscaping between the road and the buildings. He felt the Millrace Condominium owners would not be impacted by the removal of the trees. He believed only the Coldstream Condominium property owners would be affected. Gena Whitten could not support a variance on the site, as she believed it was too sensitive. She also thought there was too much square footage for the site, and it was not appropriate. She also indicated an 8 -foot setback from the road was too close. She preferred to see the . site developed by two buildings instead of three, and wold rather see 1 building developed on the site. She suggested shifting the two buildings to the north to the larger portion of the site near the existing parking area. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 5 Chuck Crist stated that as long as the project was built within the GRFA parameters, he did not have significant difficulty with the project. He preferred 3 buildings to a tri -plex. He agreed with Dalton that the buildings should be moved to the north. He was concerned that the southern building was very narrow. Greg agreed with Chuck, and stated that 6,000 sq. ft. + additional GRFA (not to exceed 6,675 sq. ft. for the site) was acceptable. He also agreed with staff's suggestion of one duplex building and one single family. He preferred to see the buildings moved to the north, and a minimum distance between buildings of 12 feet. He felt that 8 -foot setbacks along Westhaven Drive and the bike path were okay. Kathy did not want to see three single family structures. She did not believe there was, enough of a setback either along Westhaven Drive or the bike path, and encouraged extra attention be given to the Westhaven setback, stating that should be 20 feet from the road right -of -way where possible. However, she thought an 18 -foot setback from the recreation path would be acceptable. She believed the GRFA question was simply a matter of definitions, and had no problem with whatever staff determined. Ludwig Kurz asked what would happen with the parking currently taking place on this property. Mike said the individuals utilizing that parking were trespassing. Jill explained there was no formal or legal agreement to allow parking in that location. However, the existing Millrace Condominiums (Phases I and II) had improved and maintained the property for their use. Ludwig felt this was a sensitive site, but that there were development rights. He preferred to see 2 buildings, and believed the land could support that if done sensitively. He had no problem with the GRFA, per the previous discussions. He found an 8 -foot setback from the recreation path to be acceptable, but preferred to see more room between the buildings. He also believed there should be more than an 8 -foot setback along Westhaven Drive. He suggested a minimum setback of 12 feet be maintained along Westhaven drive, but he understood that would make for narrow buildings. Kathy thought developing the site with 3 townhomes would be workable. Gena said she could support that proposal. Mike was concerned that if the site were to be developed with townhouses, having the garages open all in the same direction (Westhaven Drive) would be unattractive. After a general discussion of credits, Diana proposed shifting the bike path location to the north in order to allow for greater setbacks between the bike path and the new building. The final architecture and design would determine where the path would be located. She preferred to see the buildings closer to Westhaven Drive than to the stream, and supported the 6,675 sq. ft. GRFA total requested. A straw poll of the Commissioners favored the buildings closer to Westhaven. Greg indicated the southernmost home was stuck in too close to the bridge. The Commissioners, staff and the applicant discussed alternatives. After that discussion, Ludwig . rescinded his comment about the Westhaven Drive setback. Dalton also withdrew his opposition to having the homes closer to Westhaven. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 6 • As this was a worksession item, no vote was taken. The public meeting was called to order at 2 :50PM. All the Commissioners were in attendance. 1. A request for an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core II zone district for the Cano Residence, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead FirstFiling/520 East Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Victor Cano Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented staff's recommendation for approval. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the window cladding would match the others in Lionshead Center. She was assured by Mike Krohn, the Cano's representative, that it would match the enclosure immediately above this proposal. Dalton Williams moved that the request for an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core II zone district for the Cano Residence, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/520 East Lionshead Circle be approved per the staff's recommendations. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 7 -0. 2. A request to extend a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Mountain School is located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village-12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Andy Knudtsen • Andy Knudtsen explained this was for a renewal of a previously - granted conditional use approval, and the renewal would be in effect for two years. Staff recommended the approval be renewed. Chuck Crist moved the request to extend a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing be approved per staff's memo. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved by a vote of 6 -0, with Gena Whitten temporarily absent during the vote. 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District administrative offices, at 846 Forest Roadjot 31 Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello presented the request to add additional administrative area to the existing Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District facility. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 7 Greg Amsden asked if any of the adjacent property owners had given feedback on the proposal. Shelly indicated none had been received and all adjacent property owners had been notified. Steve Isom, representing the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District gave a brief history of the property. He indicated a minor subdivision, as discussed in the staff memo, would be very expensive. There was no question of the boundaries, and the District did not want to pay to "clean up" the problem. Shelly agreed that the current condition of the property lines was confusing, which is why staff felt it was important to address at this time. Kristan Pritz indicated the Town may be able to split the cost of the subdivision process. Diana asked if having the subdivision in place at the time a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued was realistic. Shelly thought it would be. Dalton Williams did not think it made sense to use tax dollars for a formality between two government agencies, especially when there was not a conflict between the entities. Steve agreed, stating that when the property was deeded, both sections were given to the Town. He agreed to work with the Town to reach an agreeable solution. Kristan also agreed to work out the issues. Diana Donovan believed it should be a requirement of the project. Steve addressed the height and landscaping issues, stating that the exact height of the addition would be 25' -9" due to an increase in structure needed to carry the snow load. He did not believe 5 more trees in the front of the property would be beneficial. Kristan suggested • placing the trees in a landscaping "gap" toward the gas station. Diana felt there were locations which could also benefit from additional landscaping. Diana asked if employee housing could also be built in conjunction with this application. Steve indicated that the offices were above the aeration and settling basin, and were definitely not desirable for housing placement. Diana did not see the justification for 6,000 additional square feet, as she believed the building worked at this time. Steve responded that 1/4 of the space was for public meeting area. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned that the architectural detailing be carried over to the addition and that it be consistent with the existing facility. Kathy moved the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District administrative offices, at 846 Forest Road/Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing be approved per the staff memo, with the condition the Design Review Board review the addition's detail to ensure it was similar to the existing building and verify location of 10 additional evergreen trees to be planted, noting the building height was 18 inches higher than reflected in staff's memorandum, and recommending that the Town of Vail and the District pursue a minor subdivision. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. Before the vote, Dalton Williams encouraged the District to consider additional landscaping, where appropriate. The motion was approved by a unanimous 7 -0 vote. Due to the arrival of an adjacent property owner to the Schmetzko property, the Commission briefly returned to discussion of the first worksession item. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 8 1. A re nest for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district than a from Primary /Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the�Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane. ^ Andy Knudtsen introduced Fritz Schmidt, the owner of a private sewer line running across Mr. Schmetzko's property. Mr. Schmidt asked that an easement be placed on Mr. Schmetzko's property for his sewer. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained it would be difficult to require Mr. Schmetzko to place an easement for a private citizen, and encouraged Mr. Schmidt to pursue a private agreement. Mr. Schmidt indicated he had built his sewer according to a previous owner's request to use the Holy Cross easement. What he was asking for was to be able to move his sewer to the boundary. Larry said if the Town placed that requirement on the property, the Town would be involved in litigation. After a further discussion of the legalities of the placement and location, the Commission recessed for 5 minutes. 4. A reauest for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D Block 2 Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3 Block 5 -A Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica reviewed the request. Staff believed the request to be a positive project, and that public benefits were to be gained. Kristan Pritz explained the legal parking situation. The Commission and staff engaged in a discussion of the parking issues and the Town's position on legal, non - conforming parking spaces. Mike indicated the staff recommended approval of the project as explained in staff's memorandum. He distributed a letter from a resident of the Vail Row Houses, Barbara Welles. In addition, he explained the chart in the staff memo which gave the gross square footages for the existing building, the 1991 approval and the current SDD request. Greg Amsden asked if there was sufficient turning radius in the garage area. Dalton Williams said it looked like there was a parking space in the loading and delivery area, and questioned the ability of the space to be used. Paul Johnston indicated the spaces in question were all valet parking spaces. Mike said there was no code requirement for a minimum turning radius to access a garage. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, discussed the right -of -way issues between Lots P -3 and J. He said, at a minimum, there were 13 parking spaces proposed for the Christiania, but that there were no "air" rights above the lot - -the Christiania could park on Lot P -3. In addition, Jay did not believe there was a right to construct below the existing surface area. If . Vail Associates decided to develop the site, they would have to provide parking to the Christiania. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 9 Chuck Crist asked if there were guest cars in excess of the parking spaces provided, where would they park. Paul said it was very rare, and more frequent in summer than winter, but when it occurred, they parked in the Vail Village Parking Structure. Chuck said he could support the project, but was still concerned about parking. Diana Donovan was also concerned about the parking. She said Lot J had always been recognized as the parking for the Christiania. Somehow, even if it was just on paper, the required additional 9 parking spaces needed to be shown. Paul Johnston indicated he could show them in the Mill Creek Court Chute, as it was unclear if the Town had an easement for the current road. Mike asked if valet spaces in Lot P -3 would be sufficient. Diana said they might. Jay Peterson explained the rationale behind the applicant's Special Development District request. He said when the owners had investigated the suite option with their guests the previous summer, it became clear that the summer guests would not like what had been approved in 1991. The Johnstons wanted to upgrade their property, but still maintain it as a family -owned lodge. Jay reminded the Commission that over the past few years, 3 major properties in Vail had been foreclosed upon and several small lodging properties had been lost as "lodges." Jay said the current proposal does result in a decrease in accommodation units, but upgrades the entire hotel and brings it into compliance with building and fire codes. Regarding parking, he said the request being considered required 41 parking spaces, b more than what the Town recognized as existing. Paul agreed with Jay's assessment of the summer business, stating that if the Christiania had become an all -suite hotel, he would have closed by now. Kurt Segerberg, architect for the project, explained some design changes on the plans to the Commission. Gerri Arnold, representing Vail Associates, confirmed that VA has an obligation to provide parking to the Christiania, but the details of that parking (the location) was still in question. Bill Morton, an owner of a Mill Creek Court condominium, said since he purchased his unit, the Red Lion on the west had increased its size, impacting his view corridor to the west. When he learned of the Christiania proposal, he worked out a compromise with Mr. Johnston. Then, approximately 4 weeks previously, he learned that Mr. Johnston was changing his design, and he felt the magnitude of those changes on his unit were huge. Mr. Morton did not believe the Christiania needed to push further into the setback to achieve the changes they targeted. He did say the renovation would be an improvement to the property, but there should be respect for existing views, and this project was not in the best interest of the Town. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association (EVHA), said the issue . was the redevelopment of Vail, but the question to be answered was at whose expense? Tim indicated the purpose of the EVHA was to further the best interest of the East Village community, and echoed Mr. Morton's comments regarding the status of the project approved Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 10 . in 1991. The EV14A was not pleased with the current proposal, and said the Christiania and the Commission could not use economic reasons to justify approval of the proposal. On a technical side, Jim rhetorically asked if there was justification for a Special Development District, answering there was not. He said the only justification he could see was to circumvent the underlying zone district, and that was insufficient justification for an SDD. The value of the SDD process was for true redevelopment, not mere modifications. Mr. Lamont did not believe staff had performed sufficient research and investigation of the project to sustain their parking arguments. Under the Vail Village Master Plan, Section 5.1.1 requires on -site parking for lodges, and does not allow for pay -in -lieu. Jim cautioned the Commission not to "skate on thin ice of zoning" for this project. He said that, although the staff justified 4 stories for the building, the Master Plan gave a range as a guide, but did not mandate the height. The Master Plan called for 3 -4 stories, and encouraged stair stepping of height. Addressing employee housing, Jim wondered what off -site impacts the project would have by restricting another employee unit. He believed the employee housing should be solved on- site. Regarding site coverage, Mr. Lamont encouraged a change in design to spread out the building, since the project was under the allowable site coverage. He said that would decrease the height. Reiterating his main point, Mr. Lamont stated Special Development • Districts were not intended to be used solely to circumvent zone districts. Jay Peterson responded to Mr. Lamont's comments regarding height, and said that the increase in height in the southwest corner was to accommodate parking, and did not impact Mr. Morton. The Christiania was trying to provide covered parking. Anywhere a building in the area increased height would impact someone. The Christiania was trying for the best possible long -term solution. Diana Donovan said the guidelines for the area encouraged an increase in accommodation units. However, she would like to see a better, more realistic solution to the parking issue. Greg Amsden asked if staff requested the two covered parking spaces. Kristan replied that the applicant provided it without a request. Paul Johnston clarified that it was put in the plans to attempt to comply with the covered parking requirement and to improve the area. Gena Whitten asked who would park there. Paul indicated it would be owned by the hotel, and would not be owned by condominium owners, and would be a limited common element. Gena suggested looking at dividing the suites in the summer. Paul said his rooms were already very small. He was combining ti to make 3 "acceptably sized" rooms. Jay Peterson also said that if the rooms were separated, it would cause a density problem, and the logistics of door and furniture placement no longer made sense. Kristan reiterated that staff had performed extensive research on the Lots P -3 and J parking . issues, and it was a very difficult and confusing situation. Gerry Arnold from Vail Associates said VA was anxious to unravel the legal questions surrounding those lots. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 o Page 11 Jay Peterson asked that the proposal be tabled to March 23 in order to further address the parking questions. Jim Lamont said the EVHA would also have to re- evaluate the proposal, and would like to reserve the right to further address the project. Dalton was concerned with the parking, stating that it was difficult to understand, and since this was a congested area, it was critical. In addition, he both agreed and disagreed with staff regarding the setback issue, pointing out that none of the area complied with setback requirements. Kristan added that if a variance were requested for the setbacks, the applicants would have to prove a physical hardship and that the variance was in the best interest of the Town. Gena Whitten was most concerned with the parking issues. Chuck Crist would like to see a better resolution to the parking question. He was not convinced the garage parking was a good solution. In addition, he was concerned about the extension of the building into the setback. Diana was concerned about potential parking in the Mill Creek Court Chute. She suggested additional landscaping to hide the "back of the house." In addition, she suggested eliminating or reducing the units above the garage area. She asked for more screening from the Cyrano's side. She indicated that if the trees to be moved should die, they should be replaced. She asked if staff had concerns about the office on the first floor of the project being enlarged. Mike replied that since there was no increase in number of employees, it was not a concern. Greg was concerned about the GRFA above the garage. He asked that the applicants look at redesigning the addition to eliminate the garage addition. He was not sure the SDD proposal was appropriate. He asked if the plans could be scaled back to the 1991 approval and still work. He also requested written confirmation regarding the current parking rights and continued use of Lot J for parking. Kathy agreed with Greg, stating she was not convinced an SDD was appropriate. Since the proposal was 1,100 sq. ft. over the allowable GRFA , she believed the project could be decreased in size. In addition, she thought the landscaping should be able to be increased 1 % to bring it into compliance with the requirements. Ludwig Kurz echoed the issues both Kathy and Greg raised. He found that more than just a garage had been added, and was not sure which addition was "wagging" the other. He felt misled by the comments of the applicants on that issue. The last time this project had come before the PEC, he had strongly supported it. He believed the parking issue had been dealt with in good faith. However, he was concerned that the SDD could be decreasing the parking requirement. Kathy asked that the public letters be submitted earlier so that they could be placed in the Commissioners' packets. Jim Lamont said he would have liked to, but could not do so because of the system of releasing the staff memorandum on Friday evening. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 12 Jay asked if the Commissioners could support having the 6 suites changed into accommodation units. Dalton liked that point of the proposal. Kathy agreed, stating that accommodation units were acceptable, but additional GRFA was not. Kathy Langenwalter moved to table this issue to March 23, 1992. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7 -0. 5. A request to amend Section 18.34, Parking Zone District of the Vail Municipal Code to allow construction staging as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates / Sonnenalp Properties Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the request. Staff recommended approval. Ken O'Bryan, representing the applicants, indicated the reason the Sonnenalp needed the off - site staging area was because of the extremely tight construction schedule. Chuck Crist asked why other areas were included in this request. Andy said that every lot included in the Parking zone district would have to be affected. Kathy Langenwalter moved to recommend the Town Council approve the request to amend Section 18.34, Parking Zone District of the Vail Municipal Code to allow construction staging as a conditional use per staff's memorandum. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously recommended approval with a vote of 7 -0. 6. An appeal of a staff decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill Creek Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drive /a part of Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Appellant: Ned Gwathmev Planner: Shell Shelly Mello explained the two appeals. The first requested that the space now occupied by the Boot Lab, Unit 108A, be allowed to be an office, since it had been an office in the past, but had been discontinued for a period of more than one year. The second appeal dealt with the same space. It requested that, since the space is used as storage (which is not an allowed use on this level in this zone district), that the space be determined to be an existing, non- conforming use. Diana Donovan indicated she supported staff in that the use was discontinued for more than one year. Ned Gwathmey informed the Commission that the space had almost always been an office. He indicated that, even though it was located in Commercial Core I, it was located behind a stair, and was not viable retail space. He said the alternative would be to rezone the parcel out of CCI, but the cost to do that was unreasonable for 300 sq. ft. He said another 40 alternative would be to amend the conditional uses for CCI to allow for offices on the first floor. He then referenced Section 18.60.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code on conditional uses. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 13 Kristan Pritz replied that the referenced section only applied when the use concerned was already listed as a conditional use in the Code. If it was not listed, the Commission could not grant a conditional use permit. Ned felt it was ridiculous that, since the space had predominantly been used as an office, that it was not allowed at this time. Diana said that retail use in the Village Core was to be encouraged. Ned reiterated this was not viable retail space. Greg Amsden believed it would be a dangerous precedent to change the uses in the Village to allow office where retail/service uses are currently required and considered important to the life of the Village. Diana summarized the Commission's position to state they could not endorse the appeal. Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold the staff's decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill Creek Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drive /a part of Block 5A; Vail Village First Filing. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It was upheld, 7 -0. 7. _A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core II of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (I) - Sun-Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer reviewed the major portions of the proposal, answering questions from the Commissioners regarding changes from the previous review. She clarified submittal dates, requirements for dining decks and exterior alterations. Diana Donovan disagreed with having the second application for a minor (under 100 sq. ft.) alteration being restricted to the "major" alteration submittal dates. Diana indicated she would like to continue to limit the review of 100 sq. ft. or less to one proposal every two years. Further, she did not think it was a good idea to make a minor alteration easier, as making applicants wait could help produce better projects. Dalton Williams asked that the intention for both submittal dates be given, i.e., that February was for smaller projects and September was for the large, major requests in order to allow time for approvals before the spring construction season. Staff clarified that the change in submittal dates did not relate to the size of the project, but rather the purpose of the change was to allow earlier review of projects by the Town in order to allow construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season, and in the fall prior to the beginning of the ski season. Jill asked the Commission's feelings on having the exterior alterations good for 2 years. . Kristan said 2 years was nice for the more minor alterations, as it gave them more than 1 building season for the alteration to be constructed in the event financing was not immediately obtainable. Kathy Langenwalter was in favor of being consistent with the recent Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 14 1 f changes to the time period variance and conditional use approvals are effective, and allowing 2 years. Dalton disagreed, stating that if the approval was only good for 1 year, it would help ensure the applicants thought out their request more thoroughly. Kristan did not have a problem restricting the approval to one year. 0 Jill asked for comments regarding the sunshade portion. Dalton asked why the measurements were to be taken at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM. Jill said measuring the sun angles at these times showed the shade impact in the morning and in the afternoon. Chuck Crist asked if the summer shade effect on dining decks could be determined. Kathy agreed that it would be a good idea to request applicants provide this information. Gena Whitten thought the times for the readings to be taken should be later in the day. Till informed her the rationale behind the times was that later in the day, the shadows were generally too long and it would be difficult to determine anything from the analysis. Dalton believed the readings should be taken when there was pedestrian activity - 9AM and 3PM, for example. Kathy thought sunshade analysis information should only be required to be provided if shadow was cast on a public way. The consensus of the Commission was for a 1 year expiration on minor exterior alteration approvals. Diana Donovan asked for wording to be included that additional "appropriate" sun -shade analysis could be requested by staff. Dalton Williams moved to recommend the to Town Council approval of the request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core II, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) - Sun -Shade per staff's memorandum with the changes as discussed above. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter asked that the rationale behind the review periods be explained in the ordinance, and that the final ordinance be placed in the Commissioners' packets prior to presentation to the Town Council. Dalton so amended his motion, and Greg agreed to the second amended motion. It was unanimously approved, 7 -0. Approval of February 24, 1992 meeting minutes. Chuck Crist moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved 6 -0 -1, with Ludwig Kurz abstaining, as he was not present at the February 24, 1992 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:OOPM. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 15 r • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and request for a zone district change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 112 of the South East 114 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 114 of the SE 114 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 114 of the SE 114, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 114 of the SE 114 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 114 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1I2 of the SE 114 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 114 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 114 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 114 of the SE 114 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen va. �Sv�' :�:.. �. �£"rr$,':'•:_'aS"-T�` :`tY4 '-0°jq`dj^6• `v�'':/,G�����i 0.�° +ay".��r� y`."• 'yylf;:g ` J�?% �# i'2r,:�'•'�`'o.�a %C�6:v�.,�:FV- �o�'� <F;'�;' ouo':'�•+�iv :C 6%dS l.itGyr, 'or"'.?v'.. .:..' o'�' (�?` fir.° co-. � sash �`$,r'''� �• ��,,'fi, fdu 9YAi'�3.ey��r� .fi `��.,;`.?+�F- rs`i/6r•.{i -f�� .y'+� .. pow.'..' . r `�.: €:�°` �.? �' � ''" � ' :. �:. as,' �` �` ,��'�°'�i.'�!a`F.•z��:�s'�i.�.: '�'�3':�.'�' �? �/r.'. £'•. ryr -n. ... ?�;.�,f- .sg c,o-w. ry }� �:' 93. w ?y >'°"i• ��•G �0�S�%,?' '.�>�rbr r r''��l.f�tG:aPr;;%:''•.'n sfF`,,. 'n:�...; .. �,+�.,�;. .. > ^`�l`;.'�` �ic� 2v} ���fi.` nSfa. i'; Y{ �?` n} r.:tiF:+f.Ss'.�hs4C.(f�'�:'+�'�� .,r.,,.k GAG.+...+ k., Gr, �n.t.se.rrnsS'Al�'.�,.a..s...., rs r ,n,. _;9.'iiLi��n �: .rn`•.n...... Sridi.Y?....,.d M I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Erich and Lily Schmetzko, are requesting to rezone their property from Primary/Secondary to Low Density Multi - Family residential. Their property is located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, and is made up of 2 unplatted parcels. In addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is proposing a minor subdivision, to create one lot. The proposed LDMF zoning would allow nine units, two of which the applicant is willing to permanently deed restrict as employee housing. This site is currently vacant. It is located in rockfall and debris flow hazard areas. Staff believes that there are four key issues relating to this rezoning request: A. How should the hazards be mitigated? B. What is the appropriate density for the site? C. What issues are involved in the subdivision request? D. What kind of development could occur under the proposed zoning? In addition to these specific issues, there are standard rezoning criteria which must be met. All of the criteria are listed below in the memo. BACKGROUND In July, 1991, the applicant brought this request to the Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession. The PEC comments focused on the hazards, which cover most of the site. Since that worksession, the applicant has had Art Mears do additional hazard research, and has followed some of his general recommendations. Other concerns of the PEC included density and employee housing. The property, as stated above, is vacant. Vegetation is limited to sage brush, with the exception of two large spruce trees on the northeast corner of the site. The site rises above Chamonix Lane at approximately a 20 -25% slope. To the west, most of the lots around this parcel are developed. The land to the east is vacant. All of the land north of Chamonix Lane is zoned Primary /Secondary and most of it has been developed in excess of the density standards of Primary/Secondary zoning. Many of the lots have multi- family housing on them. In the early 1980s, the Town of Vail created a drainage channel across the Schmetzko property. This was done immediately after a severe debris flow event, during a spring when debris flows were occurring frequently. The Town acted in an emergency situation, to try to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Schmetzko brought a law suit against the Town, in an effort to have his property restored to its original condition. The Town and Mr. Schmetzko settled this legal action. As part of the settlement agreement, the Town agreed to restore the site to its original grade. In the past, several utility companies installed utility lines across the Schmetzko property. In the same settlement, the utility companies understood that they would have to compensate Mr. Schmetzko for the use of his property. The utility companies decided it would be simpler to relocate the utility lines than to pay for the use of the land. r 2 r • KI 111. ZONING ANALYSIS Below are tables showing various development potentials. Table 1 - Area Total Total Buildable Buildable Acreage Square Footage Square Footage Acreage ease Parcel A 1.00 43,560 sq. ft. 40,744 sq. ft. .935 Parcel B .1204 5,244.6 sg. ft. 4,877 sq. ft. .112 Totals: 1.1204 48,804.6 sq. ft. 45,621 sq. ft. 1.047 Table 2 - Development Potential Under Different Zone Districts Potential Number Density Allowed of Dwelling Units Per Code On The Two Parcels GRFA Primary/Secondary 3 DUs + 1 3 DUs + 1 6,190.2 sq. ft. Existing Zoning with 2 Employee Unit Employee DU Parcels Residential Cluster 6 DUs per 6 DUs 11,405.3 sq. ft. Combined Lots buildable acre LDMF 9 DUs per 9 DUs 15,967.4 sq. ft. Combined Lots buildable acre Land Use Plan /MDR 3 -14 DUs per 3 -14 DUs NIA buildable acre 3 6 IV. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST As this is a worksession, staff will not provide an analysis of the rezoning criteria. The criteria listed below will be addressed fully at a later date. A. Is the request In conformity with the Land Use Plan? B. Have circumstances changed since the original zoning was placed on the property? C. Was a technical error made when the zoning was determined? V. DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES Before a final PEC hearing and discussion of the formal criteria listed above, staff believes the key issues outlined below must be resolved: A. How should the hazards be mitigated? The Town of Vail hazard maps show that about 80% of this site is covered in rockfall or debris flow hazard areas. In December, 1991, Art Mears evaluated the hazard 0 4 Table 3 - Density on Surrounding Lots* Approximate Approximate Existing Number Density Lot Acreage Zoning of Dwelling Units DU /Ac (Vail Heights) 1 .5 P/S 6 12 2 .5 P/S 10 20 3 .5 PIS 11 22 4 .5 P/S 10 20 (Vail Das Schone) 4 .18 P/S 4 22 5 .2 P/S 6 30 6 .18 P/S 4 22 7 .16 P/S 2 12 8 .18 PIS 2 11 9 .18 PIS 2 11 11 .32 P/S 4 12 12 .32 PIS 0 Undeveloped 13 .4 P/S 2 5 14 .5 P/S 0 Undeveloped 15 .6 P/S 5 8 19 .45 P/S 0 Undeveloped • 20 .45 P/S 2 4 IV. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST As this is a worksession, staff will not provide an analysis of the rezoning criteria. The criteria listed below will be addressed fully at a later date. A. Is the request In conformity with the Land Use Plan? B. Have circumstances changed since the original zoning was placed on the property? C. Was a technical error made when the zoning was determined? V. DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES Before a final PEC hearing and discussion of the formal criteria listed above, staff believes the key issues outlined below must be resolved: A. How should the hazards be mitigated? The Town of Vail hazard maps show that about 80% of this site is covered in rockfall or debris flow hazard areas. In December, 1991, Art Mears evaluated the hazard 0 4 potential of on the site. His report suggests general concepts for mitigating these hazards, but he believes he needs to do additional work. His letter is attached to this memo, showing his analysis. In brief, his concept is to extend a small basin to the north of any proposed building on the site which would contain the debris flow, and to protect any structures on the site from rockfall by building "small barriers at the lower building walls of the exposed sides of the structure." (Please see attached Art Mears letter, dated December 19, 1991.) A regraded corridor, along the lines of this concept, has been designed by an architect, and has been shown on the plans. This concept appears to require that grading occur on Lot 6 and BLM land to the north. This drawing was not done by Art Mears, and will need to be reviewed by him in the future. At this time, staff would like to understand if there are different mitigation solutions for different types of development on the site. We would like to know if there would be differences between the mitigation required for Primary/Secondary development, Residential Cluster development, and Low Density Multi - Family development. We would also like to have Art Mears discuss alternative types of mitigation, including one which could be completely contained on this site, if possible. In general, staff is concerned that the mitigation could have significant negative environmental and aesthetic impacts. Staff would like the applicant to propose the logistics of how the desired mitigation solution could be accomplished. If the current design is selected, staff will need to see permission from the property owner of Lot 6, Vail Heights, as well as the Bureau of Land Management for the use of their property in the regrading effort needed to create the basin. Staff understands that the approval process with the BLM is lengthy, and we will need to have assurances from the applicant that the work could be done. The timing of the mitigation also needs to be fully understood. Who will do the work and what the deadline is for the work are questions which need to be answered. Lastly, the timing of the Town's obligation to regrade the site needs to be coordinated with the timing of the proposed mitigation plan. B. What is the appropriate density for this site? Staff is concerned that the proposed density of LDMF may exceed what is appropriate for this parcel. Additional density may not be appropriate, given the debris flow and rockfall hazards. Additional information about the hazards are needed before an "up- zoning" occurs. Staff would like to point out that the tables in the zoning analysis show that the nine units per buildable acre proposed with the Low Density Multi - Family zoning falls within the range of the Land Use Plan, and is less than the density on most of the sites in the vicinity. All of the sites in the vicinity are zoned Primary/Secondary. However, they are non - conforming in that they exceed the current density standards of the zoning code. The applicant is proposing that two of the nine units on site to be restricted as employee housing units, which is a benefit for the Town. • 5 . C. What Issues are Involved In the subdivision request? The subdivision request ensures that the access way and the large parcel will never be sold separately. An easement could be created across Parcel A to also allow for access. It appears, at this time, that the applicant can meet all of the subdivision standards for minor subdivision in the LDMF zone district. These standards include lot area (10,000 sq. ft. of buildable area), frontage (minimum 30 feet), and size (minimum 80' x 80'). The applicant could also meet the subdivision standards for Residential Cluster and Primary/Secondary zoning. Prior to a final hearing, the applicant will need to provide complete minor subdivision plats which meet all of the Town standards. The replatting process also provides an opportunity to document the resolution of the hazard mitigation issue and the employee housing issue. Staff believes that the resolutions to the number of employee units to be built, as well as the hazard mitigation to be constructed, should be documented on the plat. Hypothetically, after the rezoning process, the applicant could develop the site as single family residences. Because the Town code does not require mitigation for single family or duplex construction, staff believes a plat restriction requiring mitigation regardless of development type is appropriate. This position is based on the belief that a request for higher densities should only be approved if mitigation is mandatory. D. What kind of development could occur under LDMF zoning? At this time, the applicant has drawn up plans for a nine unit condominium complex. • These plans are conceptual only, and are not proposed to be built. The applicant has tried to show that the site can handle LDMF density. Staff has reviewed these conceptually, and has some comments. The Fire Department would require a turn- around at the top of the driveway, and additional hydrants. Public Works would require a heated driveway, since the grade is 10 %. The planning staff is concerned that the underground parking shown on this conceptual plan may not be constructed, as it is relatively expensive, and is not required under LDMF zoning. V. CONCLUSION Staff does not have a formal recommendation for this worksession. Staff believes that increased density on the site should be reviewed with consideration given to hazard mitigation. After reviewing the additional information staff has requested regarding the magnitude of the hazard mitigation which will be needed, staff believes that the rezoning request will be easier to evaluate. c Apeclmemoslsch m tzko.309 • 6 ter. 8. L -M. MoY "°°°"`t "° 'X[""[°'b`M".,'q��o'�.o �` •.emu » LOT 6 • IL R111.r1 rTf.IVUTm � �+�arrol V% r'b •uu�•L[....�[t.ia. ecll. s[oTlwal M •q 2 ! 7 Kim APIA W qF 014' r� • il'. � 10'hNf o Ea•20'00'Yy 218.7 i , No �w.nrLrt i fr.00' 61. 50.88 RXO.t .10 � ,J� � C 10 LL[[ •R. «! ~ -_ r[wet llN[ ■n1RCC I/ �' �) /lI wrceul OYrLIN1 e 1. 4 / \1\ f 6T 4 1,00 i we tl.a.[rulll[•y.l TPA CA W 0.NAi O w - [[if 0,0.'[c XA*Rrwc .y CLtC uk&y,co tr -Isla arls'aaXE scow LANE (s0') 0 [L[v Ak cl.1.Y..N[Nf r[x s Survey Schmetzko Rezoning Proposal Y.10lf NwW111101 Hypothetical Development Plan OSchmetzko Rezoning Proposal FEB 27 '92 16;07 P,2/3 y 1 AR'T'HUR t ME". P.E. INC . ZZ2 &9 GO&d Ave. Cnonbon, Colorado 81230 303-641,3236 December 19, 1991 Mr . Riohard Rosen Wear A Rosen P. 0, Sox 1626 .Avon, CO 81620 RE: 2239 Chamonix, Lane, Vail. 17ebris flow and Ro fall study. Dear Mr. Rosen: The following describes preliminary observations ,pertain.ing to Potential rockfal3 and debris-flow hazard made during my initial site inspdati.on on December 2, 1991. Additional work required for the final analysis is also discussed. DEMX8 FLO Debris --flow hazard (similar to the flow of lay, 1984) exists at the site. Flows will be Most likely during wet spring periods. A channel, out into the alluvial fan by the Town of Vail during a the May, 1984 flows will be effective in conveying flood water and debris fIowa of high water consent through Tract "All and between existing buildings east and west of Tract "A." However, this cha,nnal will be less effective in protecting existing facilities partiou.lasrly when large debris flows containing high peroent,ages of rock, mud, and solid material occur. Such events are characteristic of well - developed debris flows. Humorous examples occurred in Vail in 1984. They will quickly deposit material and block the ahannel, allowing flows to disperse on the alluvial fan, and porisibl.y reach buildings. The existing channel, therefore, should not be considered its effective debris- flow mitigation. A more effective method of protecting buildings or other facilities on the unplatted parcel (2239 Chamonix Lame) is to design buildings on the parcel for impact and depositional forces resulting from debris flows and to also provide drainage for normal high spring runoff. A small basin/ catching dam systom could also be built north of the building. This mitigation concept not only would protect buildings on the unpl.atted parcel., but would also provide affective mitigation for the lower properties. As noted in the previous paragraph, existing buildings are not adequatoly protooted by the channel. 0 Afm Waav a Aw6chm s AmAm1xCoa,*fEAowft FEB 27 '92 16 "- 0B P.3,3 Y R4�K�`�1LL Portions of the unplatted parcel are within range of rockfall hazard, an indicated on Town of Vail mapping completed in 1984. Mir' field inspection indicated that rockfall may initiate from the slopes northwest of the parcel and could reach buildings or other structures. Because no large, conspicuous rackfall souroe areas exist, the size, f7requenay, and dynamic energy of rockfall will probably be small. Vail mapping also indicates a rockfall hazard originating from slopes northeast of the parcel. However, this source area is not well developed. Rockfall from this source probably will not reach the parcel. Protootion froz the minimal rockfall hazard could probably bQ achieved by btAlding small barriers at tha lower building walls ou the upper, exposed aides. ADDITIONAL WORK REQUIRED I A topographic map should be produced that includes the unplatted parcel and extends upslope approximately 300 -400 feet. The map should include the mouth of the canyon tdebris -flog souroo) and . the bane of the steep slope that serves as a rockfall source. An appropriate map scale is 1" - 100' with a 5 -foot contour interval. Additional map detail is not desired or necessary. This asap is will be used for the detailed rockfall and debris - flow dynamics analysis and for design of protective facilities. Debris-flow and rQokfall dynwics (velocities, energies, bounce hei.ghtss, eta.) must be quantified so that protective structures can be desi.yried. This work can proceed after the topographic map Is completed. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. I book forward to receiving the now mapping in the spring and completing this project. (At6ow Arthur 1. dears. F.E. • . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Millrace III, 1335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 1 /a, NE 1/, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of the North -South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S00 038'56 "W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00 °38'56 "E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of I -70; thence departing said ROW line N66 °53'25 "E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81 °23'19 "E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49 °08'51" and a chord that bears S15 °57'45 "E 119.10 feet; thence S40 °32'10 "E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the are of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49'12'10" and a chord that bears S 15 °56'05 "E 64.28 feet; thence S8 040'00 "W 90.27 feet; thence N38 °42'24 "W 224.55 feet; thence S78 010'32 "W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd./Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jill Kammerer 11111111, . .} ��6 q'�rSG� �, � f y , ' -F l .,n.2a -4�-¢r. r� r}F Oi0 . y �!'f hJ.: � _Frr o ark '�ry° i oQy c•.1,..� :�`� O�- a�f1A :.: ij� ... . : n ., `:� : ry i:r: irn vv£: . h S:<44:pnb 4:?. l$ � . . }'..�&} . rf trrr ,hoYi 4- `c.l .,',.a<r 1 ..^Fc rr i}Y ;'; 4Jr �# ;. .,: � x':� i;• � 4 2 'F� 0 x`}:44 :''i�'C.P `,:;. # . �' b .! ryW �. . $ - f`6 o ~y`c�N ",; 3 7� 7..v - [ G y A � cf. r ' �:` '� ���} Yg�O 3. 'N f$ 1," ' .o , + HS: ;- a�s,4:.rA.' .r : '::r l � . :; .rJ r \' 7'Ap r�'f. y` .�+:1rg ::% F r`6 r ' : ! � : C, G� ' f4 C ; % � 9FA` s:2rY oY i�:f ;' Xt •r. c� •:'s.4 c• {y'.C+.?ry n<.Q•:: Y �$ i'c. . :vn/' z - �• ::v: �r h}y 4Yf • �-rl ..'+�:r.•r� �;i`c! `r�:i� G( :#;ib '':},FS,r f'e:, S r(.F.yy+V4iq` rS4 s {..4y: rr` 44 .' obf.• ,? f¢:`r�r,• '.¢ .r.v-i ' b rffi4 a f.F. i:•iGfo-i'�`.I 'f'Z� ,�'Y�r-: . d i�� OC ;4{ N`, 2r � �:`�r ,h: �`s��Yf.G�Y� : f��G ��f�::aG�fii,`On�'v'�j. r [ �`FF .$'S''y .lfy.!}fi :. }'.4� ;tF1Nf •+v� f:�,•r':i� `:v % '{ ?i < f':R�.... °.:k�l'�4rwrn;�. �,..�y � f� r, .o >,R�`k«.'',+F:�,syss�2;�at�% � fsas air• �. t'! s,: �iA. r/..- r' Gti� .A}`f`,trrrr,�'.6afi7��;u:z�:.a� /: 'B.r,F:cY�:.:r�v,}�tc:s:.�.S�f$ r� �fi,'.'fi:`a'%;'.`r�•:t?� ,�i�:ec.�?rri�..°�;!+p'. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE ERE VEST The Millrace III property is bounded by Westhaven Drive on the East, the South Frontage Road right -of -way and the Westhaven Apartment property (the ruins) on the north, Gore Creek on the south, and the Cascade Club tennis court property on the west. The property is currently vacant with the exception of 2 paved parking areas, one unpaved parking area and the paved recreation path. The former owner of this property has allowed the Millrace Condominiums to maintain and use this property for parking for a number of years. However, the Association does not have any legal right to use this property. It appears the • . Millrace III property has been zoned SDD since the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. Access to this property will be from Westhaven Drive, which runs along the eastern property line. The applicant is seeking approval of a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD No. #4, Area A, Millrace III, in order to construct three single family residences, each with a two -car garage, on the .819 acre Millrace III site. Following the construction of each residence, the applicant would file a single family subdivision plat. In March of 1980, a development plan was approved for this property by the DRB. Under the approved plan, development was to occur in a single building. Approval of this plan has since expired. The development parameters for this site are incorporated into the SDD #4 Ordinance. Although no detailed site plan, grading plans or architectural plans for the buildings have been completed at this time, the applicant will prepare these plans following this PEC worksession review of the applicant's proposed development parameters. Specifically, the applicant is seeking approval for: 1) a maximum 8 -foot setback from Westhaven Drive, 2) a maximum 8 -foot setback from the paved bike path (which is not located within the dedicated bike path easement), 3) a zero setback from the existing bike path easements, as well as approval to seek abandonment of that easement, 4) an addition to the approved site GRFA allowance of 6,000 sq. ft., as set forth in the SDD ordinance, of 225 sq. ft. per residence (675 sq. ft. total), and 5) a minimum of 10 feet between building foundations. The applicant has indicated the residences would be constructed of materials similar to the materials which currently exist in the area, with a predominantly stucco exterior highlighted with accent siding and rock, and roofed with cedar shakes. The applicant must also file a minor subdivision under this request, as the property is currently unplatted. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following are the parameters for the development of this site, which are set forth in Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, the SDD #4, Cascade Village Ordinance: Section 18.46.050 - Permitted Uses Allowed: The applicable uses permitted in Cascade Village at this location include multi- family dwellings, single family dwellings and two - family dwellings. Proposed: Three single family dwellings. Section 18.46.130 - Development Statistics for Area A (Millrace III) 0 2 . Please mote that these development statistics are not final, as the current plans submitted by the applicant are very conceptual. Allowed: Three dwelling units, 6,000 sq. ft. GRFA, six on -site parking spaces. Proposed: Three single family dwellings, 6,675 sq. ft. of GRFA, 6 on -site enclosed parking spaces Section 18.46.120 - Setbacks Required: The minimum required setback on the periphery of all of Area A shall be not less than 20 feet ... 50 foot stream setback from Gore Creek ... Proposed: It appears the proposed development will comply with the required 20 -foot periphery of Area A setback and the 50 -foot Gore Creek stream setback. Section 18.46.140 - Height Allowed: 48 feet Proposed: Unknown Section 18.46.160 - Site Coverage Allowed: 35% (12,486 sq. ft.) Proposed: Unknown Section 18.46.170 - Landscaping Allowed: 50% (17,838 sq. ft.) Proposed: Unknown Section 18.46.180 - Parking and Loading Required: 75% of all required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings, and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within the landscape berm. Proposed: 100% of all required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. 0 3 Section 18.46.190 - Recreation Amenities, Tax Assessed Required. 25 cents per square foot Section 18.46.280 - Conservation and Pollution Controls Protective measures must be used to prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek, both during and after construction. III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52, D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. is 4 • I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Is an increase in GRFA from 6,000 sq. ft. to 6,675 at this site appropriate? The applicant believes allowing an additional 225 sq. ft. per unit (675 sq. ft. total) is appropriate because granting the additional square feet would be consistent with the LDMF zone district. The most recent modification to SDD No. 4 occurred in November, 1991, in conjunction with the redevelopment of Millrace IV, the Cosgriff parcel. Under that review, the GRFA was calculated under the 1991 GRFA definition, and the only credit granted was a 600 sq. ft. per unit per 2 -car garage credit. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to allow the construction of additional GRFA on the site. The site is very sensitive to development. It is heavily vegetated and 51.5% of the slope on the site is 40% or greater. Based on a buildable area of 17,297 sq. ft., the development density proposed is 7 units per acre. In comparison, allowable density in the Residential Cluster Zone District is 6 units per acre and 9 units per acre in the Low Density Multiple Family Zone District is 9 units per acre. The construction of additional GRFA on the site will likely require the building footprint to increase, or the building height to increase, neither of which staff believes are desirable scenarios. B. Should the applicant be allowed to construct 3 free - standing single family residences on the site? In allowing the construction on the site to occur in the form of three free - standing single family homes, it is likely a greater area of the site will need to be disturbed, and the development will be constructed within 8 feet of the existing recreation path. Staff does not believe allowing the construction to take the form of three free - standing single family residences is desirable for these reasons. As previously mentioned under the May, 1980 approved DRB plans, the construction on this site was proposed to take the form of a multi- family dwelling unit (tri- Alex). However, given the topography of the site, staff does not necessarily believe construction within a single building at this location is desirable, either. Rather, staff recommends the applicant combine two of the proposed free - standing single family dwellings into a duplex. Under this scenario, construction on the site would take the form of one duplex structure and one single family structure. This will allow the applicant to better work with the grades on the 0 5 site and possibly allow for a greater setback for the northernmost building from the existing, paved recreation path from a distance of 8 feet to 18 feet. C. Is an 8-foot setback from the paved recreation path acceptable? There are instances along the recreation path where buildings are set back less than 8 feet. Where possible, however, the Town encourages a greater setback from the recreation path. If the development were to occur in the form of one single family residence and one duplex development, it appears under the submitted schematic development plan, the setback from the recreation path could be increased to 18 feet. Staff suggests the applicant be required to maintain an 18 -foot recreation path setback, and to create a landscape buffer between the path and the residential development. D. Is the abandonment of the existing recreation path acceptable? Staff recommends the existing recreation path easement abandonment be allowed to occur, provided all parties to the easement agreement support such an abandonment. Further, staff recommends the applicant plat a new 15 -foot recreation path easement which corresponds with the location of the existing paved recreation path. The Public Works Department staff concurs with this recommendation. E. Is it appropriate to allow a minimum of 10 feet between building foundations? Staff believes, through the combining of the two northernmost units into a duplex structure, a maximum of 12 feet between building foundations is possible, and is the minimum distance between building foundations that should be allowed. F. Is an 8 -foot setback from Westhaven Drive appropriate? Under the submitted schematic development proposal, the closest point the proposed structures are to the Westhaven Drive property line is 8 feet, while the balance of the development on this site is set back from Westhaven Drive a distance which varies from 10 feet to 60 feet. Staff recommends the applicant try to break up the building facades along Westhaven Drive as much as possible, and try to allow for substantial landscaping along this elevation of the project. As previously stated, staff suggests using the site planning approach which would include one duplex structure and one single family unit. c:\pee',rncmos\rni31race.309 • 6 ; I ✓ .i f' I ! f•f� k F; F, -I L J • TE OF ARCHITECTS ILI � � vim'• ���'�� N-J r y� i i � O 1 •� 1�s i-' .t ; r ,I I v ' i r y I 1, ✓�� .