Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 PEC 1026 thru 1214I 2. A request for setback variances, stream setback, and a site coverage variance at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a'trash enclosure, located on Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vary Village Seventh Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED 1 11, 1 3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade (family entertainment center) to be located at the Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing /141 - East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Tim Devlin 4. A request for setback variances to allow `construction of a deck at the Kandell residence, 4259 Nugget Lane ' as,' Lot 2, Bighorn Estates Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11. Applicant: Bob Kanell Planner: Tien Devlin 5. A request for a work session for variances for site coverage and setbacks to allow the remodel' of a residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village ` First Filing. Applicant: Howard' and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly Mello 6, Recommended steps for protecting community forest resources. Staff Jim Curnutte/ ussell' Forrest/Todd Oppenheimer 7`. Review of PBS video on an Dailey, selected artist for the Vail Transportation Center art project; 6. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 16.24 Commercial Core I and Chapter 13826 Commercial Core II of the Town of Vail zoning Code (relating to exterior alterations), Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED 11 2 that he was planning on removing those sections which infringed on his neighbor's privacy. It was the g eneral consensus of the PC that the variance requests should be approved and denied per the staff memo (the side setback encroachments were acceptable but the Gore Creek encroachment was not). It was suggested that ppLLaps the hot tub could remain in the Gore Creek setback because the zoning code allowed for recreational amenities to be placed in setbacks. It was left up to the DRB for final approval of the location of the hot tub and appropriate screening (landscaping) of the deck on the east. Dalton Williams made the motion to approve the side setback encroachments and to deny the Gore Creek setback encroachment - variance - requests per -the staff memo, with final location of the hot tub and screening (through landscaping) to be determined by the DRB. The motion was seconded by Jeff Bowen and was voted unanimously, - 0. 3. A request for a joint work session with the Design Review Board to review the proposed design of the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knu tsen Andy Knudtsen presented the request and the presentation boards of photographs, renderings, and drawings of proposals and reviewed the 5 different burial methods. Sherry Dorward introduced' Jack Goodnoe who is a cemetery planner. Sherry Dorward explained different cemeteries she had photographed and discussed • pros and cons of each o f the pictures. explained the M, •• ,. plans showing Vail Cemetery the road burial area and landscape buffering. Gred Amsden started the discussion with the concern about the amount of time for the proposal s to become a reality. He would like as much screeaing of the project, •on as possib PLANNING 0 ENVIRONMENTAL Co ISSIO E TI MINUTES - 12-14-92 5 M Tim Devlin presented the item to the Planning and Environmental Commission and introduced the applicant, Charlie Alexander, who passed out pictures of different family arcades most nearly resembling his proposal. ` Tim Devlin passed around letters of objection from other merchants and property owners in the Crossroads shopping center. Kathy Leh enwalter asked if smoking would be permitted, and Charlie Alexander explained that smoking would be prohibited, that there would be a dress code, and that no gang types or gang clothing would be permitted. Ingress and egress was an issue with the Board members, and they stated that a second exit needed to be provided in case of an emergency. Kathy stated that in order to gain her support, a separate entrance should be provided other than the residential entrance to the building Greg Amsden expressed his concern over the confined access /egress to the space. Dalton Williams stated that the facility definitely needs a proper egress, in case of emergency. He felt that the opposition letters actually built a case for the applicant, because the Town of Vail needs more facilities for families and youngsters to enjoy besides skiing. B.J. Britton spoke in opposition of the proposal stating that the facility would bring in teenage groups that would loiter, vandalize, etc. Chuck Crist stated his concerns about the access and liability. Tana Donovan said that she supports the proposed use and that a security gate should ' be provided by the applicant to keep kids from roaming upstairs. She felt that this would alleviate some of the suggested problems of the residential owners. Diana also stated her concern for the problems outlined in the staff memo, but that they soul be addressed through the conditions of approval. Jeff Bowen was against the proposal because he felt the arcade would be a public nuisance` Dalton Williams stated that Vail heeds a family entertainment area after dark and that /ail needs more recreation for kids. Greg Amsden stated that he felt the space is not appropriate for the proposed use.` ena Whitten said that teenagers are at the area anyway, and that it ` would be positive to encourage them to go inside a'facility instead of hanging out. She further said that the access issue must be solved and inquired a out handicap accessibility. Gena felt that the arcade would be a legitimate use, but wanted the applicant to resolve the concerns expressed by the PEC and meet all the building and fire code requirements. The general consensus of the Planning and Environmental Commission was that the PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ETI NG MINUTES ® 12-14-92 7 . Design alternatives presented to the public on the afternoon of October er 29, 1992. 3. Staff met with interested members of the community individually over the past several weeks. 4. Design presented to the Cemetery Task Force on November 5, 1992. 5. Design presented to the Vail Religious Foundation on November 10, 1992. Responses indicate that in-ground burial was a high priority, but than` within the congregations, (Lutheran and Presbyterian, specifically) cremation is becoming a more attractive option. 6. Other mountain communities contacted about various issues, specifically out -of- ton re` uests for burials, general operations, winter burial and management structure. 7. Management options presented to the Cemetery Task Force on November 30, 1992. Larry loans was present to discuss the alternatives with the Task Force members. . Meeting with neighbors on site on December 3, 1992 to review the design walk the upper bench, and understand where the cemetery facilities would be located. It is important to mention that the two Cemetery Task Force meetings where the design was discussed and There the management plan was discussed did not involve as many members of the Task Force as staff had hoped fora Though the design was officially approved by the Task Force on November 5, and the management plan was approved on November 30, there were only six members present November 5th and five members present November 30th, II. EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN At this time, the designers are proposing that a majority of the grave sites be located at or around the tree line of the upper bench of Donovan Park. There will be five types of "grave sites." A majority will be niches for cremation remains. These will each 'take op approximately one cubic foot of space. The second option will be crypts. These are each approximately 2 foot by 2 foot by 7 foot. They will accommodate a coffin, will be on- grade, will be accessed from one end, and may be stacked. The third option will be traditional in- ground burial. The fourth option will be cenotaphs, , which are memorials to those who have already died and are buried or scattered elsewhere. These are likely to be inscriptions on boulders or benches within the cemetery. The last option the consultant team has suggested are "growing memorials". These will be trees identified on the Master .elan (species an location) which an individual can buy as a memorial to a deceased individual. The location for most of these grave sites is within a hollow, which begins at the tree line and extends up slope. The concept is to begin a pathway at the tree line and arrange crypts, . ' .� .+. � � � 1F � � �.: � s� - � s� •tea - # - .� �. .� ♦ r�► • 4 CEMETERY TASK FORCE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER ,1 These present included: Dave Cole Bob oche Cissy Dobson Ella Knox ; Judy Sibley Diana Donovan ' Sherry r Russell Forrest ristan Pritz Andy Kndtsen Sherry ard, Vice president of Alpine International, presented the design. ` She reviewed the different alternatives which the' design team considered and discussed the evolution of the design. Members of the audience generally had favorable response to the design. Specific questions centered around the automobile access. It was suggested that the design team_ provide a cross section through the circle rive" showing how much cot and fill there will be to provide this part of the design. People were also wondering where cars could be' parked and how many cars could be accommodated for a funeral. There was also discussion about the design of the niches and crypts. People had questions as to how the crypts would be sealed and wanted to see a detail of what this area would look like. They were also concerned out head stones which would be used for the in-ground burial. In response to these comments, Sherry said that when the design team refines the design, they would provides 1. A cross section through the "circle drive" hick would show hew much cut and fill would be needed. 2. A cross section of the access road showing where cars would park and indicating how many cars would be accommodated with this design. 3. A standard for the head stones for the in-ground rial plots. It was suggested that markings be boulders, generally flat in shape. 'These then would be engraved ith information of out the deceased individual. 4. A detail of the niches and crypts which would show hat the area would look like. CEMETERY TASK FORCE November MEETING 1 PRESENT Dalton Williams Dave Cole Diana Donovan Larry Sloan Sherry ar Kristan Pritz Andy Knu tsen Krlstan Fritz opened the meeting by stating that the goal of the meeting, was to determine the final recommendation of the Task Force to Town Council for the best management alternative. She reviewed the agenda for the meeting and then asked the Task Force to review the minutes from the November 5, 1992 meeting. Diana Donovan moved to approve them and Dave Cola provided the second. The Task Force voted - - and approved them. Larry Sloan started his presentation regarding the different alternatives for the management stricture. Before getting into the details of each ono,, he briefly answered a question regarding the initial capital outlay. He said that there would be a one time assessment to cover the initial construction costs and then the revenue from the cemetery would cover on- going costs. He continued answering questions and said that the one time tax assessment would be approximately $10.00 per $100,000.00 of valuation. Concerning the private non - profit alternative, he said that there was a problem in that there were no interested groups in the valley who wanted to take on this effortm He further stated that there are many existing private non - profit charities in the valley who compete for the same charitable gifts. Concerning the private alternative, he said that the national marketing orientation of e private firm as well as the heed on their part for buildings on -site would be problems for Vail. One of the task force members said that the potential lack of control regarding the development of the cemetery was his primary criterion in determining the best management structure. Concerning the Town alternative, Larry said that funding rt construction probably would not be done as quickly by the Town as by the district and that a district management approach would be the best alternative. He said that the statutory organization of the state regulations led him to conclude that the cemetery district management is the appropriate method to use. Since the community already has a district in place, it makes sense to use it. Acquiring the revenue in order to construct the cemetery ouI simpler with the district. Finally, a "valley wide" approach to solving this problem would be a plus. Someone' asked if the district could expand the boundary and increase the size. In answer to that question, Larry and Dalton said that the district is surrounded on all sides by other In summary, the two primary concerns of the task force, were (1) limited space an (2)preserving (2)preserving the cemetery as a non-commercial operation. It was the consensus of the A group that the management structure should be the Minturn Cemetery District and they believed that this recommendation should forwarded to Council for their final decision. The task force wanted an additional meeting to discuss the outsider vs. insider issue. The last point made at the meeting was that the management contract was a key element and ust be very specific and address a variety of issues. The goal of the management ' contract would be to preserve the 'u per` bench of Donovan Park and keep it as natural as possible. Another Dint to include in the management contract would be to re' uire that the Minturn Cemetery District be responsible for net only the Minturn and Vail Cemeteries, but also the Intermountain Cemetery. Staff believes that the proposal will enhance Manor ail's relationship to the surrounding area. The service area for Manor Vail is located adjacent to the pathway from the east Village area to Ford Park. It is a highly visible portion of the property, as many pedestrians walk by it. Staff believes that enclosing the dumpster with this proposed building will make the area much more attractive. The proposed building will be large enough to include miscellaneous items which are currently stared behind the fence in this area. Staff believes that the applicant' should plant one 3 foot spruce between the proposed building and the pedestrian path. We believe that this will help screen the service area from the path. The staff would also request that the applicant shift the building so that there is at least a one to two foot setback from the property line. If the building cannot be shifted, we would like to see the applicant clip the eastern most corner of the building. We think this important to allow for room for footers and any other element of the building which may extend ' out beyond the exterior wall Concerning the existing railroad tie retaining wall which encroaches onto Town property, staff believes that this should be allowed to remain. We believe that the amount of regrading heeded to relocate this retaining wall would not necessarily improve the situation. We believe that a license agreement between Manor Vail and the Town, would be an adequate way to handle the situation. ® The degree is ell f from the strict and literal interpretation and riff rc t of a specified regulation i c to ieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In th vicinity or to t i the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the proposed location for this building is reasonable as there are no other less visible areas on the site to accommodate this type of service. Staff talked to Charles Lorch, Director of Maintenance for Manor Vail, who said that the dum ster has been in this location for about as long as the building has been there. Given the building layout on the ` Manor Vail property, and given the amount of exposure Manor Vail has on Vail Valley Drive, staff believes that relocating the trash service to another art of the site is not realistic. Given the constraints of the existing site development, ent and of the location of the existing wilding, staff believes that the trash enclosure building location is reasonable. 3. The effect the requested variance light and air, , distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, public safety. 2. Frio to issuance of building ar it, a license agreement addressing the vArt ytuce FOURTy INC '.. (^.. \ \ ♦ ♦�\ an \ ♦\ VA /4 NLLACE. DLWII' \ \ FLFD/ flaJNC & } ZOT MAC, F -1 I \aD sas5s'54-w NDPo- v£M,CULAR, ➢,.,,,AN, BICYCLE AND UrNjrES ACCESS EASEMENT v :� N ♦ � tN� � B(OG A `♦ L- ----- - --. —_ i � \\ FOUND BRASS CAP 6TH ♦ 5���'F \ \ \ \ �A� \♦ m \\ FOUND BRASS CAP ♦ c \ O� ®da•� \ � �/ : ?per., : `\ V / 114.17° A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship anImpact f the use on development objectives of the Town. The Community Development Department believes that character of the Crossroads Shopping Center is pedestrian and family-oriented with its ice cream shop, movie theater, retail uses, and eating establishments, and feels that the proposed arcade would be consistent with the uses in the area. effect 2. The of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation iliti , utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities - It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed arcade will not adversely impact any of the above mentioned criteria.' 3® Effect upon traffic it i` 1 r reference to ti , automotive t i an safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, ` maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street i r . Since a majority of the users of the arcade are likely to be adolescents, the staff believes that the impact on congestion and automotive traffic will be minimal. Staff believes that most of the users of the arcade would either walk or arrive by bus or bicycle to the facility. Staff does not feel that snow removal will be impacted in any way. ' Staff would require that at least two egress points be provided from the center if approved. 4. Effect` upon the character of the area In which the r use is located, to be Including the I of the r` use In relation to r I The character of Crossroads is pedestrian and family-oriented, and the staff feels that the arcade e oul ' be consistent with existing uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed use would be consistent with surrounding uses. The staff certainly recognizes the concerns of the homeowners within Crossroads that have stated their objections to the proposed arcade. Therefore, staff would recommend that certain actions be taken to mitigate any potential negative impacts of the arcade: MEMORANDUM �i ��,1 MEMORANDUM Wl FROM: DATE LU9UK=WW ITKI •, -1 R 9 MW ,..o ro, December 14, 1992 Recommended Steps for Protecting Community Forest Resources STAFF: Russell Forrest, Jim Curnutte, Todd Oppenheimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to outline recommended steps needed to adequately protect community forest resources in the Town of Vail. Staff requests that the Commission review the following approach and determine if it meets with their approval. Strengthen and clarify Town policy on tree removal Designate a tree care manager to provide better service for residents and improve protection. Develop an educational program to protect forest resources. An ordinance to protect forest resources in the Town of Vail could address all three steps. The Town currently requires Design and Review Board approval before vegetation is removed (chapter 18.54.030). However, the enforcement section of this chapter is weak and other protective provisions are needed to adequately protect trees in the Town of Vail. A tree ordinance is needed to improve protection, provide added enforcement, and provide property owners with clear guidelines for tree pruning and removal. The benefits of a tree ordinance include: * Improving service to the public by having clear guidelines when trees can be removed or pruned without town approval. * Improving monitoring and control of chemical tree applications for controlling pests or disease. * Enforcement of improper tree removal would be enhanced and made clear to the public. * Improving education on tree planting, removal, and general care. * The Town would be entitled to apply for a Tree City USA designation. This would include receiving a flag, an entrance sign, and other benefits. ' Specific criteria for tree cutting and pruning. People would call the Tree Care Manager for a tree care permit. Staff recommends that a $20 fee be required for tret ,termits. Clear thresholds would also be set to allow property owners to remove immature trees or diseased trees without a permit. • 2 5:00 - 5:45 5. A request for a major amendment to SDD #6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase 1, Vail Village Inn/located on Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/100 East Meadow Drive/Vail Village Plaza Condominiums. Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero Planner: Mike Mollica 5:45 - 6:00 6. A request to amend Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code, to add "sledding and tobogganning parks" to the list of conditional uses in Section 18.32.030. Applicant, Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Jim Curnutte 6:00 - 6:30 7. A request for a work session with the PEC to discuss proposed amendments to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace 111, located at 1335 Westhaven Drive, more specifically described as follows, I MW MOTION! M IR r I a. I I I I I II .2 .. � Jim Curnutte 0 6:30 - 7:00 DINNER 7 :00 -7:30 3. A request for a setback variance at Crossroads Shopping Center to allow the construction of an exterior stair more than ' above grade located on Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing /143 F. Meadow Dr. Applicant: Garton Development Planner: Shelly Mello 7:30 -3®00 9. Appointment of PBC members to serve on the DRB for 1993 year. 10. Appointment of PBC members to serve as alternates for the D 11. A request for setback variances, stream setback, and a site coverage variance at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on Fart of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing /595 Fast Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO DECEMBER 14, 1992 12. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade (family entertainment center) to be located at the Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing /141 Bast Meadow Drive. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Tim Devlin TABLED TO DECEMBER 1, 1992 13. A request for variances for site coverage greater than 18%, driveway coverage greater than 10 %, GRFA in the front setback and wall height, to allow for the construction of a primary /secondary residence to be located on Lot 3, Block B, Vail Ridge /2612 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Greg and Michelle Hall Planner: Shelly Mello WITHDRAWN 14. Approval of the PBC meeeting minutes of November 23, 1992. 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL I I December 7, 1992 4 The PEC's comments re•iardinq the proiect's departures from the Commercial Core I To-ne District standards were as follows: Kathy Langenwalter was concerned with the overall mass of the building and stated that the building's proposed height was over the allowable and felt that the building did not step back enough. She also had a concern with the doubling of GRFA but felt that the number of dwelling units was acceptable. Greg Amsden's concern was with the amount of GRFA requested, however Greg did feel that the building height was acceptable as presented. Greg's belief was that the site area was too small to step the building back any further. Dalton Williams felt that the building had too much commercial space proposed in it and that the commercial floor area was driving all of the other numbers up. I Jeff Bowen felt that Vail Associates should close the deal with the Golden Peak House 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 2 With regard to the Los Amiggs deck issue, the P members had the following comments: Jeff Bowen felt that the Town should review the entire Agricultural and Open Spa zone district on a comprehensive basis. i Chuck Crist was in favor of a scaled-down version of the proposed deck, and indicateri his preference to review this project under the formation of a Ski Base Recreation 11 Zone District, main III Kathy Langenwalter was very opposed to a dining deck on Tract E. Her general belief was that improvements should be located on the property that the applicant's own. She further stated that she would not support the Los Amigos deck expansion unless the Golden Peak House actually owned the land under the deck. Greg Amsden agreed with both Kathy and Diana and stated that the Golden Peak House should own the land under the deck. MIMI Dalton Williams felt that the project should be reviewed using the "high end" of the employee housing formula because the project is over density, and strongly suggested PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 3 using the 0.30 multiplier, for a total of 8 employees. All of the remaining EEC members agreed with Dalton's analysis. Craig Snowdon stated that the applicant has agreed to purchase two off-site dwelling units that would be permanently restricted for use by employees of Eagle County. Jack Cutin further discussed his concerns regarding the skier access to the Vista Bahn area. Jeff Winston, the Town's urban design consultant, presented his thoughts on the project to the EEC. At this time, the work session was concluded and it was announced that the next PE, work session for the Golden Peak House would occur on December 14, 1992. The PEC had no problem with the request. The regular session of the Public Hearing started at 3:15 P.M. to be notified of the str, I approval of a request for a minor ment to allow the addition of a bay window to the Alpenrose Restaurant, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot D, Block SDD amend 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 33110'19" W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southerly right-of-way line two courses 1) N 52-5029" E 229.66 feet 2) N 74-3817" E 160.70 feet; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line N 88'45'57" E 138.93 feet; thence S 40'45'14" W 94.32 feet; thence S 18' 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S 01'21'36" W 205.02 feet; thence S 1200736" W 110.25 feet; 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 4 thence S 28128'36' W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 117'04' W 211.16 feet; thence N 49'42'56" E 97.80 feet; thence N 37'09'31' W 95.59 feet; thence S 52o50'29" W 55.10 feet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non- tangent curve to the left having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61,14'42" and a chord that bears N 58' 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37 °09'31" W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado; and the Cornerstone parcel described as follows: Building C Site That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Applicant: MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello reviewed the staff memo and listed the major staff concerns for the proposal. Dalton Williams stated that the parking needs to be sold with the AUs and that he did not want to see a situation where the parking could be condominiumized and sold separately from the units. General discussion was held regarding the concern if the skier access should be removed due to the impact of the retaining walls on the southeast corner of the Waterford building. Greg Arrisden, Kathy Langenwalter, Diana Donovan, Chuck Crist, and Jeff Bowen all 2,greed that c- access should be removed. The definition of TR and AU was discussed. Shelly explained that the definition of TR would change to allow for larger TR units and would not allow for these units to be condominiumized. Kathy Langenwalter voiced concerns with the amount of open space and Shelly Mello explained the areas of open space. Dalton Williams again mentioned his concern about the parking for commercial space and that only one owner should be allowed to own the TR's and the associated parking. They should not be sold off individually. Greg Amsden said he had no further concerns. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 5 Ug 91*44NUAMILW tLWEUW1WMtK unmit LVIN Fqt�—= Before the building permit is released for the project, the three proposed employee housing units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance as follows, 2. Transient residential units proposed on both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be individually condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental units used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual ownersh p. The definition of TR shall be changed to accommodate this proposal. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 6 area shall be part oft Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the developer's responsibility to complete this portion of 2® project when the Cornerstone project is constructed. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone development at such time ® it is developed. 5. The area of road in which parking is proposed under Westhaven Drive for the Cornerstone project shall be conveyed and transferred through the proposed minor subdivision to the Cornerstone property. An easement shall be granted to the Town of Vail over this area for public access. - �W = The two proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before the building permit is released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at Eagle County Clerk and recorder's Office. Please see the specific provisions of the ordinance under item 1. Cornerstone. 2. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 127-92 7 conveyance of property to Cornerstone for its parking located below grade, the Town's The wording of the agreements listed above are also subject to the Town Attorney's review. These items will appear in the proposed ordinance for this amendment unless otherwise modified by the Town Attorney or the Town Council. Jeff Bowen motioned to approved the request per the staff memo with the above mentioned items, seconded by Chuck Crist. The vote was 5-1 with Diana Donovan opposed. 3. A request for an exterior alteration and setback variance for the Vail Lionshead Center Building located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead First Filing/520 East Lionshead Circle. Andy pointed out that there were three conditions per the staff memo. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall- 1 m Identify a new location for the banner pole or poles which meets the standards of the Town, including the Public Works Department and the Town Clerk. Any public access easements shall be dedicated, if needed. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 8 2. Revise the landscape plans to show a 2" caliper ash tree located in the Alfie Packer planter north of the edge of the new addition. 3. Revise the landscape plan to show an additional six shrubs to be planted on the south side of the planter by the condominium entrance. 4. A request for variances for wall height and site coverage for paving to allow the development of three single family residences located on lots 7, 8, and 9, Block B, Vail Ridge/2662, 2672, 2682 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Hans Weimann Planner, Tim Devlin Steve Isom made a brief presentation and reviewed the variance requests with the PEC. He expressed that to build on the lots, the proposed solution was the most reasonable and aesthetic. is PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 9 Ili I I I I Iiiiiii I Iiiiiii I MEMO! I IIIIIII I; Ili 6. A request to amend Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code, to add "sledding and tobogganning parks" to the list of conditional uses in Section 18.32.030. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Jim Curnutte MEMB =W* 7. A request for a setback variance at Crossroads Shopping Center to allow the construction of an exterior stair more that 5' above grade located on lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/143 E. Meadow Drive. Dave Garton explained some of the history of the past failure of the previous business at the location. He said there would be 500+ people using the stairway, but would be willing to cut back the stairway if at a later date after installation it posed a problem with the associated neighbors. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 10 The possibility of adding planter boxes to the stair was also discussed. Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request per the staff memo with the added is condition that the proposal be presented to DRB for added landscaping. Greg ms en seconded the motion with a 5-0 unanimous vote. 8. The minutes to the November 23, 1992 were approved by a motion made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded by Chuck Grist. The vote was 5-0 to approve the minutes. 9/10. Appointment of PEC members to serve on t for 1993 year. Appointment of PEC members to serve as alternates for the DR_; . Jan. - March 1993 Kathy Langenwalter Diana Donovan (alternate) April - June 1993 Dalton Williams Diana Donovan (alternate) July- Sept. 1993 Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan (alternate) PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12-7-92 111 11 illin I I 111 11 1 11 !111 1 111 MEMORANDUM walkway /skier accessway located between Seibert Circle and the Vista Bahn ski base, Such improvements could include the addition of landscaping, drainage modifications and the addition of concrete unit pavers. Due to land ownership issues, cooperation from adjacent property owners would be necessary. . The applicant is proposing to construct an outdoor dining deck, at-grade, on the south side of the Golden Peak House, This dining deck would be located upon Tract E and would require the modification of the Vail Village 5th Piling Protective Covenants to allow this use. Additionally, the Los Amigos Restaurant is proposing to enclose the existing outdoor deck area to the south of the building. This deck area is currently located upon Tract P, which is not zoned for such use. However, the proposal calls for this portion of Tract F to be rezoned, and through a minor subdivision, incorporated into the Golden Peak House parcel. Further discussion of the issues regarding Tract E follows in Section IX of this memorandum. 6. It is proposed that the five existing evergreens, located along the western elevation of the building, be relocated south of the building, onto Tract E. The applicant is currently reviewing the possibility of keeping the evergreens in their existing location during construction. One other option would be to replace there with large specimen trees should construction of the building not be possible without severely damaging the existing trees. 