�;�', � s ��' ,� f. 4-Fir =; ur ,F V �' - iF .�-✓V r�' i� ' �i {n J 5'•, T ILI e 1 r � rte_ ;N v • w w 3 d Y i • 0 • ��w ��v., «w�wwaww ■wNpo ar-� igOMe m V - � jl Ot W"-- vVNM i f f I 6 ° nN n!w utW F• � "tl J � .: � �d 5 4ou°v i >- 4 � Y o u o w d , o M r " " p •• H y M um. n .•• '.i,. o�. uP Nam °aw°i'"HU" wa" H�Swxw✓ "" d oo$n 44 M� .�. nm�voW�ewo• d H > x N •,'A. p". i.�iYpo T4�ui wu.cm4w POn ua'1 a � ofy \ ❑1 Hn "FI Y.1°iNSW ~OW"��Gnn 0°. %�.FA.�'�iN \ �q `` �C. ��w ��v., «w�wwaww ■wNpo ar-� igOMe m V - � jl Ot W"-- vVNM i f f I 6 ° nN n!w utW F• � "tl J � .: � �d 5 4ou°v � 4 � uP Nam °aw°i'"HU" wa" H�Swxw✓ "" d oo$n 44 M� d H > x N 1] � p". i.�iYpo T4�ui wu.cm4w POn ua'1 a � ofy \ ❑1 _ = O J �.• iQ H° � G �v � W W ��w ��v., «w�wwaww ■wNpo ar-� igOMe m V - � jl r, J[ i <) Li SOS i rarer .R • ryP N pry/ N a� • m a� �i'as N GGG�I7a�,a ,k8 'Z 31 1 1 „9, ji.00 N 1 •cam `\ o 0 5 N, A �I z 1'' o N Job N X.� vVNM i f f I o r, J[ i <) Li SOS i rarer .R • ryP N pry/ N a� • m a� �i'as N GGG�I7a�,a ,k8 'Z 31 1 1 „9, ji.00 N 1 •cam `\ o 0 5 N, A �I z 1'' o N Job N L -I -A 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March .9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Center Building, Unit 205, 520 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Planner: Andy Knudtsen �v� ^;',Y' ..:: ,rte' •', '.#x. `}� ;..tt }�J�:rl�.. 'Lh., f'�. '�>'t>,'.��'.::zc•:.;�' .ry°ce��ccr:•J.y€,..•` •, .r :::K::<�.`f . %S:S% ��r3yr,�'�' / ' �..'•r��v F�Sr�.�2•� ';Y¢ 9•'- .�F. ?f`}r. :5�: .: :r^w''.a ;,:f: x'�sr;...`.:s ;n;.,�,. �c`•:f. :;..;.�y4...'4:r..,s3���'::4f�� ..'�c. �s$. •2�: ^- sre�i�;:�: .r.- %.'fir` ::rsi s #•G; &9 r„S.f}.'� Fr:�f•'.�: ! f:�tiv:'w...�:• ::r�s•. f <rc$tw. �,f: �gfi..cl`:.,�:�:C2;..,, ydoo.;E:` ?g..r,.r PF.;r. ,.,,g;,, •�9. .G r }r� o����ff,�,.�:,..,,'v�.Jo. "tr.,fi: -9,•c o.l„�.o.. f� •f,?r: w :,�� ¢`: �G ?`y:��"si;,:.y; .ft{, 9 "may ,w. ..,.:�:�:�4:s,. .. 4. 4�F.! �rs4::.:.:,,., �.. �,. �..: z': �:�- x.::.:..x..�..4..��.:u%�::� �`c.�c:.�. -.�a ..,,�,�,� ,.'�..,:.,:.�:.:, ca:.a. �c, m�fr...v�:.�c. <a�:�:.�.x::;•- I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Victor Cano, is proposing to enclose an existing exterior deck off of his condominium in the Lionshead Center building. This building has commercial area on the first floor and.dwelling units on the second and third floors. On the south side of the structure, facing the ski slopes, are eight dwelling units. Originally, each unit had an exterior deck. At this time, two of the decks have been enclosed. On the north side of the building, facing the Lionshead Mail, over half of the decks have been enclosed. The applicant is proposing to enclose his deck to match the others. The deck area is 85 sq. ft. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Commercial Core 11 Required /Allowed Proposed CCI I Existing Addition Height: 48 ft. for a sloping 46 feet 30.5 feet roof Setbacks North: 10 feet 11 feet 81 feet East: 10 feet 35 feet 91 feet West: 10 feet 5 feet 171 feet South: 10 feet 13 feet 24 feet Site Coverage: 70% No change No change Landscaping: 20% GRFA: 32,155 sq. ft. No change 29,424 sq. ft. 0 1 No change 85 sq. ft. It this addition is approved, the building will have a total of 29,509 sq. ft. of GRFA. It • will have 2,646 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining for future development. Parking: The existing dwelling unit is 1,377.7 sq. ft. As the additional 85 sq. ft. makes the dwelling unit a total of 1,462.7 sq. ft., there is no change in the parking requirement. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II 18.26.010 Purpose: The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for. a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the Purpose section for this zone district. The use is specifically provided for in the purpose section. As this request is an expansion to an existing dwelling unit, staff believes that the proposal meets the goals of the purpose section. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD The subarea concepts which are in the vicinity of the Lionshead - Center Building are: Concept 11: "Commercial expansion (one story) to increase pedestrian emphasis, scale of mall, and to improve shade -zone facades and accessibility." Concept 12: "Opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades, awnings, etc., to improve scale, shelter, appearance of commercial facades." These two subarea concepts are the only ones located in the vicinity of the Lionshead Center Mall. Staff believes they are directed more toward commercial expansions and proposals for the first floor, adjacent to the pedestrian area. Staff believes that since this proposal is to enclose an existing deck with defined walls and a defined roof, that the change to the building will not affect, positively or negatively, subarea concepts 11 and 12. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD A. Height and Massing: The massing of the Lionshead Center Building will not change as a result of this project. The roof form and the wall locations will not be affected, and as a result, the height and massing of the building will remain the same. • 2 • B. Roofs: The roof over the deck will remain the same. C. Facades - Walls /Structures: Section C -1 of the Urban Design Guidelines, states that: "concrete, concrete block, glass, metals, stucco and wood are the primary materials to be encouraged in Lionshead." As glass will be the only material used to enclose the deck, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the guideline. D. Facades - Transparency: This section pertains more directly to ground floor commercial projects and does not directly relate to this proposal. E. Decks and Patios: The guidelines strongly encourage open decks and patios for dining. Again, discussion of decks above the pedestrian level for residential use are not specifically discussed. F. Accent Elements: . Not applicable to this proposal. G. Landscape Elements: On October 28, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar balcony enclosure request for another unit within this building. For that approval, the Town required that the applicant plant a cluster of trees at a corner of the Lionshead Center Building. Staff walked the site and found no other areas on the Lionshead Center property which could be easily improved with landscaping. The portion of the site which is in need of landscaping is the north side of the property, which fronts the mall. Staff believes requiring construction of a planter in the area is not consistent with the long range goals of expanding first floor spaces onto the Mall area. Given these circumstances, staff believes that no landscaping should be required. H. Service and Delivery: Not applicable to this proposal. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the improvements made to other decks on this building in the past. Staff believes it is consistent with the Purpose for the Commercial Core II zone district, the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead, as well as the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead, and recommends approval. • c: Ipeclmemoslcano.309 3 0 L) kiti • 4 /f/OA-) . baAlaq?,u :5 , 10 • y . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for an extension of a conditional use approval granted on March 11, 1991, which allowed an expansion of the existing Vail Mountain School facility, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Andy Knudtsen ,xa.;,y:;; .:. •: wa,•. }:•s:-'.�. -c9,'; :"'�: c "o-�k�a;' :S'r`i:` {5y -w: -� � r4gr :r Vic:, .wE.+'r "�:'l "ra.��' :j �y.�r' r.: r-�r r;ha .�s k" ai: "�'�- .'.�'. :.•sr.:,�,�y� �r . . �� ¢/�fi::: °,r..�%' . -Ef.'.yr£: r $ .J.{j,�i.' .r ..1.�".oy, . �y.�. y,� i:- {rg,•$ - ;$..;(��:,'ff.` . ���r`"1o` . �y�'- .�av-22' $ �,$.o�� '?y�a,�.a�rG",'r,.�,'�r }.'r'a�' :rycrw: :�..�.'� -: � .t '�.ry `;�: fi". ���:lcr''�:�d>�O.`Gc:- r�. ;`•arur'}i;^y:1 rr°}7i�,:-I-,,2�r:,$:'rr,` • i, '.rJ:�xG�,§�.Y+ .ai';�::���f`�`•�.•;>.3r,:: ��,� 4,0. oxG� �!{ F. •w:::o'�<,:�i` °sa..ro�.�G`�"'.4 W' ':r i ,�/ .h4 :r.S}. ::i'4 4.°�E {c.- ,.,�.` a{o �gLPt,h �fi ca?• +r,F�`�"�,��.':�`,<>rin 3-yu:� ,�N.,�Rh it a 4 L, •F:.. ;�.cv ,lr .n�.r.G•ra�.a¢:W rt:r.... .. F.,.f :.a .Y..r:,c?o { ?S >'•.'r.?r Sr.:o:°r Chy. .r.:y? :6;W.,rr..�.R' y`.'• � : -r r , F7 r:u x- sij,: • �k.�.. �rG +gf f,. 3;. �f:r'fg. r : � `� � n;'pnr/.a{'`'�fiu•�r..p 4 r.}.,,.,.w.u�c. r UCav $i rx �F' +cY �.i y ��'r .P, � Fi:b. �-C. � ♦ } 3' M1 r.;,Y'�•: f'r ��,`'•��'i. ��'� ar'N.r rofi:. �<.:'.:.:..: W: ar. . r:' t-:f r: r: rrr .:,n....::Y.- :h;.rrY.•�:.ar,. �::�:...... r::• rt rm::.r.acara:�:....',�i.;�:.a .:•fie: .::c.::�nca.,:.: s.°aF. .�i.�i,o-.:e•lo�.��r.!,� nC..0 �e.:.v: ��:rl� I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On March 11, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an approximately 3,300 sq. ft. addition to the third floor of the primary building to provide additional classroom space at the Vail Mountain School. This conditional use approval will lapse on March 11, 1992 unless it is extended. The Mountain School is currently fundraising, and would like to construct this phase this summer, if the approval is extended. The memo and minutes from 1991 are attached and explain the proposal in detail. The plans have not changed from the 1991 approval. On February 24, 1992, the Mountain School submitted an application for an expansion to their library. This request has not been previously approved, and is separate from the request for an extension to last year's approval. The library expansion is approximately 700 sq. ft., and will require a site coverage variance as well as a conditional use review. Staff has scheduled this item for the March 23, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Staff wanted the PEC to be aware that another request from the Mountain School will be presented soon. il. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to extend the conditional use approval, based on the attached PEC memo. The two conditions of approval relating to landscaping and drainage, tied to the March 11, 1991 request, have been fulfilled. c Ape6memoslmMsch.309 El 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department 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 3290 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." • . 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 Vaal 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. 0 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 im act 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 40 3 0 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 50. The additional 2.930 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 arks and recreation facilitiese 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 traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control access maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The 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, 40 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 pr .onosed use is to be located,___includincT 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 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 • 6 • 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 0 Frontage Road. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, this landscaping shall be installed, or a letter of credit for 1000 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. I ] • • had not anticipated bringing utuL ..w _ -- 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. A re est for a conditional' use ermit to ex ands the-. VAi-1 „ Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Roadj Lot 12 Block 2 Vail Village 12th F' in . 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 11 expansion, and not Phase II1. 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 6 xschool could provide a rinancial guarantee Kristan explained further that many developor's escro�r'a pp of their building loan to ensure the landscaping would t.., ,.. performed. This method would not cost the school additional'" points or interest. Pam indicated this would be accept able.3 A neighbor of the school, Joe Tonahill, indicated that he did`notV . 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, r 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 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. Apuli.cant: 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. Reviewed by: C 7 Date: �e II 3SVHd NOISNVdX3 31N30� SNdW11O woman mo LB /SZ /z •wa r "�"""" "4*doH " Lopmoue IOOHOS NId1Nnow 'iivA -- cote » a s oil OUPEI I v r i Al 4 9K z� d W IL Q v N D J OadaOIOO `"IIVA m ,� .,„ PLO L" it 3SVHd NOISNVdX3 b31N30 sndWV3 A6 /93fz o a wAW4 " "'""°°"°w IOOHJS NIVINfi0W IIVA �o�e • i 0 i oI F- a W H K1 C IL r "s 2 C� u� H a V1 l0 i oanaoloo 111VA ,II 3SVHd NOISNVdX3 a31N30 sndWVO I. .,,P, 'IOOHOS NIn1Nnow '11VA ,s C i I ( . 0 of t�W J W N O Z J t F.. C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District administrative offices, at 846 Forest Road/Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District Planner: Shelly Mello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District (UEVW &SD), located at 846 Forest Road, in order to expand its administrative offices. The proposal would add a total of 6,438 sq. ft. The following details the allocation of square footage by use: Office: 2,423 sq. ft. Common: 3,837 sq. ft. (Mechanical, etc.) Meeting Room: 1,384 sq. ft. Storage: 30 at.-ft. Total: 6,438 sq. ft. The expansion will be used to accommodate increasing staff levels and to improve the facilities service areas. This addition will be dedicated to office -type uses and does not include any sanitation operation facilities. The addition will be two stories located to the south of the existing offices and on top of the existing treatment facilities. The building materials will be similar to those of the existing building. With this request, the applicant also proposes to install ten 6 -8 foot evergreens as discussed below, and will also pursue a minor subdivision of Lot 31 prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the expansion. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The proposal is located within the Public Use Zone District (PUD). In this zone district, the development standards are established by the PEC in order to allow for the flexibility necessary to accommodate public and quasi - public facilities. Zone District: Public Use District (PUD) Square Footage: Existing: 3,320 sq. ft. Proposed: 6.438 sg. ft. Total: 9,758 sq. ft. Parking: Required: Existing Building: 14 Proposed Addition: 13_�_ _83 Total: 27.83 or 28 spaces Existing: Employee Parking: 37 spaces Customer Parking: 7 Total Avail: 44 total spaces available 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 purpose section of the Public Use District states: "The public use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The public use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi - public uses permitted in he district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District has requested this addition in order to accommodate an increase in staff and to upgrade the existing facilities. The request meets the purpose section of the PUD zone district and is in compliance with the development objectives of the Town for this zone district. In addition, the applicant will pursue a minor subdivision of this lot to formally subdivide the Town of Vail parcel and the UEVW &SD parcel: The staff asks that this action be completed prior to the receipt of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the expansion. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The expansion will not effect any of the items listed above. The addition will be visible from all surrounding properties and the recreation path. It will not . cast any additional shadow on the recreation path. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The addition will not impact any of the above items. The proposal will ultimately accommodate up to six additional employees. This project currently has excess parking spaces according to our parking standards. No parking or snow storage areas will be removed as a result of this project. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This addition is compatible with the uses and development objectives for the surrounding area. Due to the location of the addition, the impacts on public ways and adjacent properties will be limited. The top of the parapet wall for the addition is approximately 5' -6" higher than the existing administrative office's roof. It rises approximately 23' -6" above the parking area to the east. . The applicant proposes to install five 6 -8 foot evergreens to the south of the temporary building approved in January, 1992. These will be installed when the temporary building is removed. The applicant proposes to install five 6 -8 foot evergreens along the South Frontage Road on the right -of -way in order to further screen the existing parking structure. These will be installed prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the building, provided the Colorado Department of Transportation approval can be obtained. Upon submittal, the staff had concerns with the south elevation. The applicant has agreed to revise this elevation to eliminate the window forms off the meeting room and reconfigure the stairway to decrease its visibility from Forest Road. These changes are not represented on the attached drawings. They will be submitted for DRB review. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before -granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the request to amend the conditional use permit for UEVW &SD. The staff finds that the request meets the criteria as set forth in Section III(B)(1 -3). As discussed in the memo, the applicant agrees to install ten 6 -8 foot evergreens as indicated, assuming CDOH approval can be obtained for the plantings along the Frontage Road, and to pursue a minor subdivision of the parcel before a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 4 49 Please note that, Under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within two years. c:NpeC\Memos\uevw &x.309 CJ 4° G�• GI•� 0 7 • • • C'1 4Q O x o .b 0 • 17 oc- IL 17- ji'l 7 1; Fq-1 94 I • n i MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5 -A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Moilica INTRODUCTION Paul Johnston, owner and operator of the Christiania at Vail, has filed a request for the establishment of a Special Development District, for his property located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road. The purpose for this SDD establishment is to allow for the expansion and redevelopment of the existing Christiania Lodge. The Christiania at Vail has an existing, Town approved development plan. This development plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 8, 1991. This approval granted a setback variance in order to allow for the expansion of the Christiania Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the setback. This setback variance is valid until April 8, 1992. Subsequent to this PEC approval of the variance, the Design Review Board, on June 5, 1991, unanimously approved the final design for the Christiania redevelopment. This redevelopment included the expansion of the existing lobby, the addition of mechanical space beneath the lobby, and the addition of a new fourth floor, which included two new dwelling units. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's redevelopment proposal generally includes the upgrade and renovation of the existing Christiania Lodge, as follows: • The addition of a new fourth floor on the existing structure, which would consist of two dwelling units. • A general reconfiguration of the existing first, second and third floors of the Lodge, by adding additional accommodation units, dwelling units and common area. A total of 21 accommodation units and 3 dwelling units, comprising 14,521 sq. ft. of GRFA, is proposed. • The expansion of the existing Sarah's Bar, from 756 sq. ft. to 1,171 sq. ft. in size (an increase of 415 sq. ft.). • The construction of a small garage which would provide two on -site covered parking spaces. The garage would be located at the southwest corner of the building. • • The construction of 13 surface parking spaces, to be located upon the adjacent Parcel P -3, to the north. This parking area would be surfaced with asphalt, and would be landscaped around its perimeter. • The restriction of one of the three dwelling units, according to the Condominium Conversion section of the zoning code. • The provision of one off -site, permanently restricted employee housing unit. • The construction of a walking path, along the east side of Mill Creek (this will require approval from Vail Associates, owner of the tract). The existing split rail fence, located adjacent to Mill Creek, would be removed, as would the approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area, currently used for parking and the trash dumpster. The relocation and enclosure of the trash dumpster. • Additional landscaping would be added adjacent to Mill Creek and the recreation path. • The screen fence located around the swimming pool would be relocated onto the Christiania Lodge's property, (it is currently on the stream tract). • Of the seven proposed fireplaces, six are proposed to be gas. The existing woodburning fireplace located in Sarah's Bar will remain woodburning. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. May 11, 1987 - the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve density and setback variances in order to allow for the construction of additions to the Christiania Lodge. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, no construction has occurred. B. March 6, 1991 - a redevelopment proposal which did not require any variance /PEC approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board (DRB). Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposed to add a new fourth floor to the existing structure to accommodate 2 new dwelling units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill Creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscape the eastern half of the northern parking lot (when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved), and to remove a portion of an existing asphalted area adjacent to the proposed Mill Creek walking path. C. April 8, 1991 - the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a setback variance for the Christiania Lodge in order to allow for the expansion of the Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the front setback area. D. June 5, 1991 - the Design Review Board unanimously granted final design approval for the redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge, as approved by the PEC on April 8, 1991. 2 10 IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Public Accommodation Site Area: 0.380 acres or 16,553 sq. ft. The fallowing zoning analysis highlights the SDD's departures, from the PA zone district, by the use of bold type: Underlying Zoning (PA): Existing Project 1991 Approval 1992 SDD A. Density (25 DUs per 9 DUs 2 DUs and 25 AUs 2 DUs and 14 AUs 3 DUs and 21 AUs 13.5 buildable acre: 1 DU = 2 = 14.5 DUs = 9 DUs DUs AUs) B. GRFA (80% of the 13,242 sq. ft. 7,397 sq. ft. 12,984 sq. ft. 14,521 sq. ft. buildable site area) (80 %) (45 %) (78 %) (88 %) C. Common Area (35% of 4,635 sq. ft. 2,255 sq. ft. 3,271 sq. ft. 6,376 sq. ft. the allowable GRFA) (35 %) (17 %) (25 %) (48 %) D. Accessory (10% of 1,324 sq. ft. 756 sq. ft. 756 sq. ft. 1,171 sq. ft. constructed GRFA) (10 %) (10 %) (6 %) (8 %) E. Office NIA 72 sq. ft. (approved 72 sq. ft. (approved 197 sq. ft. by conditional use in by conditional use in . 1989) 1989) F. Setbacks 20 ft. all sides North /Front 15' -0" 15' -0" 15' -0" East Side 0' -0" 0' -0" 0' -0" West Side 17' -0" 17' -0" 10' -0" South /Rear 8' -6" (deck) 8' -6" 8' -6" G. Site Coverage (55% of 9,104 sq, ft. 5,235 sq. ft. 5,738 sq. ft. 6,413 sq. ft. site area) (55 %) (32%) (35 %) (39 %) H. Landscaping (30% of 4,966 sq. ft. 7,490 sq. ft. 5,943 sq. ft. 4,737 sq. ft. site area) (30 %) (45 %) (36 %) (29 %) 1. Height 48 ft. sloping roof/ 36 ft. sloping 43 ft. flat 44 ft. flat 45 ft. flat roof J. Parking Spaces Required N/A 36 34 9 Spaces Provided NIA 3* 3" 16 *The Town recognizes the Christiania as having 3 parking spaces. The Christiania currently provides 3 parking spaces in a small lot northwest of the existing building. The parking which occurs within the required setback at this location is a "grandfathered" situation. 