3 Setbacks: Height: Common Area: UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORE I PROJECT SDD 8,338 sq. ft. Same Same N: 0-6 ft. W: 0-7 ft. S: 0 ®3 ft E: 0.5-1.5 ft. East: 46 ft. max. West: 36 ft. max. 6,570 sq, ft. or 98% 2,334 sq, ft. or 35% 4,236 sq. ft. added to GRFA N: 0-3 ft. W: 0-13 ft. S: 0-8 ft. E: 0.5-1.5 ft. East: 49 ft. max. West: 42 ft. max. 7,066 sq. ft. or 106% - 2,334 sq ft. or 35% 4,732 sq. ft. ® added to GRFA GRFA: 6,670 sq, ft, or 80% 8,958 sq. ft. 17,182 sq. ft. + 4,236 sq. ft. (excess common) +4,732 sq. ft. (excess common area) 13,194 sq. ft. or 158% 21,914 sq. ft. or 263x/® Units: 25 units per acre, or 18 units 19 units 41ite 4.8 units for the site. (18 DU and 2 AU) coverage: 6,670 sq. ft. 6,351 sq. ft. 7,672 sq. ft. or 30 °l® or 76% or 92% Landscaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Parking: Per Town of Vail Required: 56 Required: 67 parking standards Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 1 Required: 2 loading standards Existing: 0 Proposed.0 Commercial Uses: N/A 7,157 sq. ft 12,620 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 23,241 sq. ft. 36,868 sq. ft. All of the above development statistics have been calculated by staff and are based on the applicant's proposed new lot area of 8,338 square feet. This lot area assumes the incorporation of portions of Tract E and Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing Golden Peak House lot area is 0.159 acres, or 6,926 sq. ft. The new areas (portions of Tract E and Lot C) proposed to be included into the Golden Peak House parcel consist of 1,412 sq. ft. 4 G. A circulation y t designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing and off- site traffic it ul ti n. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping c In order to i iz and preserve url features, r cr ti n, views and functions. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout t v l nt of the special development district. 2) The nine criteria for Commercial Core I exterior alterations shall also be used to judge the merits of this project. The nine criteria are listed below: A. Pedestrian i ti _n B. Vehicular Penetration C. Streetscape Framework A Street Enclosure E. Street Edge F. Building Height G. Views and 1 Points H. Service and Delivery I. Sun/Shade 3) The zone district amendment criteria (zone change) are listed below: A. Suitability of the Proposed Zoning. B. 1s the n e t proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship amo land i nt with municipal objectives? C. Does the z i proposal provide for the r orderly viable community? 6 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. jective® Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. 2. 2.1 Policy: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design wide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2. 3.1 licy® 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 Objective: Encourage the development of d variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 olicy® Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible reenspaces, public plazas, and streetscae improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 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. 2.62 olicy® Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 9 3. The Tract E issue . The applicant is currently negotiating with Vail Associates for the acquisition of onions of Tract E (to the south) and Lot C (to the west). The applicants (including Vail Associates, as co- applicant), have requested a zone change amendment for the portions of Tract E described above. Tract E is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The portions of Tract E proposed to be rezoned generally include those areas which are labeled as Easement #1 and Easement #2 on the attached survey. As the owner of Tract E, Vail Associates has previously granted easements to the Golden Peak House to allow for specific encroachments, such as roof overhangs and balconies, in the area of Easement Nos. 1 and 2. These encroachments are considered legal, non - conforming uses within the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, and as such, all legal, non - conforming uses cannot be enlarged or expanded, and if modified, they dust be brought into full compliance with the zoning code. In order to allow for building modifications in the easement areas, and to be in full compliance with the zoning code, the applicants are proposing the following; - Rezone the easement areas from Agr /Open Space to CC1 -Minor subdivision to incorporate the easement areas into the Golden Peak House parcel. The protective covenants governing Tract E will need to be modified to reflect a change in the Tract E boundary. ®DD overlay on entire Golden Peak House parcel. 4. Los Arnigos Deck - Ron Riley, as one of the co- applicants, would like to include an outdoor dining deck on Tract E, which is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The conceptual design for the proposed deck calls for an expansion of the deck approximately 14 feet from the southern face of the existing outdoor deck and approximately 80 feet long. This request will require a zone district amendment. The applicant is considering several possible rezoning options to allow for the deck. These include. A. Rezoning the area for the deck to Commercial Core I zoning. A deck is a conditional use in this district. B. Rezoning the area for the deck to Ski Ease Recreation 11, which would involve the creation of a new zone district that has limited ski base uses. A deck would be listed as a conditional use, C. Amending the Agricultural and Open Space District to include outdoor dining decks associated with ski base areas as a conditional use. At this time, a specific rezoning district has not been selected. The applicant and staff are interested in the PEC members opinions on this issue. . Architectural Design Issues - The following comments should be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed elevation drawings for the Golden, Peak House. The letters (A, D, C etc.) on each elevation correspond with the comments discussed below. In general, staff believes that the overall architectural style is positive and is compatible with the alpine character of the Village. NORTH I A. The proposed second floor Los Amigos restaurant expansion, on the north side of the west building, will be removed from this application, as the encroachment into the Town right -of- 1 way was not approved by Town Council on November 24, 1992. The revised facade for this area will incorporate stucco, with windows similar to those proposed on the west elevation of the restaurant. B. The central connection between the east and west halves of the building should be cut back to the east, and roof forms should be simplified and lowered. The hot tub located on the flat roof of this central connection should be relocated to the south side of the fifth floor addition, to a less visible location. C. Where applicable, flat roofs should be modified to pitched roofs, similar to the roof farms utilized at the Sonnenalp and Christiania. These roofs should have a truncated peak instead of the traditional ridge peak. One example of this would be to move the existing pitched roof to the east end of the building and extend a gable form perpendicular to this ridge. Other variations are also possible - the idea is to remove the flat roofs which are prominent from the Bridge Street vantage point (and from the ski mountain) and do not comply with the Urban Design Criteria for the Village. It will be necessary to view the model at the work session to explain this concept further. D. The fifth floor building mass should be pulled back to the south away from Seibert Circle as much as possible to provide relief on the north facade. E. The first floor arcade reeds refinement to create more of a pedestrian area. Suggestions include. 1. Delineating the roof of the arcade to break up the height of the facade; . Opening up the access through the east end of the arcade, 3. Embellishing the design of the windows and doors through interesting detailing, such as smaller window panes, "grand" entry doors, etc., 4. Lowering the roof form over the entry. EAST ELEVATION A. The peaked roof form that is built into the facade to conceal the flat roof behind it should be redesigned. Architectural detailing is essential to this elevation to break up the massing of this facade. It cannot be assumed that the Cyranos Building will redevelop and screen this elevation. WEST ELEVATION A. The third and fourth level projections (floor area) should be decreased in size to diminish the "canyon88 effect through this important gateway to the ski mountain. Perhaps railings could extend in front of the projection to help break up the building mass. B. The large trees (approximately ) adjacent to the existing building should be preserved. Landscaping in this corridor is critical, as it is a transition area between the Village and the ski mountain. 1 10 IIIIIIIIIII11pilp 1! 11 111111 IIIIIIIIIII11pi IIpIIIIIII!I 11 1111111 M111111 11111 !ill MP III I I SM11111 111 111111 EMI =Mm,. EXHIBIT "A" Golden Peak House Square Footage Agalsis Existing t1 iti Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Level: 1,932 2,364 0 96 First Floor: 3,924 1,276 0 292 Second Floor: 1,301 1,332 2,466 16 Third Floor: 0 1,460 3,749 0 Fourth Floor: 0 113 28743 0 Totals: 7,157 6,570 8,953 556 Total square footage r r ) = 23,241 sq. fm Proposed ra ition Commercial Common GRFA Basement Level: 4,749 2,539 0 First Floor: 5,770 1,523 Second Floor: "2,101 1,333 2,510 Third Floor: 0 601 5,672 Fourth Floor: 0 740 5,776 Fifth Floor: 0 20 ' 3,222 Totals; 12,620 7,066 17,182 " Total square footage (gross area) = 36,868 sq. ft® *Does not include the Los Amigos deck area, which may be proposed to be enclosed. 16 Exhibit "B" Golden Peak House ellinc� Unit Analy�i Existing. DU AU Basement Level: 0 0 First Floor: 0 0 Second Flees 8 0 Third Floor: _ 0 Fourth Floor: 2 0 Totals: 18 0 18 DUs Proposed: U AU Lock-off Basement Level 0 0 0 Fiat leer: 0 0 Second Floor: 5 0 1 Third Floor: 0 2 1 Fourth Floor: 4 0 Fifth Floor: 1 0 0 Totals: 18 2 is 17 ME v I Fil 0 A VILLAGF '.: =NiER NUOM,fJ'.UMC LEGEND - g— �Pta�IV NwnIMP COVERED FRIDGE r.n Fenn. p:r f__Y`A 1 � n�N.rttri Qe - u'+-�y c3RIGGE � Emm vn�eln �rtvtlA•t r letGREEKS $ `43r x _ e GORE CRE RIm .,� CCNDCFA FIIUMS G�LLER.r uicx fntiu, neriuwl.n raeF:,s t ,.. �P� �� IiCItFF`. THErcS 4 6 6 `- GASTHOE Y .Enl ce 1't itr i.� 4Sf FF.es � EllVtER EFYS n$CG EUILDIhG GflA.A1SFIAAIMER k'G.M1 CRnf,itx ` t GORE ;'REF'/ SiTZMARK LODGE G .1.•x•`• � EIS ,s a a ' uuc S G SUGGESTE D ErYIPLOYMZNT CAT, GORMS AND RANGES FOR AIL Exz, <SSED As EMPLOYEES PER 1000 SQUARE ET RRC R RCH LL OVERALL SUGG TED AVERAGES NNE Bar /Restaurant 5 ®7/1000 s.f. 5 -8/1 s.f. Mail and Service Commercial 5 ®9/1000 5 -8/10 Retail: Grocery /Liquor /Convenience 1.8 /1000 1.5 -3 /1 Office: Real Estate 7.611 6-9/1000 Office: Financial 3.1/1000 2.5- 411000 Office® Professional /Other 6.6/1 0 5 -8/1 Conference Center IAA 1/1000 Health Club NA 1- 1.5/1000 Lodging* _ __ 1.3/room .25- 1.25 /room Local Government 6.5/1000 5- 8/1000 Construction (Off-ices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-13/1000 Multi-Family /A 0.4 /unit Single Family ; N/A 0.21unit Q -�za ^�u-t �� """��� � � �. ' � � '� e ,cam.. x;. � � � �,� „ �,�p � *�„ � � tea= �, " a r ��� a LIA) NollZ" Our r 413) 639'34 0C �P W.flNTER/ C1B 6.55 °1i z N51 °26'E, 16.5i` L.31 L 17.035' IR =12.00' 1 4 C2} 8 - 83 °09'3. R = 39.00" 1 =2? °56'00" U2 X50 L = 56.60° ` L 5,85 -_� - C3) ® °0'0r 18 R = 18.000 ° L 8.78° CJ Gas EASEMENT No .4 i CONP. STEPS \\ _ 2 1 IR- 12.00. p' 16 l h 0 11S / 0 =55'13 30,E.oRa y� aNPER �l =II 57' / CONG.Wat,#�.c'_�- �'Z6.5 �, -\ _ \ \, ->< <_� BRAIN GRaiE O �..� � -� >]6. �`83 °0930" N 51'2600 "E L =65.31, 15 92 a F.�- ..:. ... - r' as 320 r 6 y llCf ' -S 1 \BV!LCING OUTLINE O' L( PL 4N TER ` 2 \" o Pry ..+i -ENTRY BELOW \ �.` GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE \ 3: PIVE `� S PORT OF EASEMENT NO 3 CONC. PATIO LOT c ¢ 0.I59 ACRES �' O �J �' -'�L6 \� -v '/-DECK L8'`p „/ 3.P. 8UI10!NG FOOTPRINT ON LOT IS = 5900. SP. ET ✓ P6i Nye 5\ , x„ .TRaGH BOX _ P ITER ,l to - I PL 4N �P n � \ (_ - -I PINE ...-' - EASEMENT N. 2 > 16 00 1 \ \ - a� J5 Pr�r ., L9 689 °a4 o0 wy .> v v� 9-TER �p ! v v. A� v V Ls - vx � 84 0 yam. Ll / IL VALVE "IRANt DE - -- - T_ EASEMENT No 1 — - - - - -- .. i .. P PN €, z 'rJ', f F 'l LU . JQ EXISTING GROUND FWO LAW ode CL 0 elm Z ILI com EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN $ §! ]; i (k � uj (+ LU LU Co f; \ # / uj )� \� f � • UJ 0 ui ui M o 0 CL ol Z 0 ui i unit 224 24.E — —_ tor v x,2\42./244/244. _ _ _ B Flu. \velN�km�• \ uj pp t*t„„�e Lobby \ 12� CC Loo Aenf4®i Pat9@ hotel ... LU_.. q SECOND R PLAN � \ }i �\ > Ag n \ IfIz ui \ a \ cc __ -- I&L V - 4 4 FIFTH FLOOR PLAN I � a q 1 1111� m T-III a� g VZ- --- 403 i 403 Vpa-1,.bb,, 30 311 "no L ®a Arn igam it t®i i v sh '. t i ator/ ®� storage. E I at aq� i i SECTION THRu LOBBY SECTION THRU LOS AMIGOS im uj cc uj &M�ld° .5M4A'4%� Z/J LiNe - �I��y \\��\ 5 01... �- �- \\ A 5 ®1' °�� X504 Lu —j — CL 0— -7 j 4®9'. 401'. i I 409 401 uj 308 307 1 304 I 3 ®� Sid lockers 207' i 204 i aQ3 JG sM st /r SP ®ed Stalker GSW st ag* i, ---_., Sport Stacker s 4i r ( ---- JG slu atwslrWPaeB hall treat® rre�4�r� s SECTION THRU PENTHOUSE—WEST SECTION THRU PENTHOUSE—EAST a 1 0 0 i O d Y LU e cY�v'to�ea p�dlL�irlq LU LU CC lz 0 %% LLI j i inio inem. i ne doors will oe moved out slightly, resulting in an additional five square feet of floor area being added to the building, The wood panels at the base of these doers will be consistent with the new wood panels at the base of the two bay windows on either side. c� - OL i_. -. _.. .4 x k g o� e e� r....-'" Cb P° 1 6 r ,cr -. m LD pp Z ru REMAGERMAN WINDOW of f r P f r 7 C. Alpenrose Restaurant- The two existing windows on the east side of the south facade® which are currently flush with the siding on the building® will be changed to bay windows and will match the one proposed on the west side. These new bay windows will add an additional twenty square feet of floor area to the building. The style of the mullions in these windows and the wood panels at the base will match all other proposed window changes and will utilize the saute materials. In staff's opinion, the proposed minor modifications and resulting additional square footage, will not necessitate an additional parking requirement. The additional floor area will not add to the "seating area" in the restaurant which is the criteria used to calculate parking needs for restaurants. The staff has reviewed this request and has determined that it complies with the definition of a "minor" SDD amendment, as specified in Section 13.40.020 (B) of the Vail Municipal Code, which reads as follows. "Minor amendment (staff review)" shall mean modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development districts and are consistent with the design criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments may includes but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet to approved setbacks and/or-building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses), of not more than five percent of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area." The additional 30 square feet does not exceed five percent of the approved square footage for non- residential floor area. Section 13 .40.100 (a) (Amendment procedures) of the Vail Municipal Code states that ®`Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 13,40.020 (l) maybe approved by the Department of Community Development. We believe this addition meets this criteria and will be a positive change to the facade. Notification of staff's approval of the minor modification has been provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district. The notification includes a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. EffamiTilillitim a a %- 1 ill 1111 16 Ill a s � Cf) �n t�7 Li _(D q � ctnfa RE MAGERMAN WINDOW SYSTEMS.TNC. Li 4 0 D7 The Cornerstone proposal currently being reviewed does propose to locate parking below a portion of Westhaven Drive. The applicants propose to transfer ownership of a portion of the road with the proposed minor subdivision to allow for this. 41 3 IV. ZONING C3 SIE A°Tl N A. Comparison of Approved and Proposed ev i n i n for Cornerstone Approved r Proposed Scenario cenari 1 Scenario 2 1 } Density (# of Units) 50 T * i +3e p. 34i units 3 DU's (free market) 3 DU w/3 Lo. and 2 AU's (restricted) 3 em p. units" 2} GIRFA 23,110 sq. ft. 26,110 + 1600 sq. ft. 23,110 + 1600 for em p. units sq. ft. for emp. units Common Area 34,919 . ft. 16,617 sq. ft. 16,617 sq, ft. 4) Commercial Space 26,040 or 11,100 sq. ft. 11,100 sq. ft. 29,065 sq. ft. ) Credits Given None per multi-family per multi- zoning family zoning 6) Height North 71' max on 71' from laza 71' from plaza to top of ridge to top of ridge South /A because 49 4 East buildings are 70 7 West connected 67 67 7) Setbacks North 0 0 0 South Distance between Terrace Wing and Cornerstone 5' 54 54 East 0 0 4 West ap ) Site ver 26,533 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 9) Parking 155.9 or 39 re. spaces w/75% 64 req. 166 spaces enclosed; w/75% enclosed in 39 proposed w/ enclosed, Waterford 100% enclosed 69 proposed Structure w /100% enclosed B. Comparison r Loposed Development Plans r Waterford Approved Approved Scenario Scenario 2 ELqposed 1) Density (# of Units) 75 AUs 30 DUs 27 Us+ restricted emp. units ** ) GRFA 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 s. f. 47,500 sq.ft. + 1100 sq. ft. restricted emp, units 3) Common Area 14,297 sq. ft. 14,297 sq. ft. 33,913 sq. ft. 4) Retail Space 3,600 sq. ft. 3,600 sq. ft. 0 5) Credits Given None None per multi-family zoning Height North 48 feet 48 feet 55 ft. South 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. East 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. West 48 feet 48 feet 5 6 ft. 7) Setbacks (Building) North 3' -15' -1 ' 3'- 15' -16' 4' -46' -6 North (t® parking lot) NA NA 2' -25' South 20 min. 20 min. 26 min® East 20-91 0 -91 10 -34 5 Cornerstone aterford Cornerstone /Waterford Approved Proposed Total Site Coverage 52,719 s e ft. 40,160 + 11$100 parking structure 51,160 sq. ft® There is a severe grade change on this site from esthaven Drive to the ski is 8 • s m m AI'cant's roosal Unrestricted Condominiums: 3 DU Restricted Condominiums: 2 DU each / 1 Iockoff and 1A 1 DU with 1 lockof€ Transient units: 34 Transient units Employee units: 3 units Scenario 2 involves a substantial departure from the original plan for Cascade Village. The requested change involves three unrestricted dwelling units in instead of all transient units. The initial intent for Cornerstone was to provide short -term rentals which, it was believed, wou! d subsequently increase the use of the entire Cascade facility. The staff has researched this issue and found that there is a demand for short-term rentals of this type in the Valley. Currently, the bed base is split 50/50 between condos and accommodation type units according o the Vail Resort Association. Demand for each type of unit seems to differ between season. There would appear to be a greater demand for accommodation type units during the summer for short 2 -3 day stays, while during the winter, stays tend to be longer and condominiums are more desirable. For this reason, we feel that short -term rentals must be included in the proposal and if Scenario 2 is approved a minimum of 3 U's with their lock offs should be permanently restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements. The two A 's in Scenario 2 should not be condominiurnized with the adjacent condominiums as the applicant has proposed. This would keep the A 's in the rental pool. We also believe that allowing 3 large free market dwelling units is acceptable given the change in development requirements for this project such as parking. It is felt that the mixed use character of the project is still maintained. Staff's Recommendation Unrestricted condominiums: 3 DU Restricted Condominiums: 3 DU w/1 lockoff Rental units: 34 Transient units U Employee units: 3 11 2. Waterford As proposed, the project includes 27 free market condominiums (with 47,500 square feet of A) and 2 restricted employee housing units (1100 square feet of ) for a total of 48,600 square feet of A. Historically, the HA and the units in SIDID #4 dedicated to employee housing have not been counted towards the overall density of the project. The request decreases the number of approved units from 30 to 27. The density proposed is in keeping with the original development scenario and is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. Cornerstone aterford rnloee ousin The applicant for Cornerstone is proposing 3 employee units. In reviewing the application, the staff used the suggested employee housing criteria. This study suggested that the following formula be used to determine employee housing requirements for projects that do not exceed density. Cornerstone Scenario 1; T .75 e p. per unit = 11,100 sq. ft. of com x 6.5 e. /100 s. ft. = 72.15 111.15 x .15 housing multiplier 16.67 Scenario 2: T + 2 All x .75 emp per unit _ 26.25 6 DU x .4 emp per unit 2.4 11,100 s . ft. com x 6.5 emp per 1000 s . ft.= 72.15 100 x .15 housing multiplier 15.12 Waterford 7 DU x .4 emp per unit 10.8 x .15 housing multiplier 1.62 Assuming 2 employees will share each unit, 9 units would be required for Scenario 1 and 8 units would be required for Scenario 2 for Cornerstone. One unit would be required for Waterford fora maximum possible total of 10 units for both projects. 12 Because total of 5 employee units are being provided between the Waterford and Cornerstone projects, where previously there were none proposed, and because parking must now be provided on site, the staff finds that 5 units are acceptable. The proposed Waterford project is below density as is Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone proposal. As proposed, Scenario 1 for Waterford is 2 transient units over the approved density, but there is no increase in GRFA. The staff sees the provision of employee housing as a benefit to both projects and will not require additional employee units as a result of this. Historically, in Cascade Village, GRFA and units attributed to employee units have not been counted toward density or GRFA for the project. C. Compliance with the r in loading r uire rats as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Cornerstone /Waterford Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than 2,000 square feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and those with over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit. Those with less than 500 square feet require 1.5 spaces. The parking requirements for accommodation units and transient units are as follows: .4 space per accommodation unit, plus .1 space per each 100 square foot of GRFA with a maximum of 1 space per unit. Each employee unit will require 1 parking space assuming the units are one bedroom units. Each site will now satisfy its parking requirement on site. As discussed previously, this has significant implications on the program for the Cornerstone site. The staff believes that this change is very positive because it allows each site to be developed and operated independent of each other. The parking provisions are listed low: buired Parking Proposed Cornerstone Scenario 1 89 spaces with 75% 89 spaces proposed enclosed with 100% enclosed Scenario 2 84 spaces with 75% 89 spaces proposed enclosed with 100 %enclo ed 13 53 spaces with 60 spaces with 75% enclosed 43 enclosed or 751® of req. The Cornerstone project will also provide 2 loading berths along Westhaven Drive for the commercial uses. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. Conformity with the lie 1 elements f the i! Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and r a n Design Plans. Cornerstone and Waterford Applicable goals and objectives fora' the Town's Land Use Plan for this area include: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. .4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on going events and sanctions "street happenings" should be encouraged. 5.1 additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided y the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions® .4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 14 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. therefore remain in the rental pool. The remaining three dwelling units would be free market. 2. Waterford The proposed building does not encroach into the 100 year floodplain or 50' Gore Creek setback. The relocated bike path will not encroach into either the creek setback or 100 year floodplain. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions — designed to produce a functional development responsive and senslti'ft, to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. in G. 1. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. I in M • • H 1 . Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Both sites are substantially disturbed, there are few remaining natural characteristics. With the proposed development, there would be limited remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining landscaped .9reas become critical. Landscaping is especially important along the South Frontage Road, Westhaven Drive, r pedestrian mail area. The applicants have proposed landscaping plans which address these areas. 18 M r MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA V11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION M In the Cornerstone project, the staff remains concerned with the applicant's request to condominiumize the proposed AUs. However, we find that the © -y» #:2 ? amendment are substantial and do not find that the AU issue is reason enough to recommend denial of the project. We also find that Serf *2 to allow for 6 DUs, 3 of which will be condominiumized without the condo conversion requirements to be acceptable. M, The staff finds that each project can now function independently of the other. We recognize the need to make certain allowances because of changes to the parking and the change in ownership and feel that each project meets the SIDID criteria and Town of Vail objectives. The staff assumes the following conditions will be met with this amendment. DeygIgpfl2gnLAgfggMqnLs 1 The three proposed employee units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. The agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk Recorder's Office. 2. The transient residential units proposed in both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental units used in the same manner as hotel type units and 10 are not intended for individual ownership. �t s'Ti�} !''• I � 1.�llli 11 I it I t. -1I i ' ILInIIIIu II'I sl Iljll IIII I II,� 1 ills I i.i�. i' "'' I � ... ;... -.e... � _- ... —'.Y ^ .... -A . � rt J I t I I III t I'I`i II .. 1 I 14 �II�II IIIIIII� ''! '��II�I i'll� I !� 'l; 1: V=l Hill I - �V P '; I i 1 I I I ( I!�!' j �li;Il :1 11, ! {i I III Ill III Ill �`,a I ' >r,� is it lit ! E� �--� YJ E S T H A Y E td D R 14 E � — — - -- (,�� �/ 4� a" y��E" r t °" ,✓� /� "� -, ' mow: a _IIII I• � �� 'I ' II '�� �i � '''� _�v w"�I,! � �,i i.!.. _ -- "�: �. `;,., I � � �/'' � ..�! ��I,i "'} �'.; / 'S, ��. z. t' I. !. f11 , �I i� iill It JE JI iii r r So, Jal C CAD AS E VILLAGE s j III MASTER PLAN 7!11T 1 d K 7�".. 'K11 RzS d°' S pl b n SRjw^i 4 r+ 5ads tl1 n .. �. to ro# °•�. w e � r N t _ e �:'s�v.���'�ie,�,: �'�, -a<e 'Ss��'�.,i�- �C�°Kc. "�'�"�6h°5`,'r a��,`e`•s,..c —x„'r �.,.,, .,., _ n r � r _.- —'- - - -- - -- --- - --- ` � -- ` —I 2 f -- - - - - - -- - -- 'mow t l ACE3 °as �L� 1 - ;A S LJ -j CIS 9 ; 6I SPIC° 1 I I � 35 PhCES TIT' EL. 52 O 2 SP CF5 FLAT I ' : S ;PACL.S 11, Ll P..LE I `Aa F -o r — -- — - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- — � �> Syr �,� - SKI hTCHCN �V �� 1P4=D✓ �� ➢� "J�✓1� 100 w5 / 2E`,AIL I ' _ t RCS, AURANT RETAIL aO� `Oi'o\ 570RAG PU"' 200M R 'AIL -- l � � WATERFORD FLAT. I t 1 01�-- , PARKING - i = = GIRGULAT.ON 395 r. �. "�,y. GORE,5U� TOTAL Z8n2 °6 �,T ER STONE bUIL.DING RESTAURANT 4415 �rJt nrn,.0✓�— 12022 RETAIL 2560 CIRCULATION 1660 - �-- 5KI 9UPP02T 9330 -Srr rFa;ICECrs zz5o + F a� C TERRACE t 11NG IISp S I q 6 E O E ,.NCtt ERS O tau ATION gala - �. �t _CNA ,CnL 165 - _�- a- -� - -� - -1 SUb TOTAL 1151 465 I ( 4 FL )OR PLAN ELEVATION 47 ®5 ° -� q I. 0 20 40 60 4r, �L 1f i�` 0 I Zo, la,tt>,3D2�s CU2LcPyiD'fe Fia,'�'�'.f � scAl �. ®.o, 1 � -- - -ter -- - -- � 3 PA ES 8 5PA'(�E5 { 8 SPAGE AO SPAGES ' EL. CASCADE GLUE 5 A, S 0 AG:y t �PACJ5, 11 PAGl5 T I 34 5 °AGES El, 62.0 . - WEOTHAVEN DRIVE l 5 7 uAGE LALI a o 1 LINEN mJ. sTePAC= - /; j HOTEL SPA GOCU<NTGAETA E L�PLAZA 6UIL DWG G AL LG sr Al-RAM WATERFORD o, PARQNO GIRGUL EAiLONT ATION L - -- SUE) TOTAL. CORNER OTONI E / RETAIL / GIRGU ATOd F oo i a 1 r HOTEL 1 —rRRAGE 1,J1NG A C h I 9U3 TOTAL ALTERNATIVE A FLOOR PLAN ELEVA- m T ' jr X11 77 NO:; —_— J n I /1 fly; s +l Types; R ':=� - - -o I o f aM 1 � o. aP f o" I f 2�� < ,� PLAZA 6UILDING w J = i-IATERFORD e. FLAT6 {. °00 .. -- —. —� � " !�_s✓ t. -_� RETA L � .500 N'Cact{ G � 5 A � - v •* Y U� O 22,.,60 CORNER STONE - -- - -- 1 HLJ I�I lob- MM? in a i a J TERRACE [ iiNG SU3 TOi FLOOR PLAN Ei v t _9211 bt FLA, FLAT FLAB FLAT UNIT *UNIT 18e S _ U'�Tf 22 U� II 21 UN -T 2� 7�`GLub I. I FLAT UN 5 u — YUNT 15 _ _ UNIT 17' TUt"IT I c FLAT UI`i_ 012 : 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 - �i IT LT iT Jo 2 U-11T IN oT 4 = °j J UNIt 18 UNIT i7 UNIT 16 UNIT 15 KNIT 14 L,Nr 13 L.C�IT 12 UNIT II UNIT 10 t.WIT 9 1. aTSB UNIT T LN 6 .T T04N HOUSES 930 FLATS 1100, C) -.-i GIRQULAT ON 310 6aLG0Nv 118 SJ15TOTAL j. -- /'/10i1F'J GTf7f\1F P,( III ntw,_ PRI =fig Xi i 'OJN HOUSE J'.WN HOJ$`_ ITOJ�E � TOWN 1 V oj0� J'JIT 29 Uw l 23 OJSE �I TOWN HOUSE JtilTi ?_4 )E G! U6 i TOWN HOUSC � � - X rOUN wOUSE T —` - - - - - - -- UNIT 6 %�+ Y Z, - - - - - -- -- _ .. I �- !�( UNIT I UNIT —Jr �j Yl 'i T sao �3 5 .o Zo Za z ze :fl A UNIT 18 UNIT 17 UNIT 16 UNIT 15 UNIT 19 UNIT 13 UNIT 12 UNIT 11 UNIT 10 UNIT 9 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 6 Uroo 5 CJ 5UIUD!NG s �... WATERFORD TOUN• HOJSGS 13100. TERR,AG E MNG ,a � s Y•� P -- ft _ / l 1 —.—.7 I I I ! ) { 9 t, !I ) t 7 , r—} r '4 l P` =s j a_ �l.. Y .! CORNERSTONE 9 PLAZA BUILDING — NORTH ELEVATION i i - 1 , T-1 t �'' I!- •,�`..(..k 7 'I�i°f�� d Ig ti ktu�i���..di 1� ®io �..d� � d�t N � Ij L11.®F'v8 it ❑ -;� ��-fY t-�- T. `T d '.it ,?7 —( T--1 !I it d— CORNERSTONE ! WATERFORD., - - • :..; . 2: SOUTH ELEVATION'-'-c 4 INT_QSTAT An- a� i ------------ - 3 - - 1.2 TI i T1/ I i I ADO I I ONAL Q I Gin 1 - lPrh°. S RAF PLAN I 3 �? �� ." O� Frontage Road - -- � \ - — �l rtT i q I yi I 11 t 3 I tV Lam. %iy __� f �l - &- � •'F -.- �.yy�<� - (i{ Waterford Z Legend (Estimated(luantities) ' Existing Trees Without show dows -. Cornerstone Y. ±, 'r ° ��¢� O PatmOre Ash i` w � O 13 - 3" Caliper (see sheet L -1) 0 p Q7 ° - Colorado Slue Spruce �0 t 11 -6': 20 -10', 20 -12', 11 -id High — — - ° Quaking Aspen co 180 - 25" Catiper, 50% Clumps. n . ' � o 0 f __.�� - ® C3 ���� // Canada Red Cherry - - ( r J o '� 0 0Q / 12 _ g Cal. clumps �fII its ! �I oD /� ` _ Shrubs, IL 400 - 5 Gallon E-LI -- - - - Ll , 4 IO2 i N L =VAT 10 N __ v ._ Arl, i -- i i 'I L, _ - _ I �t i I'�I�I�I 1: f 3 }� c:Ii �� t =o a iyJ J K I� iI -- -, LL L91 IHI 'I� I .. , c" i F i Qjji� 7, F7� I I � Imo' e � _ izll t, 1 i.,. LF 1 -- r 0 El 0 E yi j4, �--rr .w -r aI °A ^l��il C� � 8V✓'lta BUILDINU SECTION, i 1 � � \f�a ?NPU't' �o;aI� •,-V -Y � p��:.C�r�.av ( II_ _ cm °� snIi wP,a T41m JJllll zv i T I a 1t 4f- I J- � s - -� F1 T air I 'ct% c E'�L .v E'er na - - -._ \ ��?l^: c�s✓.Pa � Ph*/ER3 ��L -1 �-I�� 1 `L %� ryaieK Iyty �'$C r3 M `a I G 1 L,r r IiGawvE�� a>ilq. ®I g ®Sb ro°ati, —E:Rx s � �'? _�� \. '�; �,• )�° , fir' Westhaven Drive NOTE: Mall I-d—pe Design as per Cornerstone 1 Terrace Plan pp—od 112189. fEl p N1 , I �i� j _ t z Oe Fj°` I i L j LEVEL t I j t � i j j i g � �'d"! • � _e_ _ ��i i,Tt°�s9s ' '"[1i''h �,• IAt _ � - � L r r � I 1 ' sac...» __ - �� yi w,• t � h^ / i . , +-1 Y T�—; �. � b— h r• � j { , �. 5 � 9i .� LEVEL 82 $,u�'i �K 9,a�,._O• Sg/�� yp�« yqp p��^y9' I gpq� f-2 SCHEDULE OF UNIT x _.>,? TR_:® 34 .UNITS - 15,835 SQ .FT DU - 6 PLAITS = ' 1 2, 275 `SQ i'2 . .ce»c«© ? « ?»f� *m#d #2 » »r *..� «e applicant, proposing 2 expand the commercial « , . «: Oscar Tang, area #(: L4nshead Center Building by3 « « «, &® ©3 proposed one story retail addition will °b* located adjacent 42J existing shops fronting on the Mall. „ . The condominium association would like to ?k« 817.6 square feet of common area on y the south side « ° the b222«#thepoo and north © ?de « :#?»?gbyth � y . . condominium entrance. <» would ?»# §k 2 w4 approximately » « <8 square of GRFA. This is to be »2» ®§- d>t2 - « ?2# common area and ;2b- incorporated into the 2 anag dwelling unit. The proposal requires i; exterior alteration 2: 2 setback variance. The proposed setback ?og the north property ?y would be1 foot here §« feet required b CC < zone district. The exterior alteration review : required as the addition to /» building is larger than 100 square a . \dam \� \� \�� \� \ \^ \ «�� \ \ \�� \) mm• s Facade-wall/structures. 0 4 3. Frames each shop in a way that provides a viewing area for pedestrians into each shop, E. Decks and Patios �M • 5 the mail if it were separated with an extensive amount of a different kind of paver at its base. Concerning the flower boxes, staff believes that they were a minor element that do not affect the project positively or negatively in a significant way. The applicant is still planning to remove the five lights which are located in front of the existing row of commercial shops. These will be replaced by lights within tree grates which are to be located approximately at the mid point of the new addition. Staff believes that this a step in the right direction. When staff walked the area at night, several weeks ago, the mail appeared to be over-lit. By replacing some of the lights with up-lighting, and by relying on other existing lights that are located in the same vicinity, staff believes that there will be adequate light for pedestrian traffic. G. Landscape Elements Staff has identified three areas of the development which involve landscaping. 40 6 have been identified and included in the flail Lionshead Urban Guide Plan, staff believes that a variance is warranted. 3. The effect of the requested variance n light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities utilities, and public safety. Staff has reviewed the proposal in respect to transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, public safety as well as pedestrian traffic. It has been documented by the applicant that the proposal does not affect transportation, or utilities. Fire truck access will be maintained as well as bus access. Though buses do not currently use Lionshead Mail, staff wanted to make sure that this addition did not preclude that option if the Town ever did decide it wanted to bring bus service through the mall. Utilities will not be disturbed, the applicant has found. Some lights will be removed as discussed above, but staff believes that there will be adequate light and pedestrian safety will not be reduced. Lastly, staff looked at pedestrian traffic patterns and believes, that with the spaces on either side of the planter, that pedestrians walking to and from the parking structure and the gondola will have adequate space. B. The Pla 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. . 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: 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, 9 t • ! �S j �t e� { °1 t£ +; �!