0 3 V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the Immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge will be compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project. We believe that the proposed mass and bulk for this structure is acceptable, given the existing footprint of the Christiania Lodge, and the adjacent Chateau Condominiums. The project would have a maximum height of 44 feet, which is just slightly under the maximum allowable height of the PA zone district. Additionally, the proposed height would also be within the acceptable limits as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, which recommends that this property have a maximum height range of 3 -4 stories in height (27 -36 feet, excluding roof). This project has been analyzed according to the proposed Frivolous Sals View Corridor. This view corridor was approved by the Town Council on first reading, on May 7, 1991, with the stipulation that any previously approved projects could be built, even though they may encroach into the view corridor. At the time of first reading, it was anticipated that the Christiania redevelopment would encroach into this view corridor. Since the 1991 approval of the Christiania redevelopment, there have been some slight design modifications which would affect the proposed Frivolous Sals View Corridor. Changes to the roof configuration on the northwest corner of the Christiania Lodge would create an additional encroachment into the corridor. However, the northernmost portion of the building would be pulled out of the proposed view corridor. Overall, the staff believes the applicant's proposal is very reasonable, given the fact that the Frivolous Sals View Corridor has not been formally adopted upon second reading. Staff appreciates the applicant's attempts to work within the proposed view corridor, and to keep any and all "encroachments" to a minimum. Although the proposed SDD would exceed the maximum allowable GRFA by 1,279 sq. ft., it should be noted that 1,741 sq. ft. of GRFA is directly attributable to "excess" common area. The common areas in the Lodge include the mechanical areas, the hallways, stairs, storage areas, and the lobby and offices. It should also be noted .that the residential part of the GRFA, which constitutes 12,780 sq. ft., is actually under the maximum allowable GRFA, as designated in the PA zone district. Please refer to Exhibit A for a detailed breakdown of the proposed GRFA. 0 4 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Under the proposed redevelopment scenario, the applicant will be reducing the overall density of the proposed project by one dwelling unit. This is in contrast with the existing project, which has a total of 14.5 dwelling units. In summary, a total of three dwelling units and twen -one accommodation units are proposed with this SDD. As indicated in Section IV(D) of this memorandum, the Vail Village Master Plan strongly encourages the provision of short term, overnight hotel rooms (accommodation units). The proposed Christiania SDD is in compliance with the definition of "Lodge ", in which "the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units." As further indicated in the attached Exhibit A, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units exceeds 59% of the total GRFA for the project. Because this SDD request exceeds the maximum allowable density for the PA zone district, the applicant has agreed to restrict the third floor dwelling unit according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the Town's zoning code. This section of the code includes rental restrictions and generally provides that condominium units shall be included in the short term rental market for certain periods of time. Staff believes placing the rental restriction on only one of the three dwelling units is acceptable because the applicant is reducing the overall density of the project by one dwelling unit (versus the existing project), and the fact that the GRFA exceedance is due to the overage of common areas, which is created by the Town's recent change to the definition of GRFA (which now includes mechanical areas and stairs at each level as common areas). Additionally, the applicant has agreed to provide one off -site, permanently restricted employee dwelling unit. This unit would be the secondary unit in a primary /secondary residence owned by the applicant. The restricted employee unit will be located at 1184 Cabin Circle /Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Valley First Filing. Although this SDD proposal would provide four less accommodation units then the existing project (21 versus 25), staff believes that when the Christiania Special Development District is reviewed in its entirety, the project as a whole is very positive. There are public benefits, such as the employee restricted dwelling unit, the Mill Creek walking path, additional landscaping, two enclosed parking spaces, a paved parking area, etc., which must be considered. We believe the project provides a workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity as described above. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined In Chapter 18.52. This SDD proposal calls for the addition of a two -car garage, to be located in the southwest corner of the building, and two surface parking spaces to be provided immediately north of the garage. Additionally, the applicant is proposing 13 surface parking spaces on the adjacent Lot P -3, north of Hanson Ranch Road (please see the attached site plan). The proposed parking area on Lot P -3 would be surfaced with 9 5 asphalt, would include landscaping around its perimeter, and a retaining wall on the west side of the lot. Existing 1992 SDD Use # Spaces Required # Spaces Required Accommodation Units: (25 AUs) = 16.4 (21 AUs) = 15.6 Dwelling Units: (2 DUs)= 4.0 (3 DUs) = 7.0 Accessory (Sarah's Lounge): 6.0 8.5 Realty Office: 0.3 0.8 Christian Chateau Townhomes: 9.0 9.0 Sub -Total 35.7 40.9 Grandfathered Spaces -32.7 -32.7 Grand Total 3.0* 8.2 = 9.0 *The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 parking spaces. These three parking spaces are located on the Christiania Lodge site and are considered legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required front setback. in summary, this SDD requires that a total of 9 parking spaces be provided. The applicant is proposing a total of 15 parking spaces for the project. However, the proposed parking plan deviates from the parking requirements of the PA zone district as follows: 1. The parking is not provided on -site. 2. 75% of the required parking is not located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. In addition, the Christiania is technically 32.7 parking spaces short, as required per the zoning code. However, the proposed SDD will meet the incremental increase of required parking with the P -3 parking lot. Given the siting of the existing Christiania Lodge, and the fact that the applicant has a perpetual easement to park on the adjacent Lot P -3, staff believes the applicant's proposed parking scheme is acceptable, and will be an improvement over the existing parking configuration. Also, according to Section 18.52.060 of the Town's Zoning Code, "the Town Council may permit off -site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet of the use served ". This provision only applies to unenclosed parking spaces. Loading: The existing Christiania Lodge has a requirement for one loading berth. No loading berths are provided for the Lodge, and the loading requirement is considered "grandfathered ". The proposed redevelopment of the Lodge does not increase the loading non - conformity, as the new proposal also has a requirement for one loading berth. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P -3, does require that the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P -3, and also allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute ". However, this relocated • 6 entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery spaces along Hanson Ranch Road. The loss of one public loading/delivery space in the Village Core is not a positive change and it is a major concern to the staff, however, we acknowledge that the applicant does have a right to safely access Lot P -3. To mitigate the loss of the one loading /delivery space, the applicant will provide a loading/delivery berth on -site (adjacent to the dumpster), for use by the Christiania. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. It is staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges, the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open space. This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by the addition of 7 new accommodation units (versus the 1991 approval) and by improving and expanding the existing lobby and bar areas, while generally complying with the Town's site development standards. Additionally, the proposed Mill Creek pedestrian path will enhance open space for use by the public. The following is a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies which relate to this project: GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Obiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Objective: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 0 7 2.3.1 Polley: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.6 Obiective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4 Obiectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. The Vail Village Master Plan sub -area concept which directly relates to this redevelopment proposal is Concept No. 3 -8, Mill Creek Streamwalk: • 8 . #3 -8 Mill Creek Streamwalk A walking only path along Mill Creek between Pirate Ship Park and Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this proposal through Sub -Area Concept No. 8: "Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." The Vail Village Master Plan and The Urban Design Guide Plan both call for the construction of a pedestrian path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The addition of a foot path would be a. positive improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village area. Even though the Urban Design Guide Plan calls for the path to be located on the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash room for Cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasant area to walk through. In further support of the above sub -area concepts, the applicant has committed to remove approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage, is located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property. This proposal was reviewed according to the recently adopted Streetscape Master Plan. However, there are no specific streetscape concepts which apply to this site. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district Is proposed. There are no natural and /or geologic hazards which would affect this property and /or redevelopment proposal. The project is also located out of the established 100 -year floodplain. P. 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. An existing legal, non - conforming east side setback of zero feet results from the Christiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. By expanding the lobby and by adding a new fourth floor, additional square footage will be constructed within the setback. The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the Lodge. Currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to an encroachment of • 9 the southwest corner of the building into the 20 -foot setback. The existing rear setback is 8' -6 ", as the existing Sarah's deck projects 11' -6" into the 20 -foot rear setback (see attached site plan). The west setback will be reduced from the existing 17 feet, down to 10' -0 ", with the addition of the two -car garage. Because the zoning code and the Vail Village Master Plan both encourage the construction of covered parking, and the fact that this portion of the site is very heavily screened from adjacent properties, staff is able to support the applicant's request to further encroach into the required 20 -foot setback. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. The proposed Christiania redevelopment will have a minimal impact on the existing vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems adjacent to the Christiania Lodge property. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P -3, does require that the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P -3, and also allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute ". However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery spaces along Hanson Ranch Road. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. • As indicated on the attached site plan, there are some existing large, mature evergreens located very close to the existing Lodge. The redevelopment proposal calls for the removal, and relocation, of seven of these large evergreen trees. The applicant has proposed to add eleven new spruce (8 -10' in height) adjacent to the Mill Creek stream tract (to screen the on -site parking) and near the recreation path. Six new aspens (3" caliper) will be added adjacent to the front, or north, entry to the Lodge. To further open up the Mill Creek stream tract, the applicant has agreed to remove the existing split rail fence which is located upon the Vail Associates' owned stream tract. The screen fence around the swimming pool will be relocated upon the Lodge's property, as it is currently located upon the stream tract (Tract P). Although the SDD proposal does not meet the PA zone district's required minimum area of on -site landscaping, (the project is short by 1 %, or 229 sq. ft.), the staff feels that the landscaping design is acceptable because of the new plant material which is proposed to be added on -site, and the additional off -site landscaping which will be added around the perimeter of Lot P -3 and in the stream tract. According to the zoning code, the off -site landscaping can not be included in the required landscaping. 0 10 i. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional 01 and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has proposed that the SDD redevelopment plan for the Christiania Lodge be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We believe that the Christiania redevelopment meets the criteria for the establishment of a SDD, as discussed above. The staff recommendation for the proposed establishment of a Special Development District for the Christiania Lodge is for approval. The applicant has incorporated the following elements into the proposed development plan: 1. The proposed dwelling unit, to be located on the third floor of the Lodge, will be restricted according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. 2. One employee dwelling unit, which shall be provided with a full kitchen (refrigerator, stove, sink, oven or microwave), will be permanently restricted as an employee dwelling unit, per Section 18.13.080(B)(10)(b -d) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment. 3. The applicant will obtain a revocable right -of -way permit from the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P -3 parking area. 4. The applicant will obtain approval to encroach upon the existing 10 -foot utility easement, currently located parallel to the western property line, from the appropriate utility companies, prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment. 5. Prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment, the Town Engineer must grant final approval for the P -3 parking design. The Town Engineer is concerned with the design of the proposed retaining wall adjacent to the Mill Creek Court "Chute ". A curb and gutter section may be necessary to accommodate drainage in this area. 0 11 10 � 0 c Exhibit A GRFA and Parking GRFA 1. First Level 6 AUs = 1,932 sq. ft. Office (197 sq. ft./250) 2. Second Level 7 AUs = 2,556 sq. ft. Sarah's Bar (1,020115/8) 3. Third Level 8 AUs = 3,094 sq. ft. 1 DU — 551 sq. ft. 4. Fourth Level 2 DUs = 4,647 sq. ft. 5. Christian Chateau Townhomes Total GRFA: 12,780 sq. ft. Total GRFA: 12,780 sq. ft. Excess Common Area: + 1,741 sq. ft. Grand Total: 14,521 sq. ft. Total Density: 21 AUs and 3 DUs Required Parking 4.332 0.788 5.173 8.5 6.146 2.0 = 5.000 — 9.000 — 40.939 - 32.70 (Grandfathered spaces) 8.239 = 9 Required spaces AU GRFA = 7,582 sq. ft., or 59% of the total GRFA DU GRFA = 5,198 sq. ft., or 41% of the total GRFA 12 19 I* 0 First Level = Second Level = Third Level = Fourth Level = Total Exhibit B Common Area 3,104 sq. ft. 1,785 sq. ft. 727 sq. ft. 764 sq. ft 6,376 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA — 13,242 sq. ft. x .35 (35 %) 4,635 sq. ft. 6,376 sq. ft. - 4,635 sq. ft. 1,741 sq. ft. - excess common (added to GRFA) 13 ■ le 10 KM oava0103.11dn , I -11VA cd VINVUSIM"a E � r I II r z f 4S i A 4 PJ yFh i-8'f R F E f 4 f , Yy s . S-1 j 6 � -A I / jib , I I �f rl�fo i I i I a • • TVA VINHIISIHHO ' E w Dill ,LV ��� a g � a g_ A 0 �1 / 1 �I 0. 4 z b "r g _ nt al, 45 1 f3 1 E� Li LLI f �� i- n - Vail© ' r. s Vail Associates, Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek' Resorts .7 March 5, 1992 Jill Kammerer, Senior Planner Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Your file - Christiania Lodge, Special Development District Dear Jill: This letter is written in response to a request from Jay Peterson, attorney for Christiania Lodge. Specifically, Vail Associates, Inc. ( "VA") has been requested to provide written confirmation that Christiania may continue to use property owned by VA for Christiania parking. Although VA is not prepared to commit to provide any additional parking required by the Christiania Special Development District plan, VA is agreeable to Christiania's parking on VA's property to the extent VA is legally obligated under the terms of that certain Warranty Deed dated July 8, 1963, recorded in Book 177 at Page 127 and that certain Agreement by and among Vail Associates, Inc., Christiania -at -Vail, Inc. and Town of Vail dated March 15, 1978, recorded in Book 212 at Page 877 (the "Agreement "). However, please be advised that it appears to us, based on an improvements location map prepared by Eagle Valley Surveying dated (revised) January 18, 1991, Christiania is not currently parking in the location specified in the Agreement, but instead is using other VA property and a portion of platted roadway dedicated to the Town of Vail. VA hereby acknowledges and is agreement with such current parking location until the foregoing issues, presently being studied, are resolved among VA, Christiania and Town of Vail. Although VA has no objection to Christiania's continuing through the Town of Vail Special Development District review process, VA specifically retains the right to review the Christiania Special Development District plan and express any concerns and /or objections we may have regarding the project. Post Office Box 7 0 Vail, Colorado 81658 • USA - (303) 476 -5601 Jill Kammarer March 5, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions or concerns regarding the position of VA relating to the application for the Christiania Lodge's Special Development District, please feel free to contact the Legal Department at 479 -3100. cc: Paul Johnson Jay Peterson C7 • Very truly yours, VAIL fflSOCIATES, INC. Larry E Lichl' er Executive Vice President MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.34, Parking Zone District of the Vail Municipal Code to allow construction staging as a conditional use. Applicants: Vail Associates / Sonnenalp Properties Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The request made by the applicant, Johannes Faessler, is to amend Chapter 18.34, Parking District, of the Vail Municipal Code to include temporary construction staging as a conditional use. Chapter 18.34 regulates the Parking Zone District for the Town. The three sites within the Town which have this zoning include the Lionshead Parking Structure, the parking lot east of the Garden of the Gods (underlying zoning for a portion of the SDD), and the West Day Lot is owned by Vail Associates. Il. BACKGROUND The applicant plans to renovate the Bavaria Haus during the summers of 1992 and 1993. This extensive renovation will require a staging area that is off -site. In the past, other redevelopment projects in the Village have used the upper bench of Ford Park as a staging area. Because of the increased use and development of the park in recent years, the Town is no longer allowing private contractors to use the park for staging. Staff has worked with the architect for the Sonnenalp Hotel, Ken O'Bryan, to try to identify a site for staging which would be compatible with adjacent uses. After reviewing several sites, the applicant was successful in negotiating an agreement with Vail Associates for the use of the West Day Lot, adjacent to the Marriott in Lionshead. However, before staging can take place on that lot, the zoning code must be amended to include construction staging as a conditional use. Fallowing that amendment process, the applicant must receive an approved conditional use permit. III. PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE Below is all of the text included in Chapter 18.34, Parking District. The proposed text is shaded in grey. 18.34.010 - Purpose The parking district is intended to provide sites for private or public unstructured off - street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off- 0 street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The parking district is intended to allow such ;5 #-aeries while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas. (Ord. 2(1976) § 3 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 24.100.) 18.34.020 - Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the P district: Private or public unstructured off - street vehicle parking. (Ord. 2(1976) § 3 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 24.200.) 18.34.030 - Conditional Uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Private or public off- street vehicle parking structures; B. Private or public parks and recreational facilities: C. Public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation; tourist or town related and that are accessory to a parking structure:; D. Major arcade.. - cons ruc iM A.. t °." r a FCC Ift urpc�s a of ih s p € r (Ord. 6(1982) § 2a:•.0 rd. .33(1.981) § 1 Ord. 2(1976) § 3 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 24.300.) • 18.34.040 - Accessory Uses A. Minor arcade. (Ord. 6(1982) § 2b: Ord. 33(1981) § 1: Ord. 2(1976) § 3 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 24.400.) IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGE With the addition of temporary construction staging as a conditional review in this zone district, staff believes it may help facilitate redevelopment within the Town. In the past, some projects which have been renovated have used Town -owned land for the staging area. Now that the Ford Park site is no longer available, staff believes another option should be provided. This proposal would offer an alternative for staging, but would not create uncontrollable impacts. The change in the zoning code, as it is proposed, will allow the construction staging only as a conditional use. Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission will always have the opportunity to review any proposed staging site. During the review, the PEG can place conditions on the request to ensure the proposed use will be compatible with adjacent properties, if the proposed amendment is approved. The Sonnenalp is planning to return to the PEC on April 13, 1992 for a conditional use hearing on the West Day Lot site. 40 2 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Given the fact that this use is allowed only after approval of the conditional review, staff believes the code change will have few, if any, unmitigated negative impacts. The positive effects are that the Town will be providing an option for construction staging to those who undertake large renovation projects in the Town, while also allowing for PEC review to ensure the community is not negatively impacted. c: Ipeclsonenalplzonecode.30S • • 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill Creek Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drive /a part of Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Appellant: Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello ���1111Y: ?�!r: ��dr.'S.,s.rr8v:. . �J dr{.ry - �,.� :' . "NJr.t,'�:Pel ��.�"' �� i.;.�: �r .. a-.�.o?,..`:- ::ry�!�.• h� i.•`K .w�: r,' w. + �o ' :.:.r.a2o,. �ti, fnF.6f°:.:.#'��;°. � SE,`�":.,'�f..��,: ,.e �:X...� 8L�''.• � 'aF; !a. -�SG< y: > . } ? `ff : �,„a!Y� a'r� �r ; ; c$-..'i,.� Ym:m. :p.. r � . o' r #"' s : 0 ,�,�` .:2 � '�+ r 9 $ 1^:BY. g' g, fi'e` n ,' 0 : 9Fi�:�•N'. ': �$�s r,r;. ' %ia,r`: .:gv': .}4''�� . i ;:o ; '.fZ,!f' � � w• . .{c;,/f'c�, . r✓` r $a '�'�{.:.aa..� .>y:9 iF .;� r:G' �,• S ,' f�: "©<,y'.� o'olg��.: �o^ u .f� •::`4; •�'� •.,:i.; 4::.a %. r'v .'F�, �,. _ ✓ • r . � .r. _S f $ .`: . �° i'�.'n� h f ; �!:k�,�.: , yi. : �''."4:�.A, v% �`. '.': �.,`�•,r� `:•` , s:..':�i:.s{:r:r� f: v:' rTxawti.' e: k�nwf~ r. �ryo-; e. �4: m:,:.::; r..!: �:.; a�Lt.. r.. o-. l: r�Cn{: 4f .:n'�::'�d.',:.:::.�•..�:,.4•.i ns :{i,.o-:.r.:.r.:::...�.:.aa Attached are two letters appealing the staff's decision to deny a request to locate an office on the first floor of the Mill Creek Court Building (Unit 108A). The appellant's desire is to have a portion of this first floor retail space considered legal non - conforming with regard to use in order to allow it to be used in conjunction with an adjacent legal non - conforming space (Unit 105), which is currently used as a real estate management office. According to Section 18.24.030 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - First Floor or Street Level, office is not an • allowed use on the first floor in Commercial Core I. The legal non - conforming space, Unit 105, is currently occupied by a real estate management firm and is adjacent to Gore Creek Drive. The space in question, Unit 108A, is currently occupied by the Boot Lab and is directly to the south of Unit 105. APPEAL #1 The appellant requests that, because the Boot Lab space was previously used as an office and the area is not viable retail space, the space should be considered a legal, non- conforming use and be allowed to be an office. Section 18.64.070 - Non - Conforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements - Discontinuance, states: "Any nonconforming use which is discontinued for a period of twelve months, regardless of any intent to resume operation of use, shall not be reused thereafter, and any future use of the site or structures thereon shall conform with the provision of this title." In this case, the office use has been discontinued for more than one year and therefore, according to the code, the space can no longer be considered legal, non - conforming. The PEC would need to find that the discontinuance of the use was less than one year in order to approve the appellant's request. From research provided by the appellant, it appears that the Boot Lab has had a lease for Unit 108A since 1987. The space is not used during the summer season. It would appear that it was used as an office prior to the Boot Lab use. c: . APPEAL #2 The second letter suggests that the space in question is currently non - conforming because it is being used as "storage and service" area, which is not allowed on the first floor in Commercial Core I. The applicant requests that the Town Council consider a change to a legal, non - conforming use as provided in Section 18.64.080 - Change of Use. Section 18.64.080 states: "A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use unless permission has been granted by the town council. Prior to granting such permission, the council shall determine that the proposed use does not substantially differ from the existing nonconforming use in terms of compatibility with the character of the area in which it is located, and the council shall determine that the proposed use does not increase or aggravate the degree of nonconformity existing prior to any such change of use." The staff finds that the storage and service area is accessory to the retail business it is affiliated with, and should not be considered a use independent of the retail. It is therefore the staff's finding that this space is not currently a legal, non - conforming use. The Planning and Environmental Commission's action on this item would be to determine if the storage and service area is independent of the retail facility and could be considered a legal, non- conforming use. If the PEC determines that it is a legal, non - conforming use, the Town Council would determine if an office could replace the storage and service area, both non- conforming uses pursuant to Section 18.64.080. 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff finds that neither of the appellant's requests meet the criteria which would establish the use of the space as legal nonconforming and subsequently allow it to be used for an office In order to achieve the appellant's goal of using Unit 108A as an office, two options have been identified by staff. The office use could be achieved by rezoning the Mill Creek Court Building to a zone district which allows offices on the first floor or, by changing the allowable or conditional uses for first floor in Commercial Core I to include offices. c Apeclm emoslgwathmey.309 • 2 0 February 17, 1992 Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #1 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Mill Creek Court Building - Ground Level. 108 A - Use as Office Dear Ms. Mello: Regarding your fax of 10 February 1992 which states Unit 105 is grandfathered, we would like for you to consider the fact that . 