�° A 0 • M�- W� Iii I . , MURS n, • ull iM= I 0 0 0 F_ j � � ; � f + - -1 �_ r -� +, � � ..y l� � � I � i � �: k +: �y i� �� \ �_ ,j �,�___ ,, i �_ ;� `b_._ ,, ; r- \ i � \ \ _ � \ {\ _ �t \ � z '� _ a MW DATE: SUBJECT: Applicant: Hans Weimann and Helmut Reiss Planner: Tim Devlin Fire Code® This would enable the width of the proposed driveway to be reduced and some paving eliminated. The PEC was not supportive of the request for a landscape variance, espe ia 'y on C I' Lots 7 and 8. However, the PEC indicated that it would take into account the amou of paving already existing on Lot 9 for the driveway easement to access Lot 1.0 to t west in making a determination for a landscape variance on this particular lot. I db 3 .9 Since all of the requested variances are related and all of the issues were not yet resolved, the staff recommended that the item be tabled and that this meeting be utilized as a work session. The applicant was directed to provide Community Development with a Site Plan verified and stamped by a certified engineer, attesting tote "constructability" of the proposed retaining walls based on a completed soils analysis. The PEC also stated that the Landscape Plan needed more work, and suggested that the applicant utilize as many trees as possible to screen the walls and structures. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS a) Lot Size Lot 7: 13,907 sq. ft. Lot 8: 13,615 sq. ft. Lot 9: 14,879 sq. ft. b) GRFA Allowed Proposed Lot 7: 3,691 square feet 3,558 square feet Lot 8: 3,662 square feet 3,558 square feet Lot 9: 3,788 square feet 3,558 square feet c) Setbacks Lot 7: Front: 20' (required) 27' Sides: 15' (required) 27'( west), 16' (east) Rear: 15' (required) 50' Lot 8: Front: 20' (required) 50' Side: 15' (required) 26' (vest), 16' (east) Rear: 15' (required) 25' .9 Lot 9: Front: 2' (required) 66' Side: 15' (required) 19' (vest), 26' (east) Rear: 15' (required) 16' d) Site Covera e Lot 7: 15% (structure) 15% Lest S: 15% (structure) 15% Lot 9: 15% (structure) 15% Lot 7: 10% (paving) 16 ®24 %* Lot 8: 10 %® (paving) 17.27%* Lot 9: 10% (paving) 23.23%* e) Farkin Lot 74 3.0 (required) 3 (2 enclosed, 1 exterior) Lot 8: 3.0 (required) 3 (2 enclosed, 1 exterior) Lot 9: 3.0 (required) S (2 enclosed, 3 exterior) i) Building Height Lot 7: 33' 33' Lot : 33' 33' Lot 9: 33' 33' g) Wall Height: Lot 7m Front Setback: 3' maximum 8-1 0' (® driveway walls) ** 14' (s® driveway wall) ** Others: 6' maximum 6' Lot S: Fret Setback: 3' maximum 10-12'(n. driveway walls)" Others: 6' maximum 10-12'* Lot 9: Front Setback: 3' maximum none proposed Others: 6' maximum ' (n. driveway walls) ** ' 11' (above brick walk)" 5 U Variance required; 10% is maximum site coverage allowed for paving on these lots because the slopes exceed 30%. and would recommend that 15 six foot evergreens (in addition to the 20 proposed) be planted to screen the walls. Staff will present a plan at the PEC meeting indicating the recommended new tree locations. Additional retaining walls (6 feet or less in height) are also being proposed from the last PEC meeting in response to resolving the 1:1 grading issue. All proposed grades now do not exceed 2:1 and should support revegetation. 0 7 Site Coverage Payingh B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followi i findings before gfanting a variance: I 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: sine the variance requests are inter - related, they should either all be approved or denied (instead of approving one and denying another). 0 j I CORTINA LANE i Jj(J E FI2:E �...rK CA /ATt ®r^LI'3°.�,41L l= -G.UGv F D�Iw1i 1J CAN -r E b M - G _4 ia,r ln�a -- —, -' �• / � ,� 2„GAS _LINE Pe 0. -- - �, Q� Q �JkJ ✓rte -- E9 0° _ _.__. _.. -- - - - -- l'� _.,N 42"3' EXIST .-A i ari r'a ys°" -- -- �- — - -�-` ✓.._ ...._ e „N -"--- e } _ _ 9 �� �� - _GRtTC . _.8roo - F, E'3"<aeN lnae, _ .�EL7K 81 iG, 00 � ..l.s1f!<'.? c-- . r - !° -7-.+/ � CA _ C /_GTsL £.L 8;Z61��„_"r a"i9 :C i — ! �- q�.9 m-�r"- �-r_ ---c-- `-`.' I�g-�' Iin v °3. t. / r= - ,... -, _ .m. ---- �/ &.� �i a ti . 9 °__� - -.'.` "--„ �Y°'� ,.s. °� --- 5' =i 8020 Cy -- �' -�gMr Phcpe. •I -- —. J� .V. _ ri t:L'+`— Y_ - - - k- n__ 123.7 0' u£iec. Pd 3o " " °5 " &0 "E I 92J.20' i Tele. TS ®� 3 c 12V v 12 1=3 w ' s_ avA iwcr- f i bl LOT ep wolw 3 as A. NOT Ole 4L it-tow Ubd"- i y w. 3' i B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. • The Town's parking and loading standards for residential use have been met 3 Residential . - Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. . - The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The following sections of the ail Village Master Plan specifically relate to is proposal: 2 - Goal - to foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. . - Obiective - Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 - folic - 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 olio - Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 2.6.3 - E21 lo - The 'Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. 4 SUBDIVISIONS C. Mans 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 requi, ,.Mlents of owners and guests of the condominium units, 2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by the building inspector, -- -._ 3m o< a iniurn projects shall meet current Uniform Build- ing :� ,:fie requirements for heat and fire detection devices and sv° terns. (Ord. 2 (1983) § 1: Ord. 2 (1983) § 1 (part).] 7.26.075 Condominium conversions Any applicant seeking to convert any accommodation gnat within the town shall comply with the requirements of this section. The requirements contained in this section shalt 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 (va I1- 15-83) 2984 PPPPP,_ CONDOWNIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. 1. An owners Dersonal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to twenty eht days during t e seasonal eraod of T�ecember 24th to Januar Ist and February ist to March 20th. This seasonal perso is ereana ter ieferred to as ' .'high seasort."� "CBwner "s personal use " shall be defined as owner's occupancy of a unit or non-paying west 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. ggERLancK of a unit by a lode roam er or staff em loved by the Iode, however, shall neat be restricted by this sect 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 Bert 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 - (Vail 12-1 -87) PPPPP_ CONDOMINIUMS AN CONDOMINIUM CONV IONS AP m C e of the survivor of the present town council plus twenty -one . years. Conversion of accommodation units located within a C , m lodge pursuant to this section, shall e modified only by the C 3 written agreement of the town council and the owner or owners of the units which have been converted into con o- iniums. The d ocuments creating and governing any accom mod a- ® tion unit which has been converted into a condominium shall e modified by the owners of such units only with the prior written approval of the town council. G. Procedure. The conversion of an accommodation unit in an existing lodge shall be accomplished pursuant to the sub- division review process. The applicant shall provide the following documentation to the town at the time of the application to convert accommodation units located in lodge to condominium units: 1. Proof of ownership, 2. Site inventory for the property indicating in detail the actual location of any amenities serving tile- lodge- 3. Affidavit of services provided as is called for in sub- paragraph 2 above- 4. Designation and description of all employee units; 5. Plan of improvements to be made to the property along with estimated costs therefor. (Ord. 21(1987) §§ 1 ®3m Ord. 2(19$3) § 1 (part).) 17.26.080 Action on preliminary map. A. At the hearing on the preliminary map, the planning commis- sion shall consider whether the proposed conversions is consistent with the following housing goals of the town: I. To encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the town through a variety of housing types; 2. To expand the supply o decent housing for low and oderate income families `T°o 3. achieve greater` economic balance for the town y increasing the number of jobs and the supply df housing 1 10(val or people who will hold therm; d e . The eommissio may require that d reasonable percentage of the converted units e reserved for sale or rental to persons of �,. moderate income. -. 298-7 (bail 12 -1-87) • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE® December 7, 1992 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18. 2, Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "Sledding and Tobaggonning Parks" to the list of conditional uses in Section 18.32.030. Applicant: Joe Macy/Vail Associates Inc. Planner, Jim Curnutte east side of the Lionshead ski school area. This bridge currently provides summer access to the tot lot, which is in the same general area as the proposed sledding/tobogganning park. — Approximate distance from the Gondola Building to the sledding/tobogganning area is 1,200 feet. At night access will be switched to the skier bridge, on a lighted trail. Total distance from the Gondola Building is approximately 1,000 feet. Vail Associates plans to operate the sledding and tobogganning park from January until mid-March. Daily hours will be from approximately 2 PM until 8 PM, however, these times may be adjusted in response to customer feed back. Vail Associates estimates that three to five employees per day are needed to operate the park. The accessory uses contemplated or related to the proposed park are signage, enclosure fences and ropes, ticket shacks, starter shacks, lighting, artificial snow, electricity, a warming tent, propane heat, and limited food and beverage service. Approximately ten flood lights are being considered for the park in order to accommodate saf operation at night. These flood lights will be installed on 4" x 4" posts and directed towards the sledding operation. Ill. Proposed Code Amendment Below is the entire text of Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District. The text '77 the proposed addition to the Conditional Use section is shaded in gray. I 18.32.020 Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the A district: A. Single-family residential dwellings; B. Plant and tree nurseries and raining of field, row and tree crops; C. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. Ord. 8 (1973 12.200.) 18.32.030 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. Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility, B. Public and private schools and colleges; C. Churches, rectories, and related structures; D. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges; 41 E. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats; rl Staff believes that adding sledding and tobogganning parks to the list of conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, is an appropriate change. The proposed addition carries out the intention of the purpose statement for the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, which states inpart, "Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open". With the exception of a few small warming huts for participants, on-lookers and employees, a sledding and tobogganning park will remain predominantly open and would seem to be a use that fits in very nicely with the purpose statement of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. Possible impacts of a sledding and tobogganning park (ie. parking, lighting, signage, etc.) can be reviewed in more detail when the application for a conditional use permit proceeds through the review process. M FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1992 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. I gm I me I'm I gmlpi� I C I I M, C. Is an 8-foot setback from the paved recreation path acceptable? 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 would require that 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. Although a 10 foot separation between building foundations is requested in the application, the conceptual site plan shows a 21 foot separation between the duplex and the single family residence. At the May, 1992 PEA meeting, both the staff and the PEC felt that by combining the two northernmost units into a duplex structure, a minimum of 12 feet between building foundations was possible. This was considered to be the minimum distance that should be allowed. Rick thanked the Commission, indicating he had a good idea of what the applicant needed to Sk do. -eSDD �e' 2'. A reguest for a work,session to discuss a major amendment to Cascade Villa, -�r — 1335 Westhaven Drive,, Cascade described as follows: • P.M. ,described as follows, Planning and Environmental Commission March 9, 1992 ® Page 4 feel that 1 large building and I small building was as visually stimulating as 3 separate buildings, but agreed that 2 buildings would be better than one large 3-unit building. 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 cre-ek and the recreation path. As this was a worksession item', no vote was taken. The public meeting was called to order at 2:50P M. All the Commissioners were in attendance. �® A request for an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core II zone district for the Cairo residence, t , l3l k 1, Vail L ionshead First Filin 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 ethers to L ionshead Center. She was assured by Mike Krohn, the C o'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 Care II zone district for the Cano Residence, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail L,ionshead First Filing/520 East L ionshead Circle be approved per the staff's recommendations. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 7 -0. 2. A re nest to extend a conditional use e it tci sic and the Vail mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Roadf t 12 El % 2 Vail Village 12th Filing Applicant. Vail Mountain School Planner: Andy Knudt-sen 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 Load/ 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 Cena Whitten temporarily absent during the vote. 3. A request fora conditional u o allow for the expansion of the tipper Eagle Valley Consolidated S nation District administrative offices at 846 Forest Roa of 31, Vail Village 2nd Filin Ass licant. Upper Earle ValleConsolidated Sanitation District Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello presented the request to add additional administrative are a to the existing Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District facility. Planning and Environmental Commission - March 9, 1992 - Page 7 R _ S -- - - - - -- IAN 7. NN P j z � . .. ... .. \� \• . \ \,... .. \... ,.•..:. ...�. ,..._r' ,.:.. �:-r 'k-�y- .. r- .�—' = mss. —�.✓ -. - _ \1 OFT I Commercial Service Center 20' on all sides of the property Upon review of 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.- I 'The relationship of the reguested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in tl�:w� e IH Ul I-A N v NNI -lil +Tl t4 2) N 74 °30'17" E 160.70 feet; thence departing said southerly right -of -way line N 88 145'57" E 133.93 feet; thence S 40145'14" W 94.32 feet; thence S 181 13'36" W 54.06 feet; thence S 01 °21'36" W 205.02 feet; thence S 12 107'36" W 110.25 feet; thence S 26 126'36" W 164.46 feet; thence N 40 °17'04" W 211.16 feet; thence N 49 °42'56" E 97.80 € t; thence N 37 ®09'31" W 95.59 feet; thence S 52 050'29" W 55.10 feet; thence 69.43 feet along the arc of a non - tangent curve to the left having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61 114'42" and a chord that bears N 581 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37 °09'31" W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado; and the Cornerstone parcel described as follows: Building C Site That part of the SW 114 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Mange 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of a non - exclusive easement for ingress and egress known as Westhaven Drive recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder whence the center of said Section 12 bears S 38134'43 "W 1,168.27 feet; thence said line of Westhaven Drive N 52 °43'41 "E 143.92 feet; thence departing said line of Westhaven Drive, 132.24 feet along the arc of a non - tangent curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet, a central angle of 137°45'30" and a chord that bears N 42 °11'46 "E 102.61 feet; thence N 52 150'29 "E 65.24 feet; thence S 37009'31"E 95.59 feet; thence S 49 142'56 "W 97.80 feet; thence S 40 °17'04 "E 24.12 feet; thence S 52 150'29 "W 213.66 feet; thence N 37 °09'31 "W 105.76 feet to the point of beginning containing 0.6848 acres more or less. Applicant: MECIVI Enterprises represented by ustaquio Cortina and Commercial Federal Savings. Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED IL DEC. 7, 4. A request for variances for wall height, site coverage, landscaping, and driveways and surface parking area in excess of 10% of the site area (16, 9.050 F) to allow the development of three single family residences located on Lots 7,69 and 9, Block B, Mail Ridge/2662, 2672, 2662 Cortina Lane, Applicant: Hans Welmann and Helmut Reiss Planner: Tim Devlin request for a work session to discuss the review process fora proposal by the Vail Housing Authority for a development on the Mountain Bell property. Applicant: Vail Housing Authority Planners: Kristan Pritz and Andy Knutsen request for an exterior alteration and setback variance for the Vail Lions ea Center Building located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filint20 East Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Oscar Tang Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL DEC. 7, 1 7. Approval of November 9, 1992 meeting minutes. 2 Dalton Williams reconsidered his opinion of the staff memo, realizing that the bedrock prohibited the owners from a different initial architectural design such as an L-shaTe. Due to the hardship of the underground rock formation, he felt that it would not be a grant of special privilege. 1! 1101011flill 1 111 i I i EEIOMOE�� Chuck Crist motioned to approve the request per the staff memo, with a 9' modified encroachment into the side setback and to plant four trees to soften the impact of the addition that would include bay windows. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and was unanimously passed 7-0. It was the general consensus to have the Design Review Board look at the landscape plan. 2. A request for a variance form Section 18.58.32 to allow two satellite dishes that exceed the number and the height limits to be located at the Sonnenalp/Swiss Haus/82 E. Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. U i W., , 0 M N�-- �: — ► Greg Stutz, the attorney representing the Edelweiss, Summers Lodge, stated that he would like the request voted down and that his clients felt the impact was too much. He further stated that two antennas could serve the entire village, therefore, he did not feel that one lodge needed two antennas for itself. He also wanted clarification of the existing smaller antenna as seen on the site visit. Dalton Williams motioned to have an executive session with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, seconded by Kathy Langenwalter. The Council Chambers were cleared, an,,,#.- an executive session with the Board, mil.anning staff, and Larry Eskwith was held to discuss the future plans to allow another cable network in the Village for 35 minutes. 11 Village, to amend the development plan for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A. Kathy Langenwalter motioned to table the request until December 7, 1992, with Chu seconding the motion with a unanimous vote 7-0. 1 A request for variance for wall height, site coverage, landscaping, and driveways and surface parking area in excess of 10% of the site area (18.69.050 E) to allow for the development of three single family residences located Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block B, Vail Ridge/2662, 2672, 2682 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Hans Weimann and Helmut Reiss Planner: Tim Devlin 1 11 1111!111111 11111 i Ill !1111 lillir !ill fflfollffil� �-�Iffmwffiffim- 4HUMI.MKINUIRaterollut Greg Amsden stated that given the site, a hardship for the retaining walls and pavi site coverage existed. However, the drawings were not modified enough from the November 9, 1992 meeting to satisfy him. i Kathy Langenwalter said she was not comfortable with the project due to the similarity in design of the three houses and had an overall concern with the site planning for the three lots. Gena Whitten felt that the houses seem too large for the small lots on which they are proposed. Jeff Bowen said he agreed with Kathy Langenwalter and would like to see the site coverage met. Chuck Crist stated that the site coverage should not go with the variance and that the wall height is acceptable at 10 feet. '*LANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 11123/92 71% e �e Dalton Williams agreed with Greg and added that he would like the paving reduced per the newest plan® He felt that 10 foot retaining walls were acceptable with a fence for protection of persons. Dalton also felt that a more intensive landscape plan was necessary. Diana Donovan stated that she would probably allow only one variance for wall height. ena Whitten said that the lots are too small and too steep for the houses and driveways as proposed, and that she is not comfortable with the proposed walls. Jeff Bowen abstained from comment; Chuck Crist stated that he agreed with Greg Amsen and that he would like to see extensive landscaping. Chuck Crist motioned to table the request until December 7➢ 19928 Dalton Williams seconded the motion with a unanimous vote, 5m A request for a work session to discuss the review process for a proposal by the Vail Housing Authority for a development on the Mountain Bell Property® Applicant: Vail Housing Authority Planner: Andy Knudtsen Generally, the PC agreed with the zoning process outlined by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 P.M. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 11/23/92 A. Considerations of factors: 1. The relationship oft the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. a) Egi ht Variance The antennas will be 7'-8" and 7' higher than the flat portion of the onnenalp roof, however, the lower 5'4" of these dishes are screened from view by the building's parapet walls, The largest antenna will exceed the highest point of the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet (37' -5") by 3 ". The location of these dishes on the building's roof and their setback from the parapet walls will cause them to be almost completely screened from the view of pedestrians at ground level. The smaller (7') antenna will be positioned near the center of the building and will be setback approximately V-6" from the north parapet wall and 7' from the south parapet wall. The larger (7' -8") antenna will have setbacks from the north and south parapet walls similar to the smaller one and will be positioned approximately 1 foot from the east parapet wall. That portion of the dishes which extend above the parapet walls should only be visible to some upper -level multi -unit properties located south of {yore Creek and north of East Meadow Drives The dishes will be painted light brown to blend in with the color of the building. Staff and the applicant discussed placing these dishes at ground level, however, it was felt that the dishes would be more visible at grade and would have a negative impact on the landscaped area of the lot. ) Number Variance As mentioned previously, the applicants have stated that they are ' attempting to receive signals from two different satellites° One satellite transmits the major network channels, and one transmits only stations available on cable® It would not appear that the proposed additional satellite dish antenna would have a substantially negative impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. ® 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 situ in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of is title without grant of special privilege® a) Height Variance 3 If the proposed satellite dish antennas were mounted on the ground, they could meet the Town's criteria for antenna height. However, the proposed roof tap installations minimize the impact on neighbors and the public by placing them in a location not readily visible, and screening them in terms of paint color and the existing parapet walls. Each dish is proposed to be located approximately five feet back from the edge of the walls. Though roof top installations are not always desirable for satellite dish antennas, occasionally this approach provides the optimum method of screening the dishes, This option has been approved in the past in cases where impacts on adjacent properties are decreased. Staff believes that relief from the strict height requirements is warranted to minimize the visual impact of the proposed satellite dish antennas on adjacent properties, b) Dumber Variance In order to provide quality commercial satellite service to the hotel, a minimum of two dishes is necessary. The literal enforcement of the zoning standard would result in a practical difficulty for the applicant, as a full range of television channels can only be provided with two dishes. For this reason, staff believes that relief from the limit of one satellite dish is warranted. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities an utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that PEC approval of the requested variances will not have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There will be no impact on health, safety, or welfare if the requested variances are granted. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before antin a y once° 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 4 It I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AR R-5 I. ZONING ANALYSIS Site Area: 32,130 square feet Allowed EEistigg ELokosed Ci PA: 6,207 sq. ft. 4,013 sq. ft. 4,640 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' (min.) 92' 3' Sides: 15' (min.) 15' (west); 23' (east) 1'(wcst) *; 23' (east) Rear: 15' (rain.) 120' 113' Site Coverage: 6,426 sq. ft. (201®) 2,298(7%) 2,948(9%) Parking: 3 required 4 (2 enclosed) 6 (3 enclosed) Height: 33' (max.) 29 °5' 29.5' Landscaping: 60% (min.) 0% 0%+ Requires variance 111. VARIANCE A AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant's property is located at the top of Potato Patch Drive, and is directly adjacent to the Agricultural/Open Space land to the west (please see the attached zoning map). Although no residence exists to the west of the subject property, the staff feels that the extent of the proposed setback is excessive. The width of the proposed garage is 16 feet, with a length of 29 feet. Located directly above the new third garage is proposed to be a master bedroom, bathroom, and greenhouse with two bay windows that extend 2 feet beyond the western outside wail of the garage and an additional 17 feet north of the garage footprint below. The overall dimensions of the proposed upper level 2 bedroom and bathroom are 16' x 39', with two bay windows projecting an additional 2 feet in the side setback. The greenhouse attached to the north of the bedroom/bath addition is 1' x 7.25', and is proposed to encroach 6.25 feet into the side setback. It is positive that the existing carport is being removed from the open space land. Please see the attached upper level plan. 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 oft is title without grant of special privilege. Given the location of the existing house, the staff feels that a variance for an additional garage space is warranted, but recommends that the space be limited to 11 feet in width (instead of 16 feet) by 29 feet in length (exterior dimensions). This would make the encroachment into the setback 8 feet instead of the proposed 14 feet. Please note that the parking requirement for this house is three spaces. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing carport so an additional garage space would result in a total of three parking spaces. Staff would consider the possibility of additional GRFA on the level above this reduced garage space (I F x 29'), and recommends that all additional GRFA be located outside of the side setback, including the entire greenhouse. 3. The effect oft the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and u lic safety® Staff does not feel that the proposed variance would have a substantial adverse impact on any of the above mentioned items. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following finding s before anon a v ance. 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; 3 0 0 t 8 S' LOT t 11 W k, j 'L7 1, 1 a0 �(!/ z f jz �o»r�ivaso PfFwE , I 33 0A 'uevl - - PNi M E ,T A ,�� € caASPIUL7:pvE• J Reiai"!6� ' , i �f `. � 1p33•p2, � "��Y,�'�;Fy `�`fnk����°v��''' �S�`�c^„ `� ' c �`' c l' ' MAr=rl C:asf CI.e}: `�!� i _ s9.. x•�""� '. ��/ �{�"'�.1 06'� �/� `nor ��jo �� Col mil E Y Y A M M� / \ / Y f E ­. Y d f y he comet -_11 more Gv n i IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHY \ LOT 1 -BLOCK 1 e � -------- -- tl E:I: Ti II � i I 1 O 1 �! 1 I 7 i yq• ! I i I I 0 the applicant at the November 23, 1992 PEC meeting to evaluate the visual impact of the walls. The PEC indicated that they were generally not supportive of a variance for structure site coverage (15% maximum), and asked that the footprint be reduced to conform to the code requirement. The PEC did indicate that a site coverage variance for paving (10% maximum) was perhaps warranted, but asked the applicant to reduce the amount of paving site coverage as much as possible by eliminating unnecessary paved parking spaces and by sprinkling the houses per the Fire Code. This would enable the width of the proposed driveway to be reduced. The PEC was generally not supportive of the request for a landscape variance, especially on Lots 7 and 8. However, the PEC indicated that it would take into account the amount of paving already existing on Lot 9 for the driveway easement t6 access Lot 10 to the west in making a determination for a landscape variance on this particular lot. ® ZONING ANALYSIS a) Lot Size Lot 7: 13,907 sq. ft. Lot v 13,615 sq. ft. Lot ; 14,879 sq. ft. b) GRFA Allowed EEgposed Lot 7m 3,691 square feet 3,555 square feet Lot 0 3,662 square feet 3,558 square feet Lot 9s 3,78$ square feet 3,558 square feet c) Setbacks Lot 7: Front: 20' (required) 27' Sides: 15' (required) 27'(west), 16' (east)' Rear: 15' (required) 5' Lot 8. Front® 20' (required) 50' Side; 1' (required) 26' (west), 16' (east) Rear: 15' (required) 25' 3 Lot 9® Front: 20' (required) 66' Side. 1' (required) 19' (west), 26' (east) Rear: 15' (required) 16' d) Si�� Lot 7: 15% (structure) 16.13% Lot : 15% (structure) 16.47%* Lot 9: 15% (structure) 15.07%* Lot 7: 10% (paving) 16.24%* Lot : 10% (paving) 17.27%* Lot 9: 101® (paving) 27.26%* e) Effking Lot 7: 3.0 (required) 3 (2 enclosed, 1 exterior) Lot S: 3. (required) 3 (2 enclosed, 1 exterior) Lot 9: 3.0 (required) 5 (2 enclosed, 3 exterior) f) BELIding Height Lot 7: 33' 33? Lot S: 33' 33' Lot 9: 33' 33' g) Wall eight: Lot 7: Front Setback: 3' maximum 6' (north walls)** 1'(sut wall)* Others: 6' maximum 6' Lot Front Setback: 3' maximum 9' (north walls) ** Others: 6' maximum 10'** Lot 9: Front Setback: 3' maximum none proposed Others: 6' maximum 8' and 12' 4 that these slopes be re- worked to 201 so that they can be revegetate. This will require additional retaining walls, each of which should meet zoning regulations. Currently, the grading issue has not been resolved.. Site Covei°ae. The three proposed residences have identical floor plans, and the exteriors of each house have cosmetic differences that the applicant maintains will make them Weread" as three distinct houses. At the work session, PEC expressed concern regarding the similarity of the structures and asked the applicant to make there appear as distinct as possible. Since Lots 7, 8 and 9 are in excess of 30%, the allowable site coverage is 15% for structures and 10% for paving/ driveways. The staff does not support a variance for structure site coverage on any of the lots and recommends that the applicant decrease the building footprint on all three lots to meet the 15% site coverage requirement for structures. The staff does support a variance for the paving proposed on each lot (16.24 %, 17.27%, and 27.26% for Lots 7, 8, and 9 respectively) given the unusual access plan. Landscaping, The staff would like to see as much landscaping as possible on these three sites to minimize the visual impact of the retaining walls from below. Aside from the retaining walls which would require variances for wall height (all north of the proposed houses), additional retaining walls which meet the zoning requirement of 6 feet (maximum) are proposed south of the residences and would be visible from the hillside below. The applicant has proposed to screen these walls mostly with shrubs and aspen trees, and the staff would like to see as many evergreen and spruce trees as possible planted to minimize the visual impact of these walls. The applicant has increased the percentage of landscaping on each lot since the work session, but still requires a variance from the 60% minimum requirement on Lot 9. The staff supports this variance because the existing driveway easement across Lot 9 to access Lot 10 to the west contributes significantly to the deficiency of landscaping (57.67/®) on Lot 9® 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 tt in the objectives oft is title without grant of special rivilc 6 Wall Hejght. The staff recognizes that the steepness of Lots 7, 8 and 9 make access to the very difficult. We believe that some relief from the strict interpretation of the code is warranted. However, staff suggests that the 12 foot retaining wall on Lot 9 be redesigned along with the entry to avoid such a high wail. Also, all of the excessive grades should be reduced to 2:1 or less as discussed above° This would require additional retaining walls on the lots so that all disturbed areas can be revegetateda We believe the applicant can bring the project into more compliance with the code than is currently proposed. Site Coverage: As discussed above, the staff feels that the site coverage for the structures (15%) could be met by reducing the building footprints slightly, and therefore does not support structure site coverage variances on any of the three lots. The amount of paving has been reduced substantially since the work session, d the staff supports variances for paving site coverage on all three lots, The unusual access plan warrants some relief from the strict interpretation of the code. It is felt that the applicant has reduced the pavement as much as passible while still meeting parking and access requirements, L,andsca�in: The staff supports a landscape variance on Lot 9, given the configuration of the driveway easement across the lot to access Lot 10 to the west. This circumstance calls for relief from the landscape requirement. 3; The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety® The staff does not feel that the proposal as presented would have a substantial adverse impact on any of the above items, B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the follc�win findin s before arantin 'a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 7 e ez� Fnn Om 91 11 v 9 Its � s _.. i I j -/AT $ bo l ' ;.,.: i- .;_... i s ;-- q� � - �< Pat 2 !— '• 9 e i L I `r s-r: 6 - These statistics tell us that the housing need in Vail is greater than the housing supply. development housing it can be seen as serving the residents, . that the rezoning is generally consistent with the Land Use designation. 