108A has been offices over the years. The original Town of Vail offices were in that space and other offices have been situated there. There is a reason for the space not to be retail. Although the space 108A is in CC1, it is on the fringe and has poor commercial exposure. We request, therefore, that it be grandfathered also and that the proposed owner use it as an office as the Town of Vail did prior to construction of your present building. Please don't hesitate to call if we need to discuss this further. Sincerely, ARNOLD /GWATHMEY /PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. Edward M. Gwathmey, ATA EMG /ad COPY to: Harry Frampton • 40 February 26, 1992 Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #1 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Office Use in Unit 108 -A, Mill Creek Court Building Dear Shelly; Rather than appeal the Staff's decision on this issue per your 25 February letter, I would like to suggest: The present use is nonconforming - it appears to be a ski and bike service facility; see 18.24.030. The space has work benches in it and a desk. Why, therefore, can we not a -sk the Council to exercise its prerogative 18.64.080 and allow this little dark dank, out -of- the -way space to be part of the office in 105. I appreciate your patience in ferreting out this detail and look forward to you informing us where to go, i.e., which direction to take. Sincerely, ARNOLD /GWATHMEY /PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. A"* 01"I q Edward M. Gwathmey, AIA EMG /ad Enclosure copy to: Harry Frampton • • r rl � w SPY. • • M IOblLtit fRllF-y rltjll',�Ily� ezxjf:�r Mae p23-Ds dr MEMORANDUM. 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill Creek Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drivela part of Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Appellant: Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello • :;rrFw:mr.•:nr �:5..•rYr. x.;::S`..�:, :rs,E F:,z ':� �:} x:; P� .''�:::I.:�O'ifiF:9:�i:!�iy:J: yet ":'n,°��c�: <`- ' : ^:•:iY-i=' ?;�'f �cw:u...,.; •.m:::�;xr }.:h:wrr:: <mo:x.:: ,��:�:. ,:...al'}:'.?.Y.:�"[�s�?: .•.�r,•�. q�gfr'�?`�.`.r .�;crfo:: �t;s.:.. �:.:. :.:.rr': :• :.Y..::�R:? rY.. x;�.W.:. :ff�,. /,.;F ... v. :4. �fiJ:.:C.. fir:$..; .4'. }b':i s�I:}Y._; :.x .. }F.•s: v:����: i:: [!•:a5:.::'r'':: � ,.•::. :: �:.+r. ' . r .:.::....... s., {:_..- }.vt�:.:�,�: x. ;r;rnos:n.. • !. .......:...:.. ..m•.ai: :� %:::�xa, •a }: -: ::..:...:..:..}: �: a�::,a -�: }x :::.xxY;:`G;:L:::: l �•. :aJ �W.,,o. nom. v,:vr: is ca .: 15;:: ...o... cvS: � x:Sv :j �: ?,.. . r:. ..�c..o .. v.r:..c,. ..f r r.n:�< &'.�.0...:3.. .rf. „ . }.::�: •xt :: rm; <ru:r:r :- .�.f� o::�.s: `:'Sti r. : -: �.. -r :xcvan . l.c;•' .`<J.c. - :.L.Gxr ' ^t r: :.. .............. �..�:. x•:... :::: ........ -: ;... ..:ori. ::v •:c. .. ur, .Y ::. do - °f$fr ::FC < #`} :" :xG:i4:y:::�:::r}r:..•x�rS:L':. x.. c :x :•.- :::.�r:�::r.- .: ::.,;:.,:: :.v. }.,:..:. �..r?":bwros:5� � ao.. ,�.. .c7;: x•.o •r �•��'r �:n:.. <�. r.,. :;5 {..:f�i''Gu'u`t�::: ��.: rK: ?:•:......... . :'�::< :i.S4... ry %. :oRu :r� .x. x:•:..:..:4::xF•.Si::F2 : ?:'L+- 6ri+.x iv, :. :.49 'r ...✓ .5fr';�r:rv.:...v':d�.<}i}xnnvr x• :.,ir:.,:;.. }.:r:::: :r.5 }Y. {. .::: ......s:::... .v::'W. rr:.:: ••. :•: F vnw: :u :. rr:.,..: �:::::. wr ...a:::r::.�rrro-rr.vat•:.� =:;: �... fia::. �,:,L.cx•:G.a.orrwrn4:<Gt;4:,.W :,�»cnar';�?.��rn ....,,: .....,:xa:,ux:n.•r::n�..,� }w }:r Attached are two letters appealing the staff's decision to deny a request to locate an office on the first floor of the Mill Creek Court Building (Unit 108A). The appellant's desire is to have a portion of this first floor retail space considered legal non- conforming with regard to use in order to allow it to be used in conjunction with an adjacent legal non - conforming space (Unit 105), which is currently used as a real estate management office. According to Section 18.24.030 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - First Floor or Street Level, office is not an • allowed use on the first floor in Commercial Core 1. The legal non - conforming space, Unit 105, is currently occupied by a real estate management firm and is adjacent to Gore Creek Drive. The space in question, Unit 108A, is currently occupied by the Boot Lab and is directly to the south of Unit 105. APPEAL #1 The appellant requests that, because the Boot Lab space was previously used as an office and the area is not viable retail space, the space should be considered a legal, non- conforming use and be allowed to be an office. Section 18.64.070 - Non - Conforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements - Discontinuance, states: "Any nonconforming use which is discontinued for a period of twelve months, regardless of any intent to resume operation of use, shall not be reused thereafter, and any future use of the site or structures thereon shall conform with the provision of this title." In this case, the office use has been discontinued for more than one year and therefore, according to the code, the space can no longer be considered legal, non- conforming. The PEC would need to find that the discontinuance of the use was less than one year in order to approve the appellant's request. From research provided by the appellant, it appears that the Boot Lab has had a lease for Unit 108A since 1987. The space is not used during the summer season. It would appear that it was used as an office prior to the Boot Lab use. CJ APPEAL_ #2 f The second letter suggests that the space in question is currently non - conforming because it 1W is being used as "storage and service" area, which is not allowed on the first floor in Commercial Core 1. The applicant requests that the Town Council consider a change to a legal, non - conforming use as provided in Section 18.64.080 - Change of Use. Section 18.64.080 states: "A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use unless permission has been granted by the town council. Prior to granting such permission, the council shall determine that the proposed use does not substantially differ from the existing nonconforming use in terms of compatibility with the character of the area in which it is located, and the council shall determine that the proposed use does not increase or aggravate the degree of nonconformity existing prior to any such change of use." The staff finds that the storage and service area is accessory to the retail business it is affiliated with, and should not be considered a use independent of the retail. It is therefore the staff's finding that this space is not currently a legal, non - conforming use. The Planning and Environmental Commission's action on this item would be to determine if the storage and service area is independent of the retail facility and could be considered a legal, non- conforming use. If the PEC determines that it is a legal, non - conforming use, the Town Council would determine if an office could replace the storage and service area, both non- conforming uses pursuant to Section 18.64.080. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The staff finds that neither of the appellant's requests meet the criteria which would establish the use of the space as legal nonconforming and subsequently allow it to be used for an office In order to achieve the appellant's goal of using Unit 108A as an office, two options have been identified by staff. The office use could be achieved by rezoning the Mill Creek Court Building to a zone district which allows offices on the first floor or, by changing the allowable or conditional uses for first floor in Commercial Core I to include offices. c Apeclmomoslgwath mey.309 2 0 t t i February 17, 1992 Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #1 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Mill Creek Court Building - Ground Level 108 A - Use as Office Dear Ms. Mello: Regarding your fax of 10 February 1992 which states Unit 105 is grandfathered, we would like for you to consider the fact that 108A has been offices over the years. The original Town of Vail offices were in that space and other offices have been situated there. There is a reason for the space not to be retail. Although the space 108A is in CC1, it is on the fringe and has poor commercial exposure. We request, therefore, that it be grandfathered also and that the proposed owner use it as an office as the Town of Vail did prior to construction of your present building. Please don't hesitate to call if we need to discuss this further. Sincerely, ARHOLD /GWATHMEY /PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. Edward M. Gwathmey, AIA EMG/ad 0 copy to: Harry Frampton ■ M February 26, 1992 Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #1 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Office Use in Unit 108 -A, Mill Creek Court Building Dear Shelly: i t • Rather than appeal the Staff's decision on this issue per your 25 February letter, I would like to suggest: The present use is nonconforming - it appears to be a ski and • bike service facility; see 18.24.030. The space has work benches in it and a desk. Why, therefore, can we not ask the Council to exercise its prerogative 18.64.080 and allow this little dark dank, out -of -the -way space to be part of the office in 105. I appreciate your patience in ferreting out this detail and look forward to you informing us where to go, i.e., which direction to take. Sincerely, ARNOLD /GWATHMEY /PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. AAA* Edward M. Gwathmey, AIA EMG /ad Enclosure copy to: Harry Frampton 0 • I • FFA ff,&5pm� STL4py- Armli /Al W, CK9,t� CMM- r-NPt-e os +IV 0 A 6 0 9-t 0 r JE F, K Piz1 V TIU41W MIFT Mae,# 106.�Imb^ jam• -C-� 41- C � Oil r 7 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core II, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) - Sun- Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer :; ` %k s 'u •;r'w: 5�+. v. A' ky ry +u••: xrw zx 9'.' %t' !yn�.2''. .'v`: '�",':A�• I`"• "C,'�;! / #'"'J•''� w:# r' , r • S' aid`" £�� .��' {!`ao•$'.v� �/,&���'�� r�`"�:� �.' ��?'C �,�'�J�rr:�a.� cF� , f d �k. :�•�:T' r ��b�,.� �.:� •3i. " F C& %/ �ilG;r3..s,�G`�r'• �(�rA� 9rrr.: �iF`s'' $ ' :,.`;,. >:r• f; �,• ��•�'. ,r�r,+',axfr dy.���� r J a F (+RS�4 {..: �. / •S. s aF•.. a.::, � �u,, hit•'F � .:E z � :.aa3J{. +r..y::;'•r; `: f /• -•. :,• r Y'r''asryJ..arJ•� ti .. L.� { t`�.. h [iL,. �c,Gi!!{ >..: :: .. w :a: ;s... r,7.,� F�.:�� ,ry.. ¢. r•: u: f.,.:. � ;a `'`r'•aF,. r : �%;::�',....ri�fE�i`aw.�F,�i:�hi Sr�;3;si✓�.:£#fr£..£.� .o-firr�h��k�s�sa�:..,,.,.,,.,. �'x'.3P.;�9..,cr�fi. fps. �G: �YnB:: ��.,,. xii� :,,s?�..�.:...xfxiru`.a.:>rru £'a� ja: :: � �.<.:,�,, ua1,�'.;,,.:`d�£::� This request was discussed as a worksession item at the January 27, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting. At this meeting, the members of the PEC recommended the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun -Shade also be modified in conjunction with these CCI and CCII zone district code changes to require applicants to submit a four - season sun -shade analysis. The Vail Village Design Considerations were approved on May 20, 1980 by Ordinance No. 16. Therefore, changes to the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun -Shade must also be made by ordinance. The Community Development Department staff proposes to modify the sections of the zoning code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core 11. These changes are taken from recommendations made in the October, 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Phase I. The following is a list of issues, staff recommendations and related zoning code modifications. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I Exterior Alteration or Modifications - Procedures will be discussed first, followed by a .discussion of the issues and the related zoning code modification recommendations for Section 18.26.045 Commercial Core II Exterior Alterations or Modifications. The text modifications proposed for the CC] and CC11 zone districts are identical. COMMERCIAL CORE I, SECTION 18.24.065 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURES A. Issue The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of the zoning code. However, the two semi - annual submittal dates do not allow for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects. • Staff Recommendation Move the submittal dates for major projects up two or three months, from November and May, to September and February respectively. The purpose of this change is to complete Town project reviews at an earlier date in order to allow project construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season and in the fall prior to the beginning of ski season. B. issue Applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. However, a single property owner is limited to one such submission in any two year period. Staff Recommendation Staff believes limiting the review of additions of 100 square feet or less to one proposal every two years is unnecessary and acts as a disincentive to property owners who want to upgrade their properties. Staff proposes the code be modified to allow the review of additions or redevelopment proposals of 100 square feet or less in the following manner: • A single property owner who has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years may submit a redevelopment proposal of 100 sq. ft. or less for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. A single property owner who has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less, within the last two years would have the opportunity to submit any additional exterior alteration proposals which remove or enclose floor area for review by the Planning and Environmdntal Commission on a semi - annual basis on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. No public hearings or work sessions before the PEC shall be scheduled regarding major exterior alterations or minor exterior alteration applications which must be submitted on a semi - annual basis, prior to the applicable semi - annual submittal date. 0 2 Exterior alteration applications which call for the addition or removal of any enclosed area of 100 square feet or less shall be considered minor alterations. Any exterior alteration proposal which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of more than 100 square feet shall be considered a major exterior alteration. C. Issue The sixty or ninety day review process as outlined in this section is not consistent with the manner in which applications are actually handled. Staff Recommendation Review procedures stipulate a sixty or ninety day review period as may be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). In reality, the review of exterior alterations is primarily dependent on the applicant's submittal of material, and not on the review period established by the PEC. Staff recommends this section of the code be amended to state that the formal review by the PEC will be scheduled by the Director of Community Development following a worksession (if necessary) and planning department receipt of all of the required submittal materials. D. Issue The code does not set forth formal submittal requirements for exterior alterations. While the staff and the PEC ultimately determine what materials must be submitted in order for the review of the exterior alteration application to occur, minimum submission requirements should be specified in the code, so the applicant knows what is expected. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the code be modified to include a list of submittal requirements similar to the Special Development District (SDD) submittal requirements. The Community Development Director should be allowed the flexibility to add or delete submittal requirement material as may be appropriate, depending upon the magnitude of the project. E. Issue The code does not specifically address who may submit an exterior alteration application. Staff Recommendation Concern over who may submit an exterior alteration application has to do with condominiumized projects. Under the SDD review process, all property owners within the project area are required to sign the SDD application, unless, the 0 3 condominium by -laws give a condominium association representative (or officer) the authority to submit an application with a majority vote of approval by its members. Staff recommends this same SDD language be incorporated into this section of the code. F. Issue Any exterior alteration development proposal which adds or removes floor area is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site development alterations, specifically outdoor dining decks, are related to many of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEC. Staff Recommendation The addition of a new dining deck, or the modification of an existing dining deck, should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the exterior alteration process. Currently, proposals for new or expanded dining decks require PEC review as a conditional use permit. However, the exterior alteration criteria are also appropriate criteria to use to evaluate the impact of this type of development. Therefore, staff recommends new dining deck applications and applications which propose the modification of an existing dining deck be evaluated using the exterior alteration and conditional use criteria. This change will not add an additional meeting to the review process of these proposals but, instead, will allow the PEC to consider urban design criteria in evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck, as well as the conditional use permit review criteria. G. Issue The PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) both participate in the review of exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly defined. Staff Recommendation The PEC is to review the siting, form, massing, circulation_ and other large -scale planning and urban design issues. The DRB's responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles of each board should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code. H. Issue Alterations to the roof line of existing buildings are not currently reviewed under the exterior alteration section of the code. Changes to roof lines can impact sun /shade analysis, established view corridors, street enclosure, streetscape framework, etc. 0 4 Staff Recommendation Require all changes to the existing roof line on structures located within the CCI and CCII zone districts to be reviewed using the exterior alteration criteria. This type of request would be considered a minor exterior alteration, assuming no square footage over 100 sq. ft. was added. Issue Exterior alteration approvals do not lapse or expire. They are effective indefinitely. Trying to evaluate future exterior alteration proposals on adjacent structures based on exterior alteration approvals which may or may not be constructed becomes complex. Further, all other zoning requests have a specified time period for the approvals. Staff Recommendation Approval of any exterior alterations as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Staff believes two years is an adequate approval time which matches the approval time for variances and conditional use permits. SDDs are valid for three years. An exterior alteration would need to be renewed after two years when it is associated with an SDD. J. Issue Timing for implementing recommended code changes. Staff Recommendation All code changes shall become effective upon approval of the changes by ordinance. This will result in an additional (3) major exterior alteration submission deadlines for the balance of 1992 (May, September and November). Beginning in 1993, there will again be only 2 major exterior alteration submission deadlines (February and September). This approach should avoid creating scheduling problems for any applicant who is considering a project submittal for 1992 using the previous deadlines. II. TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 18.24.065 The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.24.065, which address the Issues and Staff Recommendations set forth above: 0 5 "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of is an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, etc.); C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report tb verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail • 6 . Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun /shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring /fall equinox (March 21 /September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 1O:OOAM and 2:OOPM; g. Existing and proposed floor plans and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties; Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, views and formally adopted Town of Vail view corridors; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The Director may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for exterior alterations shall be submitted semi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph 2. above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the semi - annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b -d) of this Section may be exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work 0 7 . session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing - Notice. The Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing - Notice, following this work session and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required. a. A property owner may apply for an expansion -greater than one hundred square feet in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration." b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration ". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free - standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a semi - annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission • 8 may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council. 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC[ district as specified in Section 18.24.010; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service /delivery and sun /shade; 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. Following approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, all exterior alterations shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. In addition to the design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural /Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. 7. Approval of the exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. B. All alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board following Planning and Environmental Commission approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Vail Village Design Considerations. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: • 9 f . Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form by the zoning administrator; 2. The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review; 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CC] district as specified in 18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C )(3) - Staff Approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. III. COMMERCIAL CORE II SECTION 18.26.045 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS - PROCEDURES All of the issues and staff recommendations related to Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 - Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedures, also apply to Commercial Core 11, Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedures. Staff recommends all modifications to be made to the CCI Section 18.24.065 of the code occur simultaneously to the CCII Section 18.26.045. IV. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18.26.045 The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.26.045, which address the Issues and Staff recommendations as more fully explained in Section I of this memo. These changes are identical to the changes proposed for CCI Section 18.24.065 with the exception of the referenced planning documents to be used in evaluating development proposals. "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building 0 10 which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental; Commission as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; 11 f. Sun /shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the IDspring /fall equinox (March 21 /September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM; g. Existing and proposed floor plans and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties; Photo overlays and /or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, views and formally adopted Town of Vail view corridors; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The Director may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. . 3. Complete applications for exterior alterations shall be submitted semi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of February and the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph 2. above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding major exterior alterations prior to the semi - annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b -d) of this Section may be'exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of the 0 12 Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing- Notice. The Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing- Notice, following this work session and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required. a. A property owner may apply for an expansion greater than one hundred sauar_e_ feet in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration." b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration ". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free - standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a semi - annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to the Town Council; • 13 • 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section 18.26.010; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. Following approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, all exterior alterations shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. In addition to the design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural /Landscape Considerations of the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. 7. Approval of the exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall • lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. B. All alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board following planning and environmental commission approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 Design Review. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCII shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form by the zoning administrator; 2. The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review; • 14 • 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specif led in 18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff Approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. V. THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS I SUN /SHADE The Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun /Shade currently reads as follows: "Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of summer days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby negatively impact uses of those areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September 23) on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun /shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. Staff recommends the text be changed as follows. Please note the recommended text additions have been shaded. "...All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not 0 15 . intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . dplit�«rlr 31:f.uth,, idplmlar; Staff recommends approval of the above code amendments. We believe the amendments will clarify these two sections of the code. Staff would like to emphasize that if the proposal is approved by the PEC, certain code references and specific wording may be adjusted when the memo is changed into ordinance form. • c:lpecltovlextalt.309 • 16 . Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark /Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these corridors where feasible and the creation of new .ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system _ I. SUN /SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures sub- stantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of summer days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby . negatively impact uses of those areas. _ All new' or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the springn and fall shadow attern (March 21 r _: through Sept. on adjacent properties or the public R.O.W. In all building construction, shade sha ,1l be considered in massing and overall height gonsideration. Not- withstanding, sun /shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. • �umme�svr� 5 riffs ��af{ " 5�rir�,��Qi( Son �ctN ar���e�50° �o 4 10 Additions to existing buildings may be created in several ways to avoid extending shadow patterns. • il So le — or r1004 11 i '\ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. COMMISSION �•~� March 23, 1992 AGENDA 11:30AM Site Visits 1:OOPM Executive Session Legal Matters 2 :OOPM Public Hearing Site Visits 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 5. Public Hearin A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5 -A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit for the Vail Mountain School, 3160 Katsos Ranch Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Andy Knudtsen A request for setback and site coverage variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: G & S Partnership Planner: Jill Kammerer Review of Planning and Environmental Commissions in other communities. Presenter: Susan Scanlan Letter to U.S.F.S. concerning the Air Resource Management Plan. Presenter: Susan Scanlan v. 40 Alice Bixsby The thought of P &Z addressing all environmental issues as well as the P &Z issues ,. horrifies her. The commission is able to make the environmental issues slightly less political by stepping away from the financially driven development issues and viewing issues from the public health aspect and the broader public good. _ The environmental issues tend to take a back seat to the dollar driven development .issues. - O &Z decisions require immediate answers and the group is given too much to do to be able to adequately address both aspects of the projects. Rudy Da)'!son - Planning and Zoning Chair En imnmental Commission is not a legislative body, P &Z is however. Environmental ComrrHssion makes P &Z aware of their positions, to date they have been in agreement on all Major issues. It would be a good thing if planning commission would have more interaction with environmentkboard. Wetlands and fireplaces are 2 major issues on which the boards have interacted. 11, Other Communities In an attempt to obtain a broad pict re of what is occurring in other communities, the staff also contacted City of .Boulder, Boulder C unty, Aspen /Pitkin County, Steamboat Springs, Snowmass Village, Craig, Breckenrid a and Crested Butte. All parties contacted indicated no separation ` between planning and envir mental issues. They are addressed by the Planning Commi Sion, Planning and Zoning Commission or a similar board. In most instances they function as our PEC does by reviewing a project and either approving or denying the project with or Vl lthout conditions. The results of the reviews are reported to the Town Council or Copnty Co i.missioners who may choose to review the "dec�siis )n s�rie of tfte srrialle communities t e Planning Board will made recommendations on projects to the Town Council or County Commissioners for their decisions. 1 \*_1 a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 23, 1992 Present Greg Amsden Diana Donovan Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Absent Chuck Crist Ludwig Kurz Gena Whitten Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Amber Blecker After an executive session, the meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at approximately 2:10PM. 1. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5 -A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the changes in the request since it was previously reviewed on March 9, 1992. The Commissioners and members of the public examined the plans. Paul Johnston, the owner and applicant, reiterated that the purpose of the request was to upgrade his property, while maintaining the maximum number of hotel rooms. He said he had done his best to cooperate with the requests made by the Town with regard to landscaping and other issues. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that the Association viewed the 1991 PEC approval for the Christiania as being supportable. However, the Association was very concerned with this project becoming a Special Development District. They did not view this project in a similar light as the Garden of the Gods, as it was not a complete demolition and rebuild, and did not believe it was appropriate in this instance as it would change the zoning. Jim continued. that the Association may support a series of variances, rather than an entire SDD, and that changing the request to variances should not alter the time frame for final approval, both being targeted for mid - April. In addition, Mr. Lamont believed the trash enclosure should be addressed with an interior solution, and that the streetscape around the property was not complete. He believed certain aspects of the approved Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 - Page 1 Streetscape Plan were not being addressed, specifically pavement treatment and street lighting aspects. He also did not believe staving the required landscaping for the project installed on Town of Vail land was appropriate. Mr. Lamont also addressed the Mill Creek Court Chute. He stated improved safety for this area should be dealt with, specifically recommending a 5 -8 foot sidewalk, at a minimum. Jim asked that he be given more time to speak with his Board, and that the streetscaping and trash enclosure be addressed more fully. Mark Matthews, representing the Mill Creek Homeowners Association, agreed with Mr. Lamont, in that he believed variances were more appropriate. The consensus of his Board was that they could not support a Special Development District proposal. Paul Johnston indicated that his proposal had taken into consideration, and complied with, a non- adopted view corridor in the area, and had worked in good faith with the staff. Kristan Pritz commented that a final solution to the issue of ownership and rights of Lots P -3 and J would be necessary before an appropriate solution to the Mill Creek Court Chute could be addressed. Diana Donovan stated she did not feel it was appropriate to hold up approval of the Christiania when the disputes and questions were not caused by him, nor would they be increased by this project. Greg Amsden commented that it appeared the Christiania had parking rights to Lot P -3, and that the addition of valet parking spaces, both on P -3 and on the applicant's property, met the additional parking generated by the request. He was not sure the garage was necessary, especially since it extended into the setback. He suggested eliminating the garage and using that space as the location for a dumpster enclosure. Regarding the issue of a sidewalk along the Mill Creek Court Chute, Greg thought it could be placed on the west side of the chute. On the question of whether an SDD was appropriate versus applying for multiple variances, Greg believed there would be a problem with requesting a variance for increased density, as he could see no hardship which would justify such a variance request. Dalton Williams read from a prepared statement as follows: "After reviewing this request, I am convinced that this project would be a positive addition to the Town of Vail. Certainly Paul Johnston continues to provide Vail with a fine family run lodge that greatly contributes to the ambiance of Vail. I also -believe that the proposed upgrade to the Christiania at Vail is positive for the community. In particular, I find the 'alpine architecture' to be attractive and in keeping with the image of Vail. The proposed streamwalk, landscaping and the upgrade to the property are positive steps that are necessary to keep Vail the premier resort we all want it to be. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 • Page 2 "While the request for an SDD is designed to allow flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use and public benefit, the PEC must find that by doing so, the positive aspects of a project are so clearly in the public good that they outweigh any negative impacts to the community. "Special Development District Standard C - Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. "The nonconforming section of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (Section 18.64.050(D)) states: 'Structures or site improvements which do not conform to the off- street parking and loading requirements of this title may be enlarged, provided that the parking and loading requirements for such addition shall be fully satisfied and that the discrepancy between the existing off- street parking and loading facilities and the standards prescribed by this section shall not be increased.' "The proposed site improvements under this SDD require an additional 6 spaces which, according to Section 18.64.050(D), must be provided before this project can be approved. "The staff discussion of 'grandfathered' parking is interesting but not compelling. If we are to accept any 'grandfathered' parking, then we must look at the number of spaces 'grandfathered.' "From the staff's review of the applicant's rights to parking space, it is evident that even though the Christiania has few parking spaces on their property, they recognized the need and acquired legal rights for parking under the terms of their Warranty Deed from Vail Associates on July 8, 1963, and acknowledged by the Town of Vail by the March 15, 1987 agreement between Vail Associates, Christiania -at -Vail, Inc., and the Town of Vail. "Although the Christiania has used the parking spaces on Lot J, what they have been legally entitled to use were those on Parcel P -3. Therefore, vehicles that were able to be parked on Parcel P -3 along with those which could be parked on the Christiania property are those which are considered existing spaces. "These then, clearly, may not be counted in satisfying any additional parking created by the proposed SDD site improvements." "I find that there is adequate precedent that the proposed SDD, with the addition of 6 valet parking space on Parcel P -3, does conform with Section 18.64.050(D) of the Town of Vail zoning code." Dalton also found the streamwalk a positive addition, and believed the overall proposal was an appropriate project to be reviewed under the Special Development District criteria. Regarding circulation for the project, Dalton felt the construction of a retaining wall along the • western edge of Parcel P -3 would "visually narrow" the Mill Creek Court Chute, thus creating a hazard. In addition, since the Streetscape Plan called for a sidewalk in this general location, he believed a sidewalk should be provided. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 • Page 3 • Finally, addressing the question of whether variances or the SDD procedure was more applicable, Dalton said that if variances were used, accommodation units could be lost, and that was against the best interest of the Town of Vail. Therefore, Dalton supported the use of an SDD in this instance. However, he advocated the installation of a sidewalk, as he found Mill Creek Court Chute to be impacted by this development. Paul Johnston said he would agree not to remonstrate against any Town solution to safety (i.e., a sidewalk) for the Mill Creek Court Chute. Dalton asked if that meant he would support and financially contribute to the construction of such sidewalk. Paul said he would support and contribute, but would not take total financial responsibility for such a project. Diana Donovan stated the Special Development District process is a tool to be used for unique circumstances, and was appropriate for the Christiania. She said it enabled the Town to retain the maximum number of lodge units in this circumstance. Regarding the sidewalk, she did not like having a retaining wall for Parcel P -3, and asked how the safety and access of this area could be addressed in the future. She said with so many unknowns, it would help to know how to" move forward. Larry Eskwith said it was up to staff to determine the fair contribution, and he saw difficulties in requiring this development to pay for the entire sidewalk. He believed a certain percentage would be fair and reasonable, but was not sure what that percent would be. Diana felt that the sidewalk was not tied to the project, but to the need for a retaining wall on Parcel P -3. If parking ended up on Lot J, then the wall and sidewalk would not be necessary. Greg Amsden said he did not think it was reasonable to expect to see the parking issue resolved in the near future, and that Paul's financial percentage for the sidewalk should be determined, since the current parking rights were on Parcel P -3. Paul Johnston offered to pay a 1/3 portion of the sidewalk cost. Kristan believed the Town could also pay 1/3. Jim Lamont was not sure how the East Village Homeowners Association would stand on the remaining 1/3 portion. Jim also stated the Christiania should be required to provide brick pavers on -site and off -site, a stone planter at the corner, and complete other items as required by the Streetscape Master Plan. He urged the Commissioners not to approve the SDD, as it allows too much development. In the alternative, he asked that language be added in the ordinance that no further additions could be constructed on this site. Otherwise, he was afraid the Christiania would ask for more every couple of years. Mike clarified that the Streetscape Plan did not call for a brick apron, but instead called for an edger, approximately 6 -8 inches wide, which could be constructed with pavers. Mike recommended the Commission act on the plan in front of them today, and then amend the SDD if and when the Lots P -3 and J parking issue is resolved. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 •.Page`4 Diana asked if Lot P -3 could support a wider planter along the retaining wall. Mike informed her the parking stalls were at the bare minimum now and could not be narrowed. Diana also believed the dumpster should be covered. Paul informed her the plans called out for a covered dumpster. Kathy Langenwalter supported a Special Development District for the reasons already stated. She said she was in turmoil over the dumpster, as she wanted to keep as much parking as possible, but also enclose the dumpster. Paul said that he was not at all comfortable wrapping the guest rooms around a dumpster, and did not believe that had been done in other projects in Vail. Kathy said she could support the project as proposed, with the stipulation Mr. Johnston pay 1/3 of the costs of a sidewalk. Dalton asked if the Town could require the Mill Creek Court Building to contribute 1/3 of the sidewalk costs. Larry agreed to work with the Council to resolve the issues. Kathy asked for the Design Review Board to have input on the streetscape issues, enclosure of the dumpster, the concrete edging of the pavement, lighting in the area and the planter. Larry said all that could be addressed as part of the design review process. Dalton Williams moved to recommend approval of the request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5 -A, Vail Village Fifth Filing, per staff's memorandum, with the inclusion of applicant's offer to contribute 1/3 the cost toward construction of a sidewalk on the Mill Creek Court Chute. The sidewalk request was warranted and mitigated under criteria C and G of staff's memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter asked that the motion be amended to add that the Design Review Board further develop the landscape plan in the area of the dumpster, coordinate the elements from the Streetscape Plan (specifically the street edging, lighting, and planter treatment and size). Diana Donovan asked to further amend the motion to add that placing aspens in the planter along the retaining wall on Parcel P -3 be investigated. Dalton so amended his motion, and Greg seconded the amendments. The recommendation was unanimously passed, 4 -0. In the interests of time and audience participation, item 3 was next reviewed. 3. A request for setback and site coverage variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village_ 8th Filing_ Applicant: G & S Partnership Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the request, which included the construction of a new third floor on the east end of the existing structure, the removal of an existing bay window, and construction of a new bay window on the north facade, construction of a garage, the removal of existing trash/storage enclosures on the west, and the removal of a portion of a cantilevered second floor bedroom on the south. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 • Page 5 . Kathy Langenwalter asked for more specifics on the wall changes in conjunction with the bay window. Jill answered, and Steve Riden, the appl'icant's representative, further explained additional questions by the Commissioners and audience members. Tom Steinberg, a neighbor, indicated he believed the proposed bay window on the north elevation helped break up the back wall of the house. Flo Steinberg disagreed, stating that blank north wall of the residence was supposed to be blank, and that a flat picture -type window would serve the same lighting purpose in terms of letting light in as would a bay window. After a review of the plans, with an informal discussion between Commissioners, staff and the audience, Jill clarified that a 425 sq. ft. GRFA credit was permitted on this lot, even though it was zoned Primary /Secondary, because the lot size was less than 15,000 sq. ft. If the applicant desired to construct a restricted secondary unit on the site, he would be eligible to obtain another 425 sq. ft. of GRFA. Diana Donovan commented that she believed this addition was an upgrade for the neighborhood. Kathy asked for clarification of how architectural projections were viewed under a setback variance request, and if the extent of the encroachment approved under a setback variance was measured to the foundation wall or to the projection closest to the property line (i.e., a . roof overhang). In other words, she wondered if an architectural projection could be added to a wall which encroached into a setback. Kristan Pritz stated that the variance was approved, based on the submitted drawings with the variance application. Kathy could not support the variance requested for the north elevation, as she believed the bay window made the elevation worse. Steve Riden rebutted the rationale behind the staff recommendation to deny the rear setback variance requests for the bay window. Kathy responded that a golfer walking by would be 11/2 stories below the grade of the building, and consequently would be looking at 2 stories of stucco. She believed the north elevation needed to be softened, and agreed with the staff recommendation to deny the request for the bay window. Steve indicated the stucco would not be a smooth and monolithic finish, but would be a rough "Fred Flintstone" finish. Greg questioned, with the golf course to the north of the structure, who was impacted by the north facade. Kristan clarified that when a variance was approved, a specific set of plans was approved as part of that variance, and those plans included the applicable roof overhangs. Jill said it was the general policy of staff to measure the extent to which a building encroached into a setback from the building facade /foundation. However, with this structure, because of the extent to which the building encroached into the setbacks, there were instances where the roof encroached farther into the setback than the allowed 4 feet, as set forth in the Supplemental Regulations of the Code. The extent of the roof overhang was shown on the associated plans. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 • Page 6 • Kathy wanted the applicant to use whatever was available under the architectural projection section of the code to make the north facade more interesting. She further asked that staff use its discretion to determine what was appropriate. She also stated she was talking about something like an additional 6 inches of projection. Kathy reiterated that she could not support the variance for the north elevation as submitted. Kristan suggested, as an alternative, the PEC approve a setback encroachment of a certain distance in addition to the requested setback variance in order to accommodate architectural projections. Dalton Williams asked if an encroachment variance was granted to the end of a roofline (overhangs). Kristan indicated it was based on the submitted plans. Dalton continued that, if a variance was given to the overhang line, then the bay window did not require separate approval, as it was a lesser distance from the property line than the overhangs. Jill disagreed, stating that approval was given for a specific set of plans, and any additions or changes required an additional variance approval. Kristan agreed, stating that a greater roof overhang did not equate to an automatic variance for the bay window. Kathy said she could not find a hardship to justify supporting a variance for the bay window, but would like to allow 6" for relief from the blank appearance of the north facade through the use of architectural projections. Diana also could not justify a variance for the bay window, and reiterated that a variance was given for every projection, be it roof or wall. Greg Amsden agreed with that assessment, . finding no hardship to justify the bay window. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for setback and site coverage variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing for the east and west elevations, and deny the request for a setback variance on the north elevation per staff's memo with the finding that the requested variances met the criteria for hardship based on the existing building's location. In addition, a strong recommendation would be given to the Design Review Board to review the north elevation and allow the applicant to submit plans which encroached an additional 6 -8 inches to allow for "interest" and relief from the blank facade of that elevation. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, by a vote of 4 -0. After the vote, Flo Steinberg voiced concerns about notification procedures for adjacent property owners, as well as encouraging the Commissioners to be more consistent with their use of microphones during the discussions. 2. A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit for the Vail Mountain School, 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block-2, Vail Village 12th Fill ing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Andy Knudtsen Since the issues identified in the staff memo were explained to the Commissioners during site visits, they waived a presentation by staff. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 • Page 7 Dalton Williams moved to approve the request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit for the Vail Mountain School, 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing per the staff memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It was approved, 4 -0. 4. Review of Planning and Environmental Commissions in other communities. Presenter: Susan Scanlan A discussion was held between the Planning Commissioners and Susan Scanlan. Diana Donovan could not support another level of government at the Town level, but could maybe see an environmental commission of the type currently used by Telluride formed at the county level. Greg Amsden liked the fact that, in Telluride, 5 of the members of the commission were residents of the town, but 2 could reside in the county outside the town limits. He also favored the approach of the commission being a non - regulating body. Dalton Williams found himself changing his opinion toward the commission toward favoring the implementation of such an organization. He believed it could be a positive aspect of the Town process. • Kathy Langenwalter liked the fact the Telluride commission was a pro - active board, along with the fact they could review specific environmental proposals. Susan agreed, also favoring the fact that subcommittees were formed within the main group for research purposes on an individual issue. • Diana stated again she would still prefer to see such a board formed at the county level to address the general environmental issues. Kristan Pritz did not think there were a great number of projects in the Town which had large environmental impacts, citing those which had been received in the past few years. Kathy agreed, but stated those large projects had not had the environmental concerns addressed in the same degree of depth as those areas of the proposals which were more familiar to the Commissioners. 5. Letter to U.S.F.S. concerning the Air Resource Management Plan. Presenter: Susan Scanlan The consensus of the Commissioners was in favor of sending the letter as presented. After additional comments by the Commissioners regarding DRB procedures, and a request to staff to research an appropriate memorial for Arne Hansen, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:OOPM. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 23, 1992 • Page 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 �Rsdid illarbh ; f^ SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P -3, Block 5 -A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Planner: Mike Mollica 1. INTRODUCTION Paul Johnston, owner and operator of the Christiania at Vail, has filed a request for the establishment of a Special Development District, for his property located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road. The purpose for this SDD establishment is to allow for the expansion and redevelopment of the existing Christiania Lodge. The Christiania at Vail has an existing, Town approved development plan. This development plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 8, 1991. This approval granted a setback variance in order to allow for the expansion of the Christiania Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the S setback. This setback variance is valid until April 8, 1992. Subsequent to this PEC approval of the variance, the Design Review Board, on June 5, 1991, unanimously approved the final design for the Christiania redevelopment. This redevelopment included the expansion of the existing lobby, the addition of mechanical space beneath the lobby, and the addition of a new fourth floor, which included two new dwelling units. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's redevelopment proposal generally includes the upgrade and renovation of the existing Christiania Lodge, as follows: • The addition of a new fourth floor on the existing structure, which would consist of two dwelling units. • A general reconfiguration of the existing first, second and third floors of the Lodge, by reconfiguring accommodation units, adding dwelling units as well as common area. A total of 21 accommodation units and 3 dwelling units, comprising `t' ..,1:.177 sq. ft. of GRFA, is proposed. • The expansion of the existing Sarah's Bar, from 774 sq. ft. to 1,171 sq. ft. in size (an increase of 397 sq. ft.). • The construction of a garage which would provide two on -site covered parking spaces The garage would be located at the southwest corner of the building. Add�tdrta[ OBI =A would kre located 0var t oas twc, three: ............. s • • • The construction of 19l (surface) parking spaces, to be located an the adjacent Parcel P -3, to the north. This parking area would be surfaced with asphalt, and would be landscaped around its perimeter. • The restriction of one of the three dwelling units, according to the Condominium Conversion section of the zoning code. • The provision of one off-site, permanently restricted employee housing unit. • The construction of a walking path, along the east side of Mill Creek (this will require approval from Vail Associates, owner of the tract). The existing split rail fence, located adjacent to Mill Creek, would be removed, as would the approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area, currently used for parking and the trash dumpster. The relocation and enclosure of the trash dumpster,i'a' n€�El1w�torne Ghristinra p roper#. Additional landscaping would be added on and adjacent to the Mill Creek stream tract {rlthloYt'i owned key fail Agiate! and adjacent to the recreation path. The screen fence located around the swimming pool would be relocated onto the Christiania Lodge's property, (it is currently on the stream tract). Of the seven proposed fireplaces, six are proposed to be gas. The existing woodburning fireplace located in Sarah's Bar will remain woodburning. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. May 11, 1987 - the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve density and setback variances in order to allow for the construction of additions to the Christiania Lodge. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, no construction has occurred. B. March 6, 1991 - a redevelopment proposal which did not require any variance /PEC approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board (DRB). Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposed to add a new fourth floor to the existing structure to accommodate 2 new dwelling units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill Creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscape the eastern half of the northern parking lot (when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved), and to remove a portion of an existing asphalted area adjacent to the proposed Mill Creek walking path. C. April 8, 1991 - the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a setback variance for the Christiania Lodge in order to allow for the expansion of the Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the front setback area. D. June 5, 1991 - the Design Review Board unanimously granted final design approval for the redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge, as approved by the PEC on April 8, 1991. 2 F� I • IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Public Accommodation Site Area: 0.380 acres or 16,553 sq. ft. The following zoning analysis highlights the SDD's departures, from the PA zone district, by the use of bold type: Underlying 'Zoning A. Density (25 DUs per buildable acre: 1 DU = 2 AUs) 1�� AU GRFA ". DU f,RFA" C. Total GRFA* (80% of the buildable site area) D. Common Area (35% of the allowable GRFA) E. Accessory (10% of constructed GRFA) F. Office G'." Gress Arda *: H. Setbacks North /Front East Side West Side South /Rear 1. Site Coverage (55% of site area) J. Landscaping (30 %, of site area) K. Height JEAJ 9 DUs tJl1 N/A N1A` 13,242 sq. ft. (80 %) 4,835 sq. ft. (35 %) 1,324 sq. ft. (10 %) i91'1 N/A- 20 ft. all sides 9,104 sq. ft. (55 %) 4,966 sq. ft. (30 %) 48 ft. sloping roof/ 45 ft. flat roof Existing Project 2 DUs and 25 AUs 14.5 DUs 7'. R sq. ft. ( 4x:81, sq. ft. 00% 774 sq. ft. (10 %) 72 sq. ft. (approved by conditional use in 1989) 15' -0" 0' -0" 17' -0" 8' -6" (deck) 5,235 sq. ft. (32 %) 7,490 sq. ft. (45 %) 36 ft. sloping 1991 Approval 2 DUs and 14 AUs 9 DUs 12'A.2 24 sq. ft. 774 sq. ft. (6 %1 197 sq, ft. (approved by conditional use in 1989) [8,9J ,Aq.% 15' -0" 0' -0" 17' -0" 8' -6" 5,738 sq. ft. (35 %) 5,943 sq. ft. (36 %) 43 ft. flat 1992 SDD 3 DUs and 21 AUs = 13.5 DUs 7, X36q I!': sq. ft. M.M. 6,376 sq. ft. (48 %) 1,171 sq. ft. (8 %) 197 sq. ft. 2fl 574 -q' 15' -0" 0' -0" 10' -0" 8' -6" 0456. sq. ft. (39 %qj sq. ft. 44 ft. flat L. Parking Spaces Required NIA 36 34 41 Spaces Required/ NIA 33 33 33 Non - Conforming * ** Spaces Provided NIA 3 3 25 * For comparison purposes, all GRFA calculations were completed using the Town's 1992 rinfinitinn of GRFA_ r* 0 *** 3 V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge will be compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project. We believe that the proposed mass and bulk for this structure is acceptable, given the existing footprint of the Christiania Lodge, and the adjacent Chateau Condominiums. The project would have a maximum height of 44 feet, which is just slightly under the maximum allowable height of the PA zone district. Additionally, the proposed height would also be within the acceptable limits as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, which recommends that this property have a maximum height range of 3 -4 stories in height (27 -36 feet, excluding roof). This project has been analyzed according to the proposed Frivolous Sals View Corridor. This view corridor was approved by the Town Council on first reading, on May 7, 1991, with the stipulation that any previously approved projects could be built, • even though they may encroach into the view corridor. At the time of first reading, it was anticipated that the Christiania redevelopment would encroach into this view corridor. Since the 1991 approval of the Christiania redevelopment, there have been some slight design modifications which would affect the proposed Frivolous Sals View Corridor. Changes to the roof configuration on the northwest corner of the Christiania Lodge would create an additional encroachment into the corridor. However, the northernmost portion of the building would be pulled out of the proposed view corridor. Overall, the staff believes the applicant's proposal is reasonable, given the fact that the Frivolous Sals View Corridor has not been formally adopted upon second reading. Although the proposed SDD would exceed the maximum allowable GRFA by 85 sq. ft., it should be noted that 1,741 sq. ft. of GRFA is directly attributable to "excess" common area. The common areas in the Lodge include the mechanical areas, the hallways, stairs, storage areas, lobby and hotel offices. It should also be noted that the residential part of the GRFA, which constitutes :6 sq. ft., is actually under the maximum allowable GRFA, as designated in the PA zone district. Please refer to Exhibit A for a detailed breakdown of the proposed GRFA. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Under the proposed redevelopment scenario, the applicant will be reducing the overall density of the proposed project by one dwelling unit. This is in contrast with the existing project, which has a total of 14.5 dwelling units. In summary, a total of three 4 • dwellinct units and twenty-one accommodation units are proposed with this SDD. As indicated in Section IV(D) of this memorandum, the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the provision of short term, overnight hotel rooms (accommodation units). The proposed Christiania SDD is in compliance with the definition of "Lodge ", in which "the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units." As further indicated in the attached Exhibit A, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units exceeds 59% of the total GRFA for the project. Because this SDD request exceeds the maximum allowable density for the PA zone district, the applicant has agreed to restrict the third floor dwelling unit according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the Town's zoning code. This section of the code includes rental restrictions and generally provides that condominium units shall be included in the short term rental market for certain periods of time. Staff believes placing the rental restriction on only one of the three dwelling units is acceptable because the applicant is reducing the overall density of the project by one dwelling unit (versus the existing project), and the fact that the GRFA exceedance is due to the overage of common areas. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to provide one off -site, permanently restricted employee dwelling unit. This unit would be the secondary unit in a primary /secondary residence owned by the applicant. The restricted employee unit will be located at 1184 Cabin Circle /Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Valley First Filing. Although this SDD proposal would provide four less accommodation units then the existing project (21 versus 25), staff believes that when the Christiania Special Development District is reviewed in its entirety, the project meets the SDD criteria. There are public benefits, such as the employee restricted dwelling unit, the Mill Creek walking path, additional landscaping, two enclosed parking spaces, a paved parking area, etc., which should be considered. We believe the project provides a workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity as described above. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. This SDD proposal calls for the addition of a two -car garage, (to be located in the southwest corner of the proposed addition), two surface parking spaces to be provided immediately north of the garage, ar�d two &urfce�xrkmgpade nrr)h of #fie IQbby Cori Site' Additionally, the applicant is proposing 19 vehe (surface) parking spaces on the adjacent Lot P -3, north of Hanson Ranch Road (please see the attached site plan). The proposed parking area on Lot P -3 would be surfaced with asphalt, would include landscaping around its perimeter, and a retaining wall on the west side of the lot. /j(hi' M SCgY the totai' nurtlber cif poposd parkin Spades wb'uld b 25 i✓ • Existing 1992 SDD Use # Spaces Rectuired # Spaces Required Accommodation Units: (25 AUs) = 16.4 Dwelling Units: (2 DUs)= 4.0 Accessory (Sarah's Lounge): 6.0 Realty Office: 0.3 Christian Chateau Townhomes: 9.0 Sub -Total 35.7 Grandfathered Spaces -32.7 Grand Total 3.0* (21 AUs) - 15.6 (3 DUs) W 7.0 8.5 0.8 9.0 40.9 -32.7 8.2 W 9.0 *The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 existing parking spaces. These three parking spaces are located on the Christiania Lodge site and are considered legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required front setback. In summary, this SDD requires that a total of 6 new parking spaces be provided on- :..: site. The applicant is proposing a total of parking spaces for the project, 1',d ::. Vflpil. are reV. However, the proposed parking plan deviates from the parking requirements of the PA zone district as follows: 1. The parking is not provided :Mi'C yon -site. 2. 75% of the required parking is not located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. 3 Ttte Vin, +e'urfae paring spces vlrptali'e localed witfa� the front The Christiania is technically 32.7 parking spaces short, as required per the zoning code. However, the proposed SDD will meet the incremental increase of required r. parking with the P -3 parking lot, t1 sits valet paC��I�1�Jt.:prdd5ederp; hov�eyer*� thrsrtanernet `has hfll beet t�ffiGtli.rh�?tlized t tl�e Tcwrt.: Uiven the siting of the existing Christiania Lodge, and the fact that the applicant has a perpetual easement to park on the adjacent Lot P -3, staff believes the applicant's proposed parking scheme is acceptable, and will be an improvement over the existing parking configuration. Also, according to Section 18.52.060 of the Town's Zoning Code, "the Town Council may permit off -site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet of the use served ". This provision only applies to unenclosed parking spaces. `Ii1 • 6 • Loading: The existing Christiania Lodge has a requirement for one loading berth. No loading berths are currently provided for the Lodge, and the loading requirement is considered "grandfathered ". The proposed redevelopment of the Lodge does not increase the loading non - conformity, as the new proposal also has a requirement for one loading berth. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P -3, does require that the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P -3, and also allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute ". However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing public loading and delivery spaces along Hanson Ranch Road. The loss of one public loading /delivery space in the Village Core is not a positive change and it is a major concern to the. staff, however, we. acknowledge that the applicant does have a right to safely access Lot P -3. To mitigate the loss of the one loading /delivery space, the applicant will provide a loading /delivery berth on -site (adjacent to the dumpster), for use by the Christiania. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. It is staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges, the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open space. This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by the addition of 7 new accommodation units (versus the 1991 approval) and by improving and expanding the existing lobby and bar areas, while generally complying with the Town's site development standards, ex es noted �n the emo,. Additionally, the proposed Mil! cept m Creek pedestrian path will enhance open space for use by the public. The following is a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies which relate to this project: GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working -in cooperation with the Town. 7 is 1.3.1 Objective: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for snort term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life'and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector_ 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. • 3.4 Obiectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS_ AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. The Vail Village Master Plan sub -area concepts which directly relates to this redevelopment proposal are Concepts No. 3 -8, Mill Creek Streamwalk, end GOncpt N� ? 1,hf'isartialV?± td Aria: #3 -8 Mill Creek Streamwalk A walking only path along Mill Creek between Pirate Ship Park and Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. #? �.. tti'hsti' niafVAStud <Are�€ The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this proposal through Sub -Area Concept No. 8: "Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." The Vail Village Master Plan and The Urban Design Guide Plan both call for the construction of a pedestrian path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village area. Even though the Urban Design Guide Plan calls for the path to be located on the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash room for Cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasant area . to walk through. 9 In further support of the above sub -area concepts, the applicant has committed to remove approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage, is located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property. This proposal was reviewed according to the recently adopted Streetscape Master Plan. There are no specific streetscape concepts which apply to this site, Wq E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district Is proposed. There are no natural and /or geologic hazards which would affect this property and/or redevelopment proposal. The project is also located out of the established 100 -year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. . The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the Lodge. Currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to an encroachment of the southwest corner of the building into the 20 -foot setback. The existing rear setback is 8' -6 ", as the existing Sarah's deck projects 11' -6" into the 20 -foot rear setback (see attached site plan). An existing legal, non - conforming east side setback of zero feet results from the Christiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. By adding a new fourth floor, 44 square feet of additional GRFA will be added into the side setback. t: stbck. Because the zoning code and the Vail Village Master Plan both encourage the construction of covered parking, and the fact that this portion of the site is very heavily screened from adjacent properties, staff is able to support the applicant's request to further encroach into the required 20 -foot setback. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. The proposed Christiania redevelopment will have a minimal impact on the existing vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems adjacent to the Christiania Lodge property. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P -3, does require that the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P -3, and also 10 • • allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute ". However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery spaces along Hanson Ranch Road. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. As indicated on the attached site plan, there are some existing large, mature evergreens located very close to the existing Lodge. The redevelopment proposal calls for the removal, and relocation, of hih§ of these large evergreen trees. The applicant has proposed to add htrie neuc� aspB»5 {"allp adjacent to the Mill Creek stream tract (to screen the on -site parking) and near the recreation path. Six new aspens (3" caliper) will be added adjacent to the front, or north, entry to the Lodge. To further open up the Mill Creek stream tract, the applicant has agreed to remove the existing split rail fence which is located Upon the Vail Associates' owned stream tract. The viiid: screen fence around the swimming pool will be relocated upon the Lodge's property, as it is currently located upon the stream tract (Tract E). required landscaping.) Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has proposed that the SDD redevelopment plan for the Christiania Lodge be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We believe that the Christiania redevelopment meets the criteria for the establishment of a SDD, as discussed above. The staff recommendation for the proposed establishment of a Special Development District for the Christiania Lodge is for approval. The applicant has incorporated the following elements into the proposed development plan: 11 • 1. The proposed dwelling unit, to be located on the third floor of the Lodge, will be restricted according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. • • 2. One employee dwelling unit, which shall be provided with a full kitchen (refrigerator, stove, sink, oven or microwave), will be permanently restricted as an employee dwelling unit, per Section 18.13.080(B)(10)(b -d) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment. 3. The applicant will obtain a revocable right -of -way permit from the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P -3 parking area. 4. Prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment, the Town Engineer must grant final approval for the P -3 parking design. The Town Engineer is concerned with the design of the proposed retaining wall adjacent to the Mill Creek Court "Chute ". A curb and gutter section may be necessary to accommodate drainage in this area. 5. The applicant has agreed that should any of the relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced with an 8 -10' evergreen on a one -to -one ratio. 12 � 0 � 0 lie Exhibit A GRFA and Parking GRFA 1. First Level 6 AUs = 1,932 sq. ft. Office (1197 sq. ft./250) 2. Second Level 7 AUs 4.ji! sq. ft, Sarah's Bar (1,020/15/8) 3. Third Level 8 AUs sq. ft. 1 DU = 551 sq. ft. 4. Fourth Level 2 DUs :#9 sq. ft. 5. Christian Chateau Townhomes Total GRFA::I.2-,- 7... sq. ft. Total GRFA: ft. Excess Common Area: f sq. ft. Grand Total: sq. ft. Total Density: 21 AUs and 3 DUs Required Parking 4.332 0.788 5.173 8.5 6.146 2.0 5.000 9.000 40.939 32.70 (Grandfathered spaces) 8.239 = 9 Required spaces AU GRFA = 7-7M. .": 3 sq. ft., or 59% of the total GRFA DU GRFA = 5 q sq. ft., or 41% of the total GRFA 13 ■ . Exhibit B Common Area First Level = 3,104 sq. ft. Second Level = 1,785 sq. ft. Third Level — 727 sq. ft. Fourth Level — 760 sq. ft Total: 6,376 sq. ft. c; r � f� Allowable GRFA = 13,242 sq. ft. x .35 (35 %) 4,635 sq. ft. 6,376 sq. ft. - 4,635 sq. ft. 1,741 sq. ft. - excess common (added to GRFA) 14 i ,7 E 71t . -,.j � L ail . ..: t 17Y! Ii. , ONYUP-Lo v J:. LTVA VINVusluma I I Lt it -tV 61. 71t . -,.j � L ail . ..: t 17Y! Ii. , I I Lt it 61. IN if-Ili, 'Ij I It I ire 71t . -,.j � L ail . ..: t 17Y! Ii. , 'Ij I 17--� U • F � jt Y 3' 11VA I V V1 VIISIHH� a c �1 1 � 1 I 1 t ti .4 E `i 1' . F F_ w IL • � 0 ..... . milli =, I III IMP QB 4 f r • � 0 OOVHOE03'iE6A ]1 V n ib"d J _ INF/ILSI�3Fi�_ - ' f E I I I 7 a 1 _ I � �t� I �t" f ..1� ^/ I f. +i ' 'I� � ri � 'I � � I I I _ ` E � lu•' 11 },�. if SI 4S cz IG � �..j'1:: _ i. 1. s,� I i i- +i• I -�I I- PI }���'� I �"�r"''. '! _ I. I �iil r � Ji •E �I� i .l�.i �I 13�' ��,���i�i''., 'r I _ .� -I - f S. �'� 5 I III'. '.iI !' d .ja;: i II li I -19 •.: I #`I I� - i � afar ��• f I rj t 1 CI I I: I'II 111' wj t' I h}t § � ' :T'ira �7 J44 I f PEi I.'. 11 ll' y'� : -,fi �'E ^'�:..�� I i.,i itFi - 1IIiI~t 1,11'r i5 III a '�i• f L - -"r!. ,'4'` i:��`� I f �;- '-?-I� � _ � J I I 7 - .i• �Ir� ' 7I `T"g.T I c7 del. l f�Il.i III I — 'j .1 III t III I �� I�I JI . j,1 it l tl l i 1 - I t Nr r I: v�I III CU w- I ' 1�1I 1 tf _ i � m I ; i r',..a� II, I. r- �I: ;lil �iY. .. it .: l I: I I� e i I : I, -I - proi _ I-.- }•'y T� 't!c"[ ^� .k�.:. !'., __ 'll.l l C1i4 !4 I kl! ,>j I'�; i��I Ll . .�� ' ,kr � v : I -I •: -. 13 i ���iii���,,��� '�� � -_� � I:I i rl I� ,mow. I:� 2 Ct �I p Y I I 1 .......... ?I '�f I' �il�,i.YYY444 II. !.•~ � �� I ' } ! i' �r'I I �, �. i . Y 0 � f- I. I� :L. I. 3 i i II � I �� _ !�I IfI I - ��I'���� In —� I I ! i I 111 II i �.a i • � 0 f E 1 oavt�azo3,'zn+� i f� �E r1� F _ rrrrrrra l —ca7a� UIYi�lri r w!l�ii ## ` r ay7 r rrrr r • � rrrclrarrw IM rauaw4r a rrr. 1 �A■ 771 I #Mill i# !�+ I iMrril r►+ rMirM _ ■M� .rr. i iwMi #u 'ir iiM MA M!i# 111 'iiii Mlr1 wtMww � 'wwii. wli ilirl iiirr' ■wiw� iwi� rae i I x I • Ell �i i A o©vao'100'WA TVA IV VINVIISINHO a:. 31 9 r. E � r Nmr i s 1J Y E a I c E F ►klYLk71 Yllttit�!!, 11 -EE:z I'll �I kil JJttJ ��lfl�ll t�it�tJtlt'ttOil 1 ..... .I ! 4 r f �q r 1 o©vao'100'WA TVA IV VINVIISINHO a:. 31 9 r. E � r Nmr i s 1J Y E a I c E F ►klYLk71 Yllttit�!!, 11 -EE:z I'll �I kil JJttJ ��lfl�ll t�it�tJtlt'ttOil 1 ..... .I "1 -4 • • j dj�� ��� �Il ; i io—a V- N 03- FD� 1 V-i' (o pI I L3 j IT, ra WE WEI oil, =1 ■ -PON • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit to expand the library and classrooms of the Vail Mountain School, 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3,r.:3ry;,'7::' ::x •gr ::Y'::.y.f'� :,:2..s ..£5. ,rgioi:'P,t':Ph"',G r `yf�'f�'}fl° c`<`r�- r,E I�`r". � :i3r.`., -6•. ":ffii'G�A,,:� f; 5r:.. r,; rdl pfi`..• ,i4'ci'�..;G/:rii•�• <':'�':r� -; r•.r.:�' :.,s::xf..:� .�.�: {; ,fi s: - ... ✓.:.. ,;:�� .fi.:v.:2.; , .; s,'.:�. r,�T:fi. . {f� . ;:'�` , . .,� s �.r� w 3rd.: . f'- :. {y.G„ .cw.i. ic•,;.y. ';$�. -3i. �{},....n ,., T;:�.: :.c• -:: .•o ,ary `. � zlr E v�2r%,�,.�.y.. i. `.' ��f H; J+ r< �' �r�Y:% .r'er3,'� %S'S`:�E'iCo..r'''�.: �y. r.,&}•.':'��:h��:t;•`,wL :y:..r :$$3}.u.. {:,.. ;AJ2?'. ::,G{....: ,. �.5, :a`7- <`•qLo :]......- ...:�+'�r•'' <o�CA.: ,� :,.r I/+a.x � /{}� .i. G %::.2 • .r %J; i'•: :,fi�:r .}.:k :S r n3.W>•4� /r. i. y'J''I:G:r L +. }��?-j� G{ 4 ir: v C$'.h'- ':L�i.r %F A`r fi: ' %ry�y ?•�.4.}R�,r 4 �rf• f. C 4�.{�C; .'$ %n%:Ak.:. ..:fW ?�rr.rGSBN? r.•:f/ �: r'vn'$' .. �+:Ir r .�•':..:;7.:.� :.;G.:ki�;. t.}.:E"/. /F' fit! F r ?; �:�CG. ;:yr : -.� y�•�' �'!;, ar.Gn.,., ''Yf'f$' u-:' . rF. G..�� {'�'•- �. :.r3:Y..:: �4.r... rrS�. . A F'r....�: .<:r:..,�..g? .,.�.c; f -.}::. .,t}•. .4:1�A. ffFr.... I.£3f,r,�.:::�.f3�.' :.r: r..9} .. �'?�N.; :, f,�.�:...,s;; ?�- ,r:�.�. {�. } tF. ,4, "sn:g:''3y''y.:3G. �{ `' r }�f. .:r�r$•.�.i}•. :i'r � +'s.: Fn4n �. �... rv. h..: G:+c:!' if�i. 5} isdi': v: �'ri�lkCi ✓:{" /$�ihlrw��iWA�:��i 4'.a'�li.'v': +ACV w�Fr} P: J�: 3.+' �G��I��n�w' W+ G�v:..l �. �RI Mrv' 4rw' rngQ:{ �:$' �: :C }r�J:u..'`xli.�i�.•.4C.✓ /.vvF I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Mountain School is proposing a two -story expansion to the east side of the school. Both the first and second floors will be expanded by approximately 345 sq. ft. for a total of . 690 sq. ft. of floor area. The first floor space will be used as a library and the second floor space will be used as classroom area. The applicant proposes to replant 2 evergreens, which will need to be transplanted, to new locations adjacent to the addition. All of the materials used for the addition will match the existing school. The school is located in the Agriculture and Open Space zone district, which lists schools as a use requiring a conditional use permit. An expansion to an existing use also requires conditional use approval. The proposal requires a site coverage variance as it exceeds the standards for the Agriculture and Open Space Zone District. The zoning allows a maximum of 5% site coverage which, for this property, is 13,334 sq. ft. When the gymnasium was added to the school in 1989, the Town approved a site coverage variance which resulted in a site coverage of 7.93% or 21,164 sq. ft. Not all areas of the approved plans were built, resulting in a current site coverage of 20,143 sq. ft., or 7.55 %. This addition, if approved, will bring the site coverage up to 20,487.98 sq. ft., or 7.68 %. Below is a breakdown of the site coverage: Site Coverage: 13,334 sq. ft. or 5% 20,487.98 sq. ft. or 7.68% Existing School: 19,228 Historic Cabin: 914.0 Proposed Addition: 345.0 20,487 or 7.68% In the future, the school would like to do another expansion to the front of the gymnasium. This would actually be Phase III of the larger remodel proposal approved in 1989. According to the applicant, no other expansions are planned for this property, other than this project. If the school can raise funds, they would like to purchase a home in the Booth Falls neighborhood for a headmaster or possibly construct one on vacant land in the area. If pursued, any proposed construction of this nature would occur off the school property. please note that all of the materials on the addition will match the existing school. Attached to this memo is a list showing the number of enrolled students at the Mountain School for the past 5 years. Enrollment figures show a recent increase, since the gymnasium addition was completed. Staff understands from the Mountain School that their policies do not allow more than 16 students per class. With 13 grade levels, the resulting maximum enrollment is 208 students. The library and classroom addition will not directly increase enrollment or number of teachers. One of the reasons the Mountain School constructed the gymnasium was to retain students in the higher grade levels. The trend reflected over the past five years of enrollment is a result, the Mountain School believes, of meeting their goal of retaining students through the higher grades. The Mountain School believes the current facility and number of teachers can accommodate the maximum number of students they would allow. This addition does not affect their standards for maximum enrollment. H. BACKGROUND . Below is a list of each of the requests the Mountain School has made to the Town of Vail. The approval made in February, 1989 is the first one to involve a site coverage variance. 1. October, 1978 Original approval, 110 students allowed; 2. November, 1979 Expansion for lunchroom and darkroom; 3. October, 1981 Town approved release of deed restriction, allowing more than 110 students; 4. October, 1983 Town approved construction of soccer field; 5. 1984 Town approved addition for computer room, language lab and kindergarten room; 6. January, 1988 All deed restrictions lifted from property; 7. February, 1989 Major expansion approved, (later broken into three phases). This includes the gymnasium, a third floor expansion of classroom area and a lobby located south of the gymnasium. The gymnasium was the only phase to be constructed from this 2 • approval. This request involved a site coverage variance, a front setback variance, and a conditional use. 8. March, 1991 Conditional use for third floor classroom re- approved by the Town; 9. March, 1992 Conditional use approval of third floor classroom space is extended; 10. March, 1992 Expansion of library is requested, requiring site coverage variance and conditional use. III. ZONING STATISTICS Zoning: Agriculture and Open Space Lot size: 6.122 acres or 266,674.3 sq. ft. Required/Allowed Proposed Setbacks Front: 20' 90' Side: 15' 100' Side: 15' 570' Rear: 15' 142' Height: 33' 27' Parking: Determined by PEC 84 (no change from existing) for private school use Site Coverage: 13,334 sq. ft. or 5% 20,487.9 sq. ft. or 7.68% Existing School: 19,228.9 Historic Cabin: 914.0 Proposed Addition: 345.0 20,487.9 or 7.68% IV. CONDITIONAL USE 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: • 3 A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed expansion to the school meets the intent of the development objectives, in staff's opinion. The purpose section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District calls for parks and schools "provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open." Staff believes the 7.68 % site coverage proposed by the school (leaving 92.32% open) meets the "predominantly open" objective. 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 should not change. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The applicant does not propose to change the parking layout or access plan. There are currently 84 parking spaces on the site. The parking lot is accessed from Katsos Ranch Road, with one -way traffic flow, exiting onto Booth Falls Road. There is no direct access onto the Frontage Road. This is the design staff and PEC reviewed and supported in 1989 when the applicant was requesting the three phase expansion to the school. Staff believes this plan provides safe, functional access and parking for the school. The number of parking spaces needed for the facility to function is not expected to increase, as the number of teachers and students is proposed to stay the same. The zoning code does not list private schools specifically in the off - street parking and loading requirements. For any use not listed, the parking requirement is to be determined by the Planning Commission. Staff believes the existing parking lot is adequate, given the nature of the expansions proposed, and that additional students and staff are not proposed. 