0 4 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed schedule for completion of the Mountain Bell housing project is as follows: General Public Meetings ® Meet with Learning Tree and Mountain Bell representatives October 25, 1992 - Public meeting in Vail Council Chambers with day care November 12, 1992 representatives - Additional public meetings Ongoing PC work session on process Nov. 23,1992 Prepare RFP (send to local architects) Three weeks Prepare rezoning and resudivision submittal including: Four weeks - site plan - landscape plan - conceptual floor plane - conceptual elevation drawings - grading plan Submittal to Planning Commission Four weeks PEC hearing on rezoning request Revise drawings Two weeks Town Council /First reading of rezoning Two Weeks Town Council /Second reading of rezoning Two Weeks Refine Proposal Three/four weeks Conditional use permit (P EC) Four weeks Possible Council call-up Two/three weeks Design Review Board Six weeks (two meetings at three weeks each) Preparation of construction documents Two/four months Building er i application Three weeks Is 5 UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORE I PROJECT SDD* Site Area: 0,159 acres or Same Same 6,926 sq. ft. Setbacks: Per the Vail Village N: 0 -6 ft, N: 0 -3 ft. Urban Design Guide Plays W: 0 -7 ft. W. 0.5 ft. S: 0 ®3 ft. S: 0 -6 ft. E: 0.5 -1.5 ft. E: 0.5 -1.5 ft. eight® 60 %: 33 ft. or less East: 46 ft. max. East. 56 ft® axe 40 %: 33 ft. - 43 ft. West: 36 ft, max, West: 44 ft. max. Common Area: 1,939 sq. ft or 6,570 sq. ft. or 118% 6,012 sq. ft. or 108% 35% of allowable GRFA -1,939 sq. ft. or 35% - 1,939 sq, ft. or 35% 4,631 sq. ft. added to GRFA 4,073 sq. ft. added to GRFA GRFA: 5,541 sq. ft. or 60% 3,958 sq. ft. 17,637 sq. ft. + 4,631 sq. ft. (excess common) +4,073 sq. ft. (excess common area) 13,539 sq, ft. or 196% 21,760 sq. ft. or 315 % Units: 25 units per acre, or 18 units 19 units 3.9 units for the site. (16 VDU and 6 AU) Site Coverage: ** 5,541 sq. ft; 6,351 sq. ft; 7,721 s. ft® or 60% or 92% or 112% Landscaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Parking: Per Town of Vail Required. 56 Required: 76 parking standards Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 1 Required. 2 Fading standards Existing: 0 Proposed. 0 Commercial Uses: N/A 7,157 sq. ft 11,795 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 23,241 sq. ft. 35,494 sq. ft. All the proposed development statistics shall be verified by staff prior to final review by the Site Coverage calculations include areas of the building which extend beyond the boundaries of the Golden Peak House property. FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1992 SUBJECT: A review of a staff approval for two minor amendments to SDD #4 ® Cascade Village Area A, The Westin, 13 esthaven Drive and the Cascade Club, 1294 Westhaven Drive Westin That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly boundary of the parcel of land shown on the Condominium Map for the Colorado Mountain Condominiums recorded in Book 387 at Page 620 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, when the most southerly comer of said parcel bears S 52 50'29" W 14.16 feet distant; thence the following nine courses along the southerly boundary of said parcel: (1) N 52 50'29" E 49.16 feet: (2) N 37 12'45" W 12.34 Feet; (3) N 52 47'15" E 1.00 feet; (4) N 37 12'45" W 1.30 feet (5) N 52 47'15" E 42.60 feet; (6) N 37 12,45" W 8.70 feet; (7) N 52 47'15" E 15.00 feet; (8) S 37 12'45" E 22.40 feet; (9) N 52 50,29" E 35.28 Feet; thence departing said southerly boundary N 52 50'29" E 56.96 feet; thence S 37 09'31" E 45.34 feet thence N 52 50'29" E 48.70 feet; thence S 37 09'31" E 9.60 feet; thence N 52 50'29" E 80.00 feet; thence S 37 09'31" E 36.40 feet; thence N 52 50'29" E 21.30 feet; thence S 37 09'31" E 220.02 feet to Gore Creek; thence the following four courses along Gore Creek: (1) S 49 26,36" W 76.45 feet; (2) S 22 31'36" W 124.47 feet; (3) S 53 37'36" W 119.34 feet; (4) S 65 31'36" W 14.58 feet; thence departing Gore Creek N 32 59'30" W 141.47 feet; thence N 57 25'30" W 124.02 feet; thence N 37 09'31" W 116.45 feet to the point of beginning, containing 110,200 square feet or 2.49 acres, more or less. Cascade Club A part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, being described as follows: Applicant: The Westin Resort/Cascade Club Ltd. Planner: Shelly Mello M F12z)tl ROOM SRV. i 1, —Fib CONNECTION i p ! ! i I t ! I I I ! I 113 I $ 1 ! ' o I 114 Fi I I g' I P PI °S q1 ! 115 H ! ! SPORTS 9 ! t i i 1 ll6 ! ! 7 H P � a.i 0 0 I I I r, 1 NOWANNUMUNWAWMEN r� �q PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER, 9; 1 992 AGENDA X121 P® ® ite visits 2 :00 P.M. Public bearing Site Visits: 12:15 P.M. Cole eimann Swiss Chalet Public Hearing: 2:00 P. W. 2:00 to 2 :10 1. A request for a conditional use to allow a bed and breakfast to be conducted at 1450 Buffer Creek Road/Lot 2, Cliffside. Applicant: David Cole Planner: Shelly Mello 2:10 to 315 . A request for a variance from Section 16.53.32 to allow two satellite dishes that exceed the number and the height limits to be located at the Sonnenalp /Swiss aus /32 E. Meadow rive /Lot K, Mock 5E, Vail Village First Filing® Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Jim Curnutte 3 :15 to :45 ® A request for a joint work session with the DR13 and P O for an exterior alteration and setback variance for the bail Lioshead Center wilding located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing \520 East Lionsad Circle® Applicant: Oscar "fan Planner: Andy Knu tsen 3:45 to :0 8 A request for a work session for variances for wall height, site coverage, landscaping, and driveways and surface parking area in excess of 10% of the site area (13.69.050 E) to allow the development of three single family residences located on Lots 7,3, and 9, Block 13, Vail Ridge/2662, 2672, 2682 Cortina Lane Applicant: Hans Weimann 00 Planner: Tim evfirt 1 :0 to :1 5. Presentation of air quality analysis and wood burning policy® Planners: Russ Forrest Susan Scanlan . A request for a variance from Section 13.53.32 to allow two satellite dishes that exceed the number and the height limits to be located at the Vail Valley Medical Center /131 P. Meadow Drive /Lots E and P, Block 1, Second Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical enter Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED INDEFINITELY 7. A request for a setback variance to allow a residence and a garage to be constructed in the front setback located at Lot 2, Mack 3, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing Number Three /1373 Lions midge Loop. Applicant: tied barley Planner: Andy Knudtsen WITHDRAWN 6® A request for a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission and to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak Douse, 273 Manson Ranch Road/Lots and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc. / PH Partners, .. Lt./ araritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TIL NOV. 23,1992 ® Approval of October 26, 1992 meeting minutes. 2 Present as favorable type of lodging for tourists® 1 2. The effect of the use on light grid �istriution of opulatioh, t recreation facilities and other®public facilities needs. guests can be accommodated at one time, and it is unlikely that there would be more than 2 guest vehicles. There is no Town of Vail bus stop in the vicinity. It is fait that the impact on the use of parks and recreation facilities and on transportation facilities would be minimal. 3. Effect upon traffic with articular reference to congestions automotive and pedestrian safely and convenience traffic flow and control, access, mane vera ilit�, and rer�aoval of snow from the street and arkin areas. It is likely that there would be 2 additional vehicles driving to the Cole residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4® Effect upon the character of the area in which the�d use ► to e I ocated, includinia the scale and bulk of theiroosed use in relation to surrounding uses® --�- The staff feels that the character of the area will net be negatively impacted by the addition of a bed and breakfast in this area® No exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the bed and breakfast® 5® Bed and breakfast operations rria be ailo ed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified in Title 1 of the flail unici�sal Code for Ordinanc e o® 1 Q series of 199. lied end breakfast aeration shall be subject to the following requirements: a. ffstreet esighote parkin shall be rewired as follovvso One space for t o o herl ro rietor glus one ace for the first bedroom rented plus 112 space for each additional bedroom rented. The Cole property contains 2 enclose and -4 exterior parkin spaces. It is a single- family residence with a parkin requirement of 3 spaces. With the B & B, a total of 5 spaces will be required. The parking requirement can be handled on site. b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbqg2 removal service shall be grovideda The trash containers will be housed in the garage with regular trash pick -u. is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission SUBJECT: A request for variances from Section 18.58.320 to allow two satellite dish antennas, which exceed the maximum allowable number and height above grade, to be located on the roof of the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet, Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing, 82 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Johannes Faessler/Tri-County Cablevision Planner: Jim Cumutte Johannes Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet, and Lynn Johnson, President of Tri-County Cablevision, are requesting variances from Section 18.58.320 of the Vail :) Hei6t Variance � The requested height variance is from Section 18.58.320 (D, 3) which states: 0 1 The applicant is also requesting a variance from the maximum number of satellite dishes allowed. Section 18058.320 (D, 1) states: "No More Man one sate i s antenna snawl oe a on anj ruc-as delineated on the official Town of Vail zoning map." IIo ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Public Accommodation District Setbacks: The proposed satellite dish antennas will not be located in any of t setbacks required in the Public Accommodation District. i 0 2 L The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity® 1111111:11111� ijqipl�j ii�111111 �1%11jrTPPjF11TjM mW ffrwt If the proposed satellite dish antennas were mounted on the ground, they could meet the Town's criteria for antenna height. However, the proposed roof top installations minimize the impact ®n neighbors and the public by placing them in a location not readily visible, and screening the in terms of paint color and the existing parapet walls. 3 b) Number Variance 3. The effect of 2 h± « «f «!2. « ¥ var& ««!m : §» y, and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 40 Staff believes that PEC approval of the requested variances will not IRTIMM a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of ?espy? ? 0 4 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested height and number variances. Staff has examined the property and feels that, aesthetically, the roof of the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet is the best location for satellite dish antennas on the site. Staff believes that approval of the requested variances would not be a grant of special privilege because the Planning and Environmental Commission has granted height and quantity variances for satellite dish antennas at other properties including the Lodge at Vail, the Mariott/Radisson, the Westin, etc. Staff also believes that granting the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and that the variances are warranted because the strict and literal interpretation of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district. 1. That the applicant paint the satellite dish antennas light brown to match the building. 0 5 PAVM MINGLE Rocf i GRAVEL ROOF ENDS OF P 49 ARE W A13OVE ROOF SATELLITE ANTENNAS WILL NOT EXCEED THE HEIQHTOF THE END OF THE FARIPIT HEIGHT ABOVE WOUND OF THE TOP OF WE ANTENNAS AND THE PARIPIT IS 08' t ;. �5, _� �"% r 3 `S �"�° � `� � � __ �.< T%v7--Im*lMrdl�M ;-�p I � ---A- 2 believe that the use of color and the size of the proposed awnings are good contributions to the elevation design. Please note that the Alfie Packer's courtyard, sign, landscaping, and awning will be discussed at a later meeting. r • • r I fN 1 '�'� "' � t ( LhAR[dE.q� � �°•s�'I I f I 1 � KG�Tti _s�+fs Pini W, FM9 0 0 0 a v i 9 ca m m s - �uf t" r- C 7 H ■ l =a�1 C ■ :7 2 El", yy. A4�1 tS4 ` • excess of 30% (see 18.69.050 E of the Municipal Code). Specifically, the allowable site coverage for structures is 15 on each lot and the applicant is 18.0% proposing on Lot 7, 18.4 on Lot 8, and 16. 8% on Lot 9. It should noted that three car garages are proposed on each lOta In addition, on lets in excess of 30 %® slope, not more than 10% of the total site area may be covered by paving, driveways and surface parking. The applicant is proposing 19.0 %® on Lot 7, 24.4% on Lot 8, and 29.9 on Lot 9. It should be noted that an 'sting driveway easement exists on Lots 8 and 9 to access Lot 10 to ' the west, contributing to e excess amount of paving site coverage on these lots. 3. LandsopLing The applicant is also requesting lief from 18.13.110 of the Municipal Code (Landscaping and site development), which requires that at least %® of each site be landscaped. e applicant is proposing landscaping of 62.7 % on Lot 7 (no variance needed), 57.6% on Lot 8, and 53.8 %® can Lot 9. H. BACKGROUND In the vicinity, a request for a wall height variance was heard by the PEC on September 28, 1992, for Lot 10, Block B, Vail Ridge/2692 Cortina Lane. In this case, two 6- foot boulder retaining walls, 120 feet in length, were proposed the front setback in order to stabilize the hillside and Cortina Lane above the existing driveway and residence. The PEC voted 6 ®0 to approve the request with the condition that native shrubs be planted can the terraced areas of e walls, such as junipers, serviceberry, and chokecherry. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS a) Lot Size Lot 7s 13,907 s. ft. Lot 8: 13,615 s. ft. Lot ® 14,879 sq. ft. b) Allowed ELo2psed Lot 7e 3,691 square feet 3,635 square feet Lot 8; 3,662 square feet 3,635 square feet Lot 9® 3,788 square feet 3,635 square feet 2 c) Setbacks t7: Front: 20' (required) 7' ides® 15' (required) 16' sides) 259 (required) 5' Lot 6 Front: 20' (required) 50' Side: 15' (required) 15' (west), 1' (east) Rear: 15' (required) 5' Lot 9® Front: 0' (required) 50' Side: 15' (required) 19' (west), 15' (east) Rear: 15' (required) 18' ) Site Coverage Lot 7: 15% (structure) 18.0 Lot S: 15% (structure) 1 Lot ® 15% (structure) 1 Lot 7 ° . 10% (paving) 1 Lot m 10% (paving) % Lot 0 10% (paving) 29.9%* e) EElkin Lot 7® 3.0 (required) (3 enclosed, 1 exterior) Lot 0 3.0 (required) (all enclosed) Lot 9® 3.0 (required) 6 Q enclosed, 3 exterior) uildin ei1Tt Lot 7® 33' 3' Lot 33' ' Lot 9m ' 33' 3 Wall Hei ht. Lot 7® Front Setback: 3' maximum ' (north all ) ** '( wall)** Others: 6' maximum 6' Lot Front Setback: ' maximum 9' (north s) ** Others: u '* Lot Front Setback: ' maximum none proposed Others: ' maximum ' and h) dsca ins Lot 7° % 62 °7% Lot S® % 57.6% ** Lot 9m % 53.8%** Variance required; % is maximum site coverage for structures and 10°1 is maximum site coverage for paving on these lots because the slopes exceed 30 %. * Variance required IV. VARIANCE IA. AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: . The relationship oft the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Wall Hei ht® The retaining galls requiring variances are each proposed to be on the north side of e residences between the houses and Cortina Lane. Portions of ese walls, especially the one on the south edge of the driveway, would be visible from e hillside below. Therefore, the staff would e landscaped with evergreens and other appropriate planting material® 4 Due to fact that Lots 7, 8, and 9 are each in excess of 30%, the staff recognizes at in order to access the residences with a driveway, walls will be needed. The existing driveway easement that crosses both Lots 8- and 9 to access Lot 1.0 to the west would make it impractical to construct y garages o setback front the Municipal Code. Lot 7 could theoretically have a garage constructed in the setback) but a driveway would still need to be constructed to access Lo: 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 amo sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives this title without grant of special rivil e® Wall Height. The staff recognizes that the steepness of Lots 7, 8 and 9 make access to them very difficult. Retaining walls would be needed to construct the driveway as proposed, and the staff would recommend at the walls (if approved) be landscaped as much as possible. The applicant is proposing to landscape e walls with serviceberry and service wild ilowves® Site Coyei a �: =- As discussed above, the staff feels that the site coverage for the structures (15%) and the paving (10%) could subs substantially decreased y elirn° atin , one o e -car age sp es d as rrmuch asphalt ssible. Since three parking spaces are required for each house, a two-car garage two-c and one exterior space would be adequate to meet this requirement. i dsca Tiim: _g_ is mi I discussed above would result in an Reducing the. site coverage arm eac h t a s disc increase in landscape a. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities public facilities and utilities, and public safety The staff does not feel that the proposal would have a substantial adverse impact on any of the above items. B. The Planni3i d env' nrnental ornriilSSiolm Shall rn e the folio n findings befo re time a v ante; 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. . 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. 6 TO: Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Community Development AT November, 9 1992 SUBJECT. Analysis ®f Wood-burning and Air Quality in the Vail Area Analysis of Wood-burning and Air Quality in the Vail Area Draft This paper is intended as an overview of wood-burning and air quality in Vail to help provide guidance on evaluating current air quality policy. This analysis identifies recom- ik&=dP_4 oaches that could improve monitoring and overall air quality. ® Fireplaces Figure 1 Total Number of Fireplaces Told Fir es Figure 2 Number of F.P./Year Fir r Cl v 3 w..«.. of Colorado is currently reviewing standards for PM10 and could set a standard f PM10 that is more stringent than the Federal standard. Without an effective standard for visibilit it will be difficult to deterinine how many wood to gas conversions will be required to alleviate th brown haze problem experienced in many mountain communities. Figure 4: TS/ 7W Figure 5: PM10 PM 10 IM 1. \. �., .. , ,1011"' 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Your yea M Ave 0 Wnter Mam 0 M3(PM 10 A comprehensive study of PM10 emissions was completed for Vail in 1989 which indicated 4 ` ` Ki 1] It would also be useful • determine the correlation between interstate sanding and PM10 levels. The State do,�,s not maintain records of individual sanding application. However, the State Department of Health is providing the Town with forms that would allow both the Town and the local HikThwa,,,,, Deitartment office in Ea�le Vail to record aptlication of volcanic cinders so that staff can analyze the air impacts, if any, from future application of cinders. B) A voluntary effort to convert from wood to gas has been successfully initiated. Approximately 244 dwelling units with wood-burning units voluntarily converted to gas. E) Sanding on 1-70 has had a significant impact on winter air quality. However, the impact from winter road applications may be significantly reduced by the conversion from sand t® cinders along 1-70. 9 A) To establish effective goals for gas conversion or develop new policy, the Town of Vail needs an effective method of monitoring air quality/visibility in our inversion prone environment. It is recommended that the Town evaluate air quality/visibility programs that have been developed for mountain communities. B) By the 1993-1994 winter season, the staff will be able to determine the effectiveness of the voluntary conversion program and be able to determine the cost effectiveness of implementing a visibility program. At this time an informed decision could be made on whether a voluntary pro- gram, will be effective and if it is feasible to implement a visibility program. C) Encourage winter guests to minimize the use of fireplaces and to bum small hot fires to reduce emissions. D) Continue to encourage lodges and residents to convert to gas through informational materials, workshops, press releases, and incentive programs. Encouraging conversion of lodges can signifi- cantly improve air quality. • 6 LIN LZI.r. ;,. r n. � GC-421 28,000 BTUs per f r • r e HEARTH & HOME Applicant: Hans and Mia Vlaar Planner: Jim Curnutte 3 request to amend Sections 18.58.320 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to increase ° °' the number of allowed satellite dishes on commercial properties. measured at right angles thereto; thence south 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South right of way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning. Except that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, and the Department of Highways, state of Colorado by rule and order recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED INDEFINITELY 6. A request for rear and side setback variances to allow the construction of a deck at the andell residence. 4259 Nugget Large East/ Lot 2 Bighorn Estates, Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 114 Applicant: Bob Kandell Planners Tim Devlin TABLED UNTIL 7. A request to amend Section 18.38, and Section 18.32 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, regarding uses in opens ace zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN . A request for a variance from fiction 17.26.330 to allow a residential driveway to exceed the maximum sloe permitted. Lot 14, Block A, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1\2369 Chamonix Lane. Applicants: Paul M. Sands Planner: Mike Mollica WITHDRAWN 9. A request for a variance from ection 17.2 .330 to allow a residential driveway to exceed the maximum sloe permitted. Lot 16, Vail Potato Patch\782 Potato Patch Dr. Applicant: Andrew Daly Planner: Shelly Mello WITHDRAWN 10. Approval of minutes of the PEC meeting of October 12, 1992, view corridor. Craig also explained that Cyrano's is not a part of the current proposal' and that now that the view corridor ordinance is in place, a view corridor encroachment will be requested and additionally, that a land purchase is in process with Vail Associates; General discussion was held with concern of who was the owner of the northern -roost easement along Hanson Ranch Road. Mike Mollica stated that he would work with Larry Fskwith to resolve this issue. Craig Snowdon pointed out that there are 6 concerns which are being addressed in the final proposal: 1. building height 2. density 3. site coverage 4. landscaping . parking . permitted use Craig Snowdon also explained that the proposed plans modified the west boundary of the building (cutting back the building to alleviate the impact of the view corridor) and that it should be noted that Los Amigos deck may be expanded into Tract F, however, the current application does not include this. Jack Curtain suggested that the grade changes be addressed, especially concerning the access to the mountain, because he was aware of drainage problems in the area. Craig Snowdon assured Jack and the Board that this would be addressed. Jeff Bowen stated that he was concerned with the height of the building (into the view corridor) and that the proposed building has too much mass and bulk. Chuck Crist was concerned with the bulk and mass as perceived from the street and stated that he did not feel it would affect the view corridor. He would like the proposed building footprint to be staked for the next site visit for the next scheduled review on November 2, 1992. Dalton Williams agreed with Chuck Crist's comments inasmuch that the building footprint needs to be staked especially concerning the balconies. He also stated that he is very concerned with the building height and that Section F of the CCI (Design Guidelines) should be considered in the design of the proposed structure. ena Whitten was concerned with the height and suggested that it was necessary to see the flat elevations of the different areas to better determine the mass of the building. PLANNING VI 'TL COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 2 le '91 Air. Io* k Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose ,of this report is to present information regarding re-development proposal for the Golden Peak House located upon Lots A and H, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing® These parcels of land are located in the heart of Vail Village at the base of the Vail Ski Area and the intersection of Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road® This report addresses the various requirements of the Town of Vail Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations and is divided into the following three sections: PROJECT I This section of the report describes the development proposal and the existing conditions upon the situ Proposed development statistics and standards are presented in this section as well as impacts of the proposal® Zoning considerations are also discussed® DESIGN IONS This section of the report describes the design intent of the proposal and addresses compliance of the proposal with the Vail Village urban Design Considerations® SUMMARY This section is a brief summary of the key points of the proposal. Page 3 Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 A. DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS The following table indicates, numerically, the existing and proposed floor areas for the Golden Peak House. 1992 PROPOSAL EXISTING ADDITIONAL TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR "Tire dope" 1,530 620 2,150 Ski Sloop 650 495 1,145 Storage 1,340 <595> 745 "Los Amigos" 0 1,170 1,170 Common 795 595 1®390 4,315 2,285 6,600 a . 1 J- r 60 < 154> 2,219 < 839> 939 < 64> 40 915 1,203 650 < 750> 1,103 60 0 6,031 728* 6,819 LI 4,963 650 820* 6,433 ID Page 4 Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 1992 PROPOSAL EXISTING ADDITIONAL TOTAL` FOURTH FLOOR Dwelling Units (2 existing/4 proposed w/4 lock-outs) 2,631 3,100 5,759 Accommodation Units ( 0 existing / o proposed) 0 0 0 Common 125 416 541° 2,306 3,524 6,330 FIFTH FLOOR Dwelling Units (0 existing /1 proposed) 0 2,935 2,935 Common 0 192 192* 0 3, 127 3 127 35,579 GRAND TOTALS: 23,339 12,240 TOTALS BY USE: Dwelling Units 5,940 7,152 16,122 Accommodation Units 0 650 650 Common 5,627 < 346> 5,201 Retail 6,146 3,100 9,326 Restaurant 1,206 2,169 3,455 Storage 1,340 < 595> 745 * Less 50 sq. ft./floor for elevator NMFM Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 The base "underlying" zone district for the SDD will be CC1 (Commercial Core One) since the uses proposed correspond to this zone district. As in any Special Development District, the development standards, including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking are as indicated upon the Development Plans and are determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission and approved by the Town Council® The Development Standards for the proposed SDD are as follows: 9 The total size of the SDD will be 8,556 square feet® This shall include the existing overhang easements no® 1 and 2 (1,205 sq. ft ®) as indicated upon the Site Plan and Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing (6,912 sq. ft ®) and a part of Lot C (439 sq. t ®) as shown on the site plan. The site dimensions will be as indicated upon the Site Plan® Setbacks will be as indicated upon the Site Plan® Building setbacks varying from less than 1 foot on the north and west and 1 foot on the east property boundaries® a v Page Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 Landscaping will be as shown on the Landscape Plan and as finally approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Dcard® Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 C. IMPACTS The Town of Vail Department of Community Development has requested that the potential changes or impacts resulting from the proposal be evaluated according to the following identified conditions. There will be no.impact upon land forms, slopes, soils, or potential hazards resulting from the proposal® Visual changes resulting from this proposal are discussed within the next section, Design Considerations, of this report® r7m, Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 VII. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Golden Peak House Building is one of the most prominent buildings in Vail Village. It is located at the "top" of Bridge Street and serves as visual focus for pedestrians moving up Bridge Street. The building is a contemporary mid-60's design with an inverted roofline that is out of context with its surrounding neighbors and the village environment. The roofline and the north facade make the building read as a sheer vertical wall cutting off the street from Vail Mountain. The building has fallen into disrepair and features cracked and peeling stucco, 40 plywood balconies in need of repair or replacement, and other general areas of decline. It is a prime candidate for a major redesign® W7777M V Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 The building offers great and exciting potential for a very successful and pleasing re-design. It can be re-designed to meet the needs of the owners and to achieve congruence with the architectural context of Vail Village® StreetscApq Framework: 0 Golden Peak House Remodel October 12, 1992 0 The skier access alley will become a semi-enclosed mini plaza with potential placement for benches, landscaping or public art locations as developed by the latest Town of Vail Streetscape Plan® Views from the new Vail Parking Garage and through the skier accessway demonstrate minimal encroachments into established view corridors® These encroachments are of minimal impact. • n |� I.! I !� UJ (k ( 4 Uj )M + uj : d ) y / ( k # } / � ) Cl }� ~ « ! AT L �� w- �������. �.���� .... .�����i��� � ~ ) .+ ( � / #) �d4� .y y. � /�� } / : } ¥ d -"Z' — — ® —®••< — � . — ... — v — v --:J :J� eo i'w&'— J.. w®t— vv 88-1 VV� A.,k .LlUe.L %J iB G6.% bath aesthetically and functionally leaving a lasting impression of a high quality experience® 0 • • 0 1 0 X- TIN F-OtiFif H VL-60-fffaW lit Ono 0 0 On 0 muaU1s ' lfllf �— - lf t (D il l. Illlol illiill ' 0 000 000 (l— nilllil l �I1 Illl nil III 0 0 0 eWEIR Q I _ _1`1e i 6 - � — —— ,l;i'E;I 'I:II�I!;�IIIIIf �I[ti(i Ilin� Blfl i IIitI l li li {I tiil�lfill�[ni(�IIIIi O Pill: al- s } q lllil�ll 9 ! East Elevation. existing South Elevation existing a :'P�' - O d Hilll(�IIII6P G�11;11[�IIflIG IIWI�➢81' ✓ VIII IIIIIR Q 1(Illn urllI u IInI nill( IUII o� I[I G Inlll _ e --110110M 4 in111�11 up line fiq I F1 F1 11 F1 F1 P pit °r a a BASEMENT, PLAW w 0 0 2 LU ric I W jo- (n M 0 CL 0 0 Z w _j o u 9 9 !� ui k ) 0 LU uj �d 7� �d ®� �d +� .d - ) k \ } # + a, ,U| � yIR «w + «cxv< � | �.! � ! � ! � . !L-Al d TC ---P IjS t 1" m Ul Lu act LU CL Lij l �y , :� : .� . ./ �� �w /� �* +� .. y . :�, \; :: . � 9 9 .R60F PLMA - 11.01 . . �| rr. w M M 0 0 CC 0 CL Z uj 0 0, SOUTH ELEVATION- -j Lu Q C) • ui V) M o N 0 uj -1 CL 0 z LU 0 ti 0 „ti.,,, 7=-7- 777 EAST NORTH ELEVATION A13 SOLrrH ELEVATlOW EAST t" NORTH ELEVATION ELEVATION COMPARISON E I 0 LU m I w cn M o 0 0 LU -i ro (L 0 Z w a 0 A14 6,Y"41" 4 wit ZAJej SIT PLAN � SUN f SHADE ANALYSIS, 11 -- i. I - -. - 0 ui 0 uj Lu (1) 07' 0 Cm Oc 0—' Lu -J-- 0. CF-1 Z ul 0 �1 iLIAL A15 El ` ' 0 ` TO: Planning & Environmental Commission DATE- October 26, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROW Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.57 Employee Housing for the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen . DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Westin Resort and the Cascade Club have requested two amendments to Special Development District No. 4. These minor amendments are requested pursuant to Chapter 8.40.1 - Amendment Procedures, which provides for minor modifications which are consistent with the design criteria outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code. The Town zoning code defines "Minor Amendment" as meaning: "[M]odifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent or character of the approved Special Development District, and are consistent with the design criteria of the SIT chapter. Minor amendments may include, but are not limited to, variations of not more than five feet to approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) of not more than 5% of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other non - residential floor area." The first minor amendment for the Westin is requested for changes to the approved development plan specifically relating to the expansion of the retail space in the Westin Building. The applicant requests to enlarge the retail space for Pepi Sports by 63 square feet. The staff has determined that this is less than 5 % of the total commercial space and can be considered as a minor amendment There is no parking requirement for these retail spaces per the SDD and the staff does not propose to require any additional parking for this request. There will be no exterior changes to the building. The second amendment being requested is for the Cascade Club, and would allow for a change to the restaurant and bar area of the Club. The applicant wishes to change 420 square feet of the restaurant and bar to an office for the club. Currently, the club office is located in the C C building. The existing office in the CMC building will be occupied by another entity, therefore, there will be a net increase of office square footage (by 420 square feet) and a reduction of restaurant and bar area by the same. A total of 252 square feet of restaurant d bar will remain. Because the parking requirement for restaurant and bar use is higher than that of office, the change will not increase the parking requirement. 2 ll',7 a i T-OT4U-S 38 ll',7 n C IM rffplqrg#.� =RUMS ME UITTMIMII�g �� Applicant: Hans and Mia Vlaar Planner: Jim Curnutte 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND REQUESTED VARIANCES 1 El 0 r I Staff believes that landscaping should be added on the east side of the addition, adjacent to the parking area to offer some buffer between the unit and the parking. Neither the requested setback variance, or the density variance, would have any negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the R-rea. 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 would also like to point out that this proposed expansion of a pre-existing non- conforming use will necessitate compliance with Section 18.54.050 (F94) of the Vail Municipal Code which states: "All utility service systems shall be installed underground. Any utility system the operation of which requires above ground installation shall be located and/or screened so as not to detract from the overall site design quality." 7 y��qQ ° �j B d✓ 0 1 i m o i MOM m WWI MEMORANDUM