0 4 4. Effect upo�the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The character of the neighborhood will be impacted very little, if any, from this proposal. The addition is designed to be built between the existing facility and the historic cabin. Because of the steep slope of the hillside and rockfall barrier immediately north of this portion of the site, the proposed addition will not be visible to most of the neighborhood. The exterior appearance of the addition will match the existing building and should not negatively impact the character of the surrounding area. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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 is health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. n LJ 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The relationship between the neighborhood and the school will not be significantly changed, in staff's opinion, with the addition of approximately 345 sq. ft. of site coverage and 690 sq. ft. of floor area. Particularly in light of the W i. i � r . fact this addition is proposed to be located in a pocket of open space surrounded on three sides by existing structures, staff believes the neighborhood will be impacted very little. There are — spruce trees which will need to be transplanted because of the addition. The applicant has agreed to transplant them to locations in the vicinity of the new addition. • 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes this request is consistent with previous decisions made by the Town. In 1989, Town approval was given for a 7.93% site coverage. Because of the phasing of the project, this amount of site coverage has not been constructed. Staff believes it is acceptable to shift the location of site coverage to this particular location which is partially screened from the surrounding neighborhood. The 7.93% variance approval is not exceeded through this proposal. 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. As discussed under the conditional use criteria, staff believes there will be very few impacts on transportation, traffic facilities, or other criteria listed above. Staff believes the current layout of the parking lot and automobile circulation functions well, and that the proposed expansion will not effect these. Because there is no increase in the number of students or teachers, staff does not believe there is a need for additional parking spaces or a change to the parking lot design. The project is protected from rockfall hazard by the recently constructed berm per the Town's hazard ordinance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 0 r 1 U 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation 'or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance and conditional use permit requests with the condition that the trees that must be transplanted, be moved to locations that are within the vicinity of the proposed addition, and that the new locations be approved by staff prior to the relocation. Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria, as discussed above. Staff also believes the proposal meets the findings, as specifically identified below: Conditional Use Staff believes that Finding B 1 is met, as the proposal meets the purposes of the zone district in which the school is located. Finding B2 is met in that the operation of the proposal will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Finally, staff believes that Finding B3 is met because the proposal complies with the applicable standards of the zoning code. Variance Findings Staff believes the proposal meets the findings for a variance, specifically Finding B1, that granting the variance is consistent with past decisions of the Town, and there is no grant of special privilege; and Finding B2, that the proposal will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare; and, finally Finding B3(a), that this variance is warranted because the strict interpretation of the site coverage requirements in this zone district would result in a practical difficulty. Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the variance and conditional use approvals shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion. . c,,*c\memos\mtnsch.323 7 MAR 19 '92 15:10 Vail Mounfain School P.1 i M Andy Knudtsark Community yclopE mmt FROM: S= Fisher Wce Adi ninistrattor . ,DATE: M=b 19,1992 RE; E malbneat ftwes Following are the figures that Pat Hopkins requested be sent to you. Should you have any ques0m, please do not hesitate to wuMd we at the number bdow. 1987-1988 161 students 1988-1989 1:70 students 1989-1990 180 students 1990-1991 185 students 1991 - 1992 186 students 3160 KATSOS RANCH ROAD * VAIL, COLORADO 81657 f (303) 47"860 `,�..�� k�� � 3Y•. �+�, _' .� �l A��`�at�.�� ii iR-F P 3 iC. - L� � F F .4 -, ;r t.y,}• i-- ~F�3-�ea: -o:. "3.' �c�', ARM k' � s�G�i T � Y��.. 5,:.'+-tic _ �ia,''�pr SSA ,rFc �.�'���r �', "r�`�a 9�`�y ^ti''�� �''�•s •fit x � I� �i i. j Wit.. ��'�'� ( ? _ `k :� "• ',. 8 ce 1 y, �i ti. i ,s,e EIS•' ::yy :.'�4y+?� tti !' µ9i 5 °�" >ss ".lS7+C.�d c a� ,k..c P A �, ♦� '� - t : �'ri i� �'4.ry ��i � 3 i �}' s } a= A•F� +!'� �' - - e' �'7 '�. - ��'f r i' P Y'y `w ,'k, '1rs R'r z 't�'� d ��� '' a 4 • Y— I { ' �ir'r1a' mss+ _}'` } '+•�qt >rii'4 r5 a z i w.� $ i..+- 3 '; - °yam. (�r�ti. ow Y. � Tr,��;',��'#.�a`i, y'1�s cg ♦ys� i i � 4 �� -f�, i.:e �cF, rl','�1'ti't1• r tii _n� r 'rL`3 3 ;'* yt -0'SI- t T^ie is °� r k'a 9,K7� }•✓!V,{ ;�rF # :;a ,�:.�� 5� '�F-4 y}'fJ. �'r.1�r ''- - (r` � - _ -,;r '"y A 5 ,�.a� S � y's �y %t -r.'F 7":' rr: •i >. s. i �''` t 3 +"!� 4 Fis�r •� T a k * s.���F &a c r�'S.i6t � V r �i., i� M i �'rrxi b 0 • � 0 H N r 0- • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for rear, east side and west side setback variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village Eighth Filing. Applicant: G and S Partnership Planner: Jill Kammerer • 4:4:ir } r: «. r ;::sr: 'LCS;k:i'G: Y..;rpr:,r <sFFyv v:• Y- xe.•���` :`- ?"i..'����: �oX- iu$'i:.:.- r?.:,`�'v {:r'rr r2E' B�S: i�. �:-;,'. :�:���3:g:•'z "•J:G•'.Y,rh�'�• %: r ^:;475: ,fro-F;•':, :.:': h, •If.��: ,� -� }. �- f.:#` r.: 31:?�e':;-�r��f,'r!F,`•'f...G.- .r} .3��� f.. r,},,... .�:.;sf� <�u :TI�- r.'ot•a.•.ar -:r �..r 'F;'ASC.rY.�/�`•� - r, rd .',Jl•d:F•.;,ar:... ?.,4'.rs.:nF Yrr'f}:r .:9C {..S �'�yffi.. `.S4C .. f r�'rv4��e .if 4�Y.::+i:i C4 C4.06.44i t.: }f4iysv 4i'.{id,:v' ^�.i r'ryiri �4'C£ {.SIC }vY:,: J.l'rJ,rl..y p;y3.4 b� :� r/G.`r sO r. �dS:rf'-C-ilh.��.5}.4�p.ryO .Q4' 4U.4 rpr:r .' :' »i.��ri:C �rriirJrr/• .; 'u �r .?`E' #.. :.,c:r�.}�.,. :. • r3 ,,;i:::.:6.;r,:.4¢: }...r..r•:.• : r.:., �, 4: r�. �o: C,; �4s: 4:. r ::•4x5:r:4:r. :...:.•r:r:R.c��.. .,.FG..h: �:,G.,.•s•r• :rN „";O:r �:r�rr:r: .F ., .:.;:E{ }�?�.`d$::r�i -.f: '�'b.r,�:rJ, «.:y : r., �r�.' 3..,.,,., r:.. a.: r ..rr�r;.4?;r ?;w.FF <:�r�;o..4:.: r :r:�•r:- r�:..�r�rr..��.<.:�i�s� :u•.2y: ..b•:a�vl:f.�.: "wYr�y ::8:<.s:c... :, >�- ;r:.r.•.ac �1�:: $�.0 : :L }'; .. r: ...$':�F�` q i':.1 ..;/1.;.4: 'f..:�i15:i'.v'�.:: FF }:-n� %vr r..:x :. w.;}r._ry:r.. w.V:]'.... :��I;:. r.r.� : r.} r�i.•'•.. :.:..:.:...c:.yu'.:,.:.?:.�r. <5 .',•' �; fi; s�,':'::::,`, U".{.:. C: �i,. n. lv.i�:4iii:Ci�YS }SJ:.'::'.::vvv Ftff.;: }: �iF:':;:.::,:.0 r.:.. ^..:?��f ��::::.w:.o.::i.1.:�: A: r:,.-:::::. bi.. i.:C t4. �i/ r� :�r:.:r:..:.v...w:4:1�.1.�h::.. nUnb..S'f..:C :4.... F.f :rr DESCRIPTION OF THE SETBACK VARIANCES REQUESTED The applicant proposes to totally remodel the interior of an existing single family residence. Under the redevelopment proposed an additional 288 sq. ft. of living area will be added to the residence. Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area ( "250 Ordinance ") will be utilized in order to allow this addition to be constructed. so Under this redevelopment proposal, site coverage would be reduced by 91 square feet. However, in order to construct the modifications to the residence as proposed, the applicant must obtain rear, west side and east side setback variance approvals. A. Rear Setback Variance 1. BaV Window: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 1 foot by 10 foot bay window which encroaches 6 feet into the required rear setback and to construct a new 1'/2 foot by 10 foot bay window in the area immediately west of the bay window to be removed. The new bay window would encroach 6 feet -6 inches into the required 15 foot rear setback. Therefore a 6 foot -6 inch setback variance is reauired to allow this bav window to be constructed, resulting in an 8 foot- 6 inch rear setback. 2. Third Floor: The applicant proposes to construct a new third floor on the eastern end of the existing structure. This new third floor area will not encroach further into the required 15 foot rear setback than the 5 feet the existing structure encroaches. However, because the proposed construction would increase the amount of development within the required rear setback, a_rear setback variance is required. f B. East Side Setback Variance �. Second StorLDeck: In addition to constructing the new third floor on the eastern end of the structure, the applicant proposes to construct a deck above the existing 1 st floor den (this den is the 120 sq. ft. bedroom which was approved to be constructed 5 feet into the required 15 foot east side setback in 1983) and add stone veneer to the exterior of the building. In adding the stone veneer to the exterior of the structure, the building will encroach an additional 6 inches into the required setback. Therefore the building-will encroach 5 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot setback, resulting in a 9 foot -6 inch setback. Other changes to the east facade of the structure under this proposal include the removal of a 2 foot by 10 foot solarium, which currently encroaches into the east setback. The net result of the removal of this solarium will be the elimination of an existing encroachment into the east side setback. No further changes within the east side setback are proposed. C. West Side Setback Garage: The applicant proposes to remove existing trash /storage enclosures, a portion of a cantilevered 2nd floor bedroom and a carport which currently encroach into the west side setback. The applicant further proposes to construct an addition to an existing one car garage in order to allow the garage to accommodate two automobiles. In order to expand the existing garage, the applicant must obtain a west side setback variance. The net result of all of these modifications to the southwest corner of the structure will be the elimination of the carport, trash /storage enclosures, and cantilevered bedroom west side setback encroachments. The proposed garage expansion will encroach to a lessor extent than do the existing trash /storage enclosures and the carports. However, the garage expansion will encroach 2 feet into the reauired 15 foot west side setback resulting in a 13 foot west side setback. Changes to the landscaping include the relocation of an existing aspen and the installation of four new ten -foot tall (2 inch caliper) aspens to the southeast corner of the site. II. BACKGROUND The residence was constructed in June of 1976. At the time the residence was constructed, the required side and rear setbacks were 12 feet -6 inches. PEC approval was obtained to allow the structure to encroach 2 feet -6 inches into the required west side and rear (north) is property lines resulting in a 10 -foot setback from the north and west property lines. 2 In general, the staff recommended approval of the 1976 variance as the proposal would not impact any adjacent structures, and would also respect view corridors. It was also felt that the locati0n of surrounding residences and the small lot size created a situation that warranted the variances. In May of 1983, the PEC approved site coverage and east side setback variance requests in order to allow the construction of a 120 sq. ft. bedroom addition east of the existing residence which encroached 5 feet into the required east side setback. At the time this east side setback was granted, required side and rear setbacks were 15 feet. Therefore, the resulting eastern side setback was 10 feet. Under this approval, site coverage was exceeded by 178 sq. ft. In 1983, even though staff recognized there were special circumstances associated with the lot, the staff felt that there were other locations that would allow for the construction of the bedroom within, or at least closer to, the required setbacks and recommended denial of the requested east side setback variance. The PEC approved the request with two members voting against the variance. In July of 1986, the PEC approved rear and west side setback variances and a site coverage variance request in order to allow the construction of a living room addition which encroached 5 feet into the required ,15 foot rear setback and a 2nd floor cantilevered bedroom addition which encroached 1.5 foot into the required 15 foot west side setback. Under the 1986 approval, maximum allowable site coverage was exceeded by 366 sq. ft. Based on the 1992 Improvement Location Certificate which has been submitted with this application, the 1986 living room addition was constructed per the approved plans. However, as constructed the living room addition encroaches 2 feet into the eastern side setback. Please note that under the redevelopment proposal to be reviewed today, this 2 foot eastern setback living room encroachment will be removed. The final setback encroachments which need to be discussed are an existing 6 foot -6 inch rear setback bay window encroachment and west side trash /storage enclosures encroachment of 10 feet. The Town does not have any records regarding the review or approval of either of these additions. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Site Area: 0.2140 acres /9,322 sq. ft. GRFA • Allowed: 3,006 sq. ft. (Includes 250 Ordinance) Existing: 2,718 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,006 sq. ft. Increase Under This Proposal: 288 sq. ft. 3 Site coverage (20% of site area) Allowed: 1,864 sq. ft. Existing: 2,283 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,192 sq. ft. Decrease Under this Proposal: 91 sq. ft. Height Allowed: 33 ft. Proposed: 33 ft. Setbacks Front Required: 20 feet Existing: 49 feet Proposed: 50 feet *West Side Required:. 15 feet Existing: 5 feet Proposed: 13 feet `East Side Required: Existing: Proposed: *Rear Required: Existing: Proposed: * Area of regt 15 feet 10 feet 9 feet, 6 inches 15 feet 7 feet 8 feet, 6 inches tested setback variances 1V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development recommends approval of the requested east and west side setback variances and approval of the rear setback variance to allow the construction of the third floor addition. Staff further recommends denial of the rear setback variance to allow the construction of the new bay window in the rear setback based on the following factors: 0 4 A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures In the vicinity. a. Rear Setback Variance: Immediately north of and adjacent to the rear setback line is a utility easement which is also used to provide pedestrian and golf cart access to the golf course. The requested rear setback variance, if approved, would not adversely affect the user enjoyment of the adjacent properties. When originally constructed, the PEG granted the necessary approvals to allow the structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 15- foot setback, resulting in a 10 foot setback. The existing structure currently encroaches 9 feet into the required 15 -foot setback. Through the removal of the existing bay window, and the construction of the new bay window, the building would encroach 8 feet, 6 inches into the required 15 -foot setback or would encroach an additional 1/2 foot than the existing situation. The Town has no records regarding review or approval of the existing bay window which is to be removed. The proposed new third floor addition on the eastern end of the building would encroach no further into the setback than does the existing building footprint. Therefore, the encroachment will have no negative impact on adjacent properties and would be merely an extension of the originally approved 1976 variance. b. East Side Setback: To the east of the existing residence is a Primary/Secondary zoned residence. As a result of adding stone veneer to the exterior of the existing structure the building will encroach an additional 6 inches into the required 15 -foot east side setback. The existing structure currently encroaches 10 feet into the required 15 -foot east side setback. Staff believes the additional 6 -inch encroachment into the eastern side setback will not negatively impact adjacent properties. C. West Side: To the west of the existing residence is a Primary/Secondary zoned residence. Under this redevelopment proposal the amount of encroachment into the west side setback would be decreased through the removal of the trash /storage enclosures, carport and the existing cantilevered second story bedroom. However, the garage expansion would occur in part in the required west side setback. The existing structure currently encroaches 10 feet into the required 15 -foot side setback. As a result of the redevelopment proposed, the structure would encroach 2 feet into the required 15 -foot setback. The encroachment will have no negative impact on adjacent properties. i • 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal Interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation Is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. a. Rear Setback Variance: Under this development proposal, the applicant is decreasing the amount of site coverage by 91 sq. ft. Any addition to the north, east or west would necessitate approval of a setback variance. For this proposal, staff believes that it is reasonable to consider the existing residence's location in the east side, west side and rear setbacks to be a practical difficulty warranting a rear setback variance for the third floor addition. It is staff's opinion that the original rationale for granting the setback variances is reasonable and still pertains to the proposal being reviewed, it is not a grant of special privilege to continue the setback encroachments. This degree of relief in the strict and literal interpretation of the code is appropriate and has been granted to other property owners with similar circumstances. The staff does not believe, however, there is a practical difficulty warranting the construction of the new bay window which would extend 6 feet -6 inches into the rear setback. b. E=ast Side Setback Variance: Staff believes it is reasonable to consider the existing residence's location in the setback to be a practical difficulty warranting an east side setback variance. C. West Side Setback Variance: As previously stated under the proposed development, the applicant will be decreasing the amount of encroachment into the west side setback. The amount of encroachment into the west side setback under this proposal would be decreased from 10 feet to 2 feet. The applicant has indicated the encroachment is necessary in order to allow the expansion of the existing garage to accommodate 2 automobiles. Staff believes that construction of this garage will improve the general appearance of the lot by allowing for interior storage of automobiles. This degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the code is appropriate. 9 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. With the exception of the addition requiring the transplanting of an existing large aspen tree, the proposed variances will have no major impact on these considerations. The applicant has agreed to relocate the existing tree to the southeast corner of the site. In addition to the transplanting of this aspen, the applicant will add four additional aspen to this same area. The previous variance approvals were based on the fact that the variances maintained separation between adjacent houses and also respected their views. Staff believes that this proposal will have no impacts on the factors above. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on Findings 1, 2, 3(a -c), the Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested east and west side setback variances and approval of the rear setback variance to allow the construction of the third floor addition. 0 7 It is felt that the setback variances are extensions of previous variances that were granted back in 1976. To require that the additions jog in and out in order to meet the current setback requirements is unreasonable. The setback variances do not greatly increase the bulk of the building or negatively impact adjacent properties. The proposal will not be a grant of special privilege, as this type of interpretation has been used with other properties. It is also felt that the existing setback configuration creates an unusual circumstance which warrants the variances. Staff further recommends denial of the rear setback variance to allow the construction of the new bay window in the rear setback. Staff does not believe there are any special circumstances or hardships which would warrant the granting of this rear setback variance. Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion. c:lpeclm emoslg rubbs.323 • • 3 U T I LI T Y EASEMENT gg.00 ' FND. REBAR g4' 25 02 E 0 N 62.9 9.0 , T � m Z 1. F �.0 - .I 10.0• BAY WINDOW o O O a O m l I N 42�z I a' TWO STORY WOOD FRAME � W HOUSE w 8.0 O1 N N N I 4.9 m N ; a O TRASH `n ` ENCLOSURE !2 16.4 39 j - I 27• l2.7 ' w %0,0 DECK U --- -- �. �-_ -.. --_ 10,5 W 'A 9.1 3.7 Z T DECK 0- o ���- _r 35. l 7 .. —� " - -- - ROOF OVERHANG , . gym. y4_t' '�11 4.7• I� BEAM CANT. O j PATIO ""' e.a �7�- -- - -` BEARINGS BEING S" DECK - 15• S 89° 55' S9" +/ FIND. PIN (RICHAROS) ROCK WALL i � —10' — 10 — { 1 I N I N g — M ill I ~ r ASPHALT -- DRIVEWAY --� O a ° O O LOT I ° j N GE 0.2140 Ac F 'ILING) i I�� 1031 EAGE-E'S NEST CIRCLE I WESTERLY EDG FOLLOWS EASE / PARKING EASE O I I 00 11 O W AI[ 0 cn W � a i w I ti°j 1 W �A = 45,0 1 � o= 86 °4 7'02 I • I LL 73 Id, u37 s 14�: ------------- 1, . ........ . . . ..... LL 17 • I C7 I • • I I � I - _73 1 -iJ z° 0 • /! 1 Fly -... - A ' 1 0 � 0 IL - -I -/1 780- �-, 0 it LI ® � 777 19 i • I• 10 M Qv� f i i I I f h I � Ali � Pik � � 1 I. i 17- .. C 1 .I � �� 1 F o-, IF L -1 . pmrr LA; Ll IF L -1 . pmrr LA; • it i rr 714 !R'�= 71_ � irrrw riwrrwrrr�rirrrwrrr'rr I!rw � ! iW3 L7--- f. LPi lq I 14 II 10% lo C' -'L � C' 1-4 TZ. 41 'ji af u Vu A4 13 �tJ IS `to -low MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department' DATE: March 18, 1992 SUBJECT: RESEARCH ON ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS ».'i4'{:;:;rv;rr �,r..C`'- 't�- ^:�?<P�'i:'yN.y:,: `s` -°.': 8� � �:�• ry: s'` :'.x.` > <:'L'r,+`.::�:di:�5:f:�; �' s. s GC•° "X3" I,_Y°''"Y,,:��ifv:'a; �:�r1,.'� .,ryr, o{c �L;.+,p- ,.o::- r ,qa ,r+r3vtir,:';s;;YFix':�i ��.n �a:::. }'�� {'r1'. 3 �F �ioE::� :�-r�fr.ryvY�� : 1.::.i�i: }•r'r r Zvi' fiS'.: �d':3':Fn-'�:rc+:'¢:- ':�8y::iti i� -f :�I.�' :A?�^.F -"'. I.v.A: f f-�� �! F iJ: :::r': -:.s• �.., cn..or:t.::!�•,.,.: �... {r.r :,.:. Co�ib..g:.:.:: o.F�'. -�^- ::�- '. o .:: C5^ �c[Ci;%i:::u,.o } <S•l.;`...�,rlr . dr'.5 �(;x .?�� .o `` :fi��o:�.o:.:.-r.:•::�. �'c ' fii :6f':i:i�:iF�:3:i�<'gfb }$�4�: <. �so tv i:r E'ri$ Si�4 `t: °@'�,.o,r�;'.'2: '0v��.. ;�>i�'���f� d �`��N.�.�� 'r }or:lf.:.•, {..;..:.r.:o .�rk. h.. r...o }RSt �:. �,,:.., rf.^ u3n[ �w: cm: �oa�rrrcxt5: s. :tiar�:�.r.,::..��:'�r:��:�k��• � - �ii,:'sL ` x F.o'N ?�..�r{� ?1c >tiviF -<r a�' ocvhvcD,c�Sr:x•:}}:: } }:r: }! }!-}:: The staff was recently asked to investigate the format and function of Telluride's Environmental Commission. In addition, the staff also contacted several other communities to ascertain whether environmental issues were addressed by a separate environmental commission or whether the addressing of environmental issues was the responsibility of the planning board. Telluride Environmental Commission A. Structure: The commission is made up of 7 members, 5 voting members and 2 alternates. The alternates are able to vote in those circumstances when all 5 voting members are not present for a meeting. They currently have one board member who is also a member of P &Z Board - not required. The Environmental Commission serves as an advisory board and does not have legislative power. - Five of the seven members must be residents of Telluride and 2 members may be county residents. - Members are appointed by the Town Council to serve a 2 year term. - The Commission as a whole meets once per month, but subcommittees may meet more often. - Quarterly joint meetings are held with the Town Council. - Budget of $4000 -$5000 annually to be spent at the Board's discretion for a variety of purposes. - The Town Clerk serves as Town Manager's representative to the Board - no vote. B. Issues Addressed by the Environmental Commission The Environmental Commission conducts research and studies into environmental issues for Telluride Valley, not just the city which is the reason for 2 county members on the board. - The Commission reviews landscape plans, drainage plans, etc. and recommends legislation to the Town Council. Currently they are working on the clean indoor air act, addressing slipping PM10 values in relation to air quality, water efficiency and wetlands. In the past the Commission has been responsible for a very restrictive no smoking ordinance (clean indoor air act), curbside recycling, woodstove ordinance, composting, landfill issues, C. J y logging and mining issues, and the development of energy and water efficiency' standards for new buildings. Interactions with Other Boards MR The Commission is responsible for reviewing a wide range of environmental issues both in conjunction with development projects and those not related to a specific project. They then make recommendations to Council based on their research and findings. The Commission functioning in this advisory capacity is able to work with the public to reach a concensus on issues to be presented to Council. The end result is streamlined presentations which require less Council time. They will also make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board on environmental aspects and impacts of potential projects. The Commission is also approached by the County, which has no environmental board, to address issues of environmental concern, such as wetlands legislation which has benefits for both groups. They are also attempting to educate the public about environmental issues. Comments from Environmental Board Members: The Planning & Zoning Board does not have sufficient time to adequately address environmental issues other than landscaping. The Planning and Zoning Board meets twice per month and spends 5 -6 hours per meeting addressing development issues. Through the Environmental Board the environmental issues are addressed early in the review process instead of at the end or as an afterthought. Kathy Greer -feels the Commission fills a need and since the Town Council and Planning & Zoning Board are very busy the environmental issues can be addressed early to give a consensus to Council who in turn is requested to spend less time addressing these issues. Would recommend a member of Planning and Zoning Board also be a member of the Environmental Board. Small budget allows them to help fund projects (small) such as the School River Watch, a program sponsored by State Water Quality Control Commission and the Division of Wildlife, in which kids collect data on the rivers in Colorado,Telluride Institute and a wetlands conference which they put on last year for developers, builders and environmentalists. Dyno Wall - Chair of Commission It is very useful to have a crossover person from the planning board on this commission. Commission is a great idea, it is very proactive in choosing projects and getting legislation on the books. P &Z is too busy to handle all of the projects. Serves as a middle step between the public and Town Council, Council wants to hear the Board